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: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by wylekat
 


You are two steps away from full realization of reality. Keep on it. There were NO PLANES! The videos were CGI. You will see that real soon, if you keep an open mind and keep digging for yourself. Believe no one. Trust yourself only and DO THE RESEARCH for YOURSELF.





posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
reply to post by wylekat
 


You are two steps away from full realization of reality. Keep on it. There were NO PLANES! The videos were CGI. You will see that real soon, if you keep an open mind and keep digging for yourself. Believe no one. Trust yourself only and DO THE RESEARCH for YOURSELF.




And how is it that the Gov had all the power to make sure all the amateur video's/camera's would never get a true shot on what actually hit the Towers?

You know there was a very large number of people who filmed it.

IF the Gov had that type of power, then why aren't they using that omnipotence in silencing you??

[edit on 19-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
reply to post by wylekat
 


You are two steps away from full realization of reality. Keep on it. There were NO PLANES! The videos were CGI. You will see that real soon, if you keep an open mind and keep digging for yourself. Believe no one. Trust yourself only and DO THE RESEARCH for YOURSELF.



So all the people who saw a plane hit the building are either, confused, delusional, a government plant, or all of the above?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


I'm just pointing at that ONE video clip- not the whole thing.

Who knows? There could be false evidence planted so we're all doing what we're doing now, arguing to death about the whole thing.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

All I know is that I have a hard time believing the video I have seen of the impacts. I think we should see much more stress on the aircraft.


What is your reason for thinking that?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


I'm just pointing at that ONE video clip- not the whole thing.

Who knows? There could be false evidence planted so we're all doing what we're doing now, arguing to death about the whole thing.


But you just said....


Originally posted by nwodeath
reply to post by wylekat
 


You are two steps away from full realization of reality. Keep on it. There were NO PLANES! The videos were CGI. You will see that real soon, if you keep an open mind and keep digging for yourself. Believe no one. Trust yourself only and DO THE RESEARCH for YOURSELF.



Seems to me that you think there were no planes, and ALL videos are CGI. If I'm mistaken, its only based off of your comments. If thats not your position, by all means clarify it.

I to note, do not believe the official story surrounding 9/11. But in no way do I believe any no plane mess. And have spent years on other sites pointing out the flaws in their arguements. I really have lost the patience to do it here, with many of the same people.

A BIG problem with many "truthers" "9/11 researchers", whatever it is you prefer to be called is that they cannot detach from "what they think something should look like" versus what something that is unknown could look like.

It couldn't have been a plane because thats not how planes look when they hit a building, it should look like this, this should happen etc....

Without a "control" of sorts to base that idea on, I think its baseless to say what it should look like.

I remember about 4 years ago having the same conversation thats going on with a thread here about a red circle, and a highly distorted pixelated image and asking "what should be in the circle". A big reason I stepped away from public 9/11 debates is the same crap information being spewed by some guy who just now watched a 6 year old stupid youtube clip.

Also, the videos that I think are on the same thread, that show the wing of 175 slightly "disappearing" before it impacts the building. I'm not going to go into the whys or hows of it being absolutely explainable and nothing to show CGI, or holograms. But in that video, it has videos from 10-15 different agencies but all are the same video. Just with a different network showing it, Then the author claims its on 20 different videos. Never mentioning its the exact same video feed, just with different networks airing it. In just as many other feeds the wing is visible the entire time.

No planers, atleast alot are people with their own agendas to push, much of it being disinformation. Many others are just easily convinced, I'll be the first to admit that the videos come in a pretty package and some might really make you go "well that is strange". But more often than not, people go directly from the youtube clip to posting "PROOF OF CGI PLANES AT WTC" threads. Never stopping along the way to check any information.

Maybe I got OT a bit. Oh well.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 

I did my own independent research after watching September Clues, and the other videos made. You are jumping around.

All the different videos contradict each other in obvious ways.

Personally, I look for truth. I don't care if there were planes or no planes. But I have studied it carefully and found the case to be ...no planes wins hands down.

I don't believe anyone or anything I have watched or listened to. I believe in my own intuition and trust myself only.

After careful observation, I conclude that no planes hit the twin towers. That does not come from watching some video and being confused. That comes from careful observation of slowed down and frozen video stills and comparative knowledge of all kinds of details.

I would not bet my life that no planes hit the world trade center because I cannot prove that. I would bet my life that the videos were CGI and faked, because that has been proven to me conclusively.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


In this post I apparently attributed something nwodeath said to wylekat, I apologize for this mistake.

I didn't edit the post though, because well.... I don't like to edit my posts.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 

I did my own independent research after watching September Clues, and the other videos made. You are jumping around.

All the different videos contradict each other in obvious ways.

Personally, I look for truth. I don't care if there were planes or no planes. But I have studied it carefully and found the case to be ...no planes wins hands down.

I don't believe anyone or anything I have watched or listened to. I believe in my own intuition and trust myself only.

After careful observation, I conclude that no planes hit the twin towers. That does not come from watching some video and being confused. That comes from careful observation of slowed down and frozen video stills and comparative knowledge of all kinds of details.

I would not bet my life that no planes hit the world trade center because I cannot prove that. I would bet my life that the videos were CGI and faked, because that has been proven to me conclusively.


So I'll ask you, what did the people see who infact saw a plane hit the building? A hologram? What made the sounds they heard, a soundogram? Not meaning to be entirely funny with that statement, just slightly sarcastic. I truely am curious.

I'd also like to know what discrepanies you see in the videos that lead you to believe they were CGI, holograms, etc...

Please, don't let it be a disappearing wing though.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Also, not to be just down right difficult.

But

Unless you got original copies from the networks of video. Examined plane pieces recovered from Ground Zero. Spoke to people who make CGI for a living. Spoke to eyewitness in NYC who did/did not see planes then you did no more of an independant investigation than any "truther" has.

You watched videos found on websites most that are 3rd-10th generation videos. That have been uploaded, downloaded, compressed, renamed, resized and redacted.

I've probably watched the same videos you have, and seen the same pictures you have, And my own "independant" investigation shows me that no planers, lack something. I don't really know yet what it is. But its not there.

But all veiled insults and sarcasm aside. I really would like to see what has led you to believe no planes were at the WTC.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

Check out my post on page 4 of the thread. I give them there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I spent a lot of time here looking at this site and page and did the same thing myself, basically. Check out what this person has done.

www.freedomdomain.com...


Everything he has said and written about here makes sense. I still to this day have never seen anyone refute this page, bit by bit. I have read posts where it was challenged, but then ignored by researchers. Nobody has ever debunked this page piece by piece.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by nwodeath
 


well your friend is lying,

I SAW planes hit the building with my OWN eyes.

believe what you want to believe.


She says YOU are the liar though. I believe her and not you. Now what?

The point is, anyone can say anything and that means nothing!

[edit on 19-10-2009 by nwodeath]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
I spent a lot of time here looking at this site and page and did the same thing myself, basically. Check out what this person has done.

www.freedomdomain.com...


Everything he has said and written about here makes sense. I still to this day have never seen anyone refute this page, bit by bit. I have read posts where it was challenged, but then ignored by researchers. Nobody has ever debunked this page piece by piece.



Would you like me to place my observations of this website here, in a seperate thread, or a U2U?

The whole site uses nothing but at best 3rd generation video and pictures that by themselves would contain any number of anomalies caused just by compression and pixelation. Do you understand how digital video works? And what happens to picture/video quality when it is compressed from a raw file?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Also, did you notice my posts showing people who saw and heard the planes?

What is your take on that?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I'll repeat my question.

How could the Gov make sure that all the amateur video would not reveal this diabolical plan? After all, it wasn't only "eyes" and "news media" that was filming the event in question.

We should be seeing a large number of amateur video that shows crystal clear what happened.

What I see so far, is either very poor pixelation, different angles, wide shot etc, nothing in way of anything.

Also, the steel is bent *INWARD* where the plane impact is. So right there something hit the building.

Now the glass that was mentioned, is strange to me. The Towers stand very high over a thousand feet, and the glass is fairly small so shattering glass would not have to be visible from all angles, and most of the glass would have been blow inward.

There is eyewitness testimony from within the building.
There is eyewitness testimony from outside the building.
There is film/video/pictures from amateurs that support the notion that a plane hit.

There were other media in New York, actually from All over the World.

Now are we to believe the whole world is in on this plot? That the entire news organization in the United States and in the World is in on it? That all the amateur footage is fake?

New York is a very large city with many different vantage points to see what was happening. There is NO WAY IN HELL the Military would plan such a stupid operation with such a HIGH DEGREE of probablity that people would see what actually happened and would either be filmed or pictured.

Howard STern had people on the ground who saw the Plane Hit.

Is Howard STern and His people in on it? What about the people who called into the STern show? Were they all in on it?

This type of thinking is not normal, in my view it shows a lack of trust in anything and everything. This then is the definition of paranoid.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster

Originally posted by nwodeath
I spent a lot of time here looking at this site and page and did the same thing myself, basically. Check out what this person has done.

www.freedomdomain.com...


Everything he has said and written about here makes sense. I still to this day have never seen anyone refute this page, bit by bit. I have read posts where it was challenged, but then ignored by researchers. Nobody has ever debunked this page piece by piece.



Would you like me to place my observations of this website here, in a seperate thread, or a U2U?

The whole site uses nothing but at best 3rd generation video and pictures that by themselves would contain any number of anomalies caused just by compression and pixelation. Do you understand how digital video works? And what happens to picture/video quality when it is compressed from a raw file?


Yes, I do. I also have 20/20 vision and I know what I am looking at, distorted pixilation, compression or not. Nothing is actually hidden or severely distorted.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Also, did you notice my posts showing people who saw and heard the planes?

What is your take on that?


I cannot say whether they are lying or not, but some are, i'm sure, some confused as to what they saw and some hypnotized into believing they saw something because it was assumed everyone else did because it was shown on TV.

Darren Brown convinced 50,000 they could not move from their seats. Posthypnotic suggestion is very powerful. Mass Hallucinations are also known to occur when a group of people believe they saw something collectively. The Natives did not see the boats approaching when the sailors reached the new continent called America.

I am not saying this is the case. I am only suggesting there are a number of reasons why this could be. My theory is that something did hit the world trade center. Some claim they saw a missile. That could be the case. Hologram technology is WAY more advanced than what we know today. It has to be, since everything is, in the black budget off planet intelligence agencies. Look at their superior and unknown aircraft. Do you think they advance that technology but nothing else?

A Missile is likely what people saw, if anything, but there were no planes and ZERO actual evidence for any. The videos are fake and CGI. That means there is serious manipulation going on here. The media is in on it and the people who helped create those videos are involved in media.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


The government confiscated many of the amateur videos on the morning and days following 9-11. Everyone knows that!



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Ok then...

On the site you linked....www.freedomdomain.com...

The first "order of business" is the plane "melting through the building like a hot knife through butter".

Like I said in my earlier posts, people build these wild claims based on what they think something should look like. When atleast as far as 9/11 goes, we have nothing to compare the results to. Based on my limited knowledge of metal, and physics. I would say it is entirely possible for the planes to impact and "melt" into the building they way they seem to. I have seen a car, I think it was a metro or similar hatchback car. Go through over a foot of steel reinforced masonry wall and not even dent it, Could I begin to explain how that happened? Nope. Do I dispute the fact that it happened? Nope. The wall I'm referreing to is a part of a building that during my time in masonry I helped to construct. We built a building pretty much out of 12 inch block, which had rebar support as well as concrete/grout/mud poured into it. Then the building was "wrapped" with another wall of regular "acme" type bricks that were also reinforced with rebar. The car tore right through it, I'm unsure of the speed, and honestly only scratched the car. I cannot explain why the plane looks the way it does and enters the building the way it did. I can also not explain how a straw gets driven 7 inches into a tree during a tornado. But the people that can explain it have, and you ignored their (educated in the field of your question) conclusions and say nope, its not possible. Thisis how it should look.

Next he talks about the planes trajectory. I honestly don't understand his argument.

This picture for instance.



And his quote regarding the picture....


And here is another that cannot be explained by logic. The plane in this picture, (Not video) was not coming in at this angle at all. It was the opposite. From this angle the plane's wings should be turned, not in the position they are in. The left wing should be higher, and the right wing should be lower. It doesn't make any sense.


First that picture is from a video, Evan Fairbanks unless I'm mistaken.

Just read his quote, then look at other pictures from his own website that in the end, refutes his whole point.

Heres one...



And another...



Those 2 photos, along with EVERY other photo taken that day clearly show the plane at the angle he says should not be. I don't understand what it is he is even talking about. I don't see his supposed logic.

I think I can stop there, if you would like more, please point out the specific points you would like me to address.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join