Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ultimate 911 No Planer PROOF Page - Help Debunk

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
A while back someone posted a thread on here asking people to debunk this page, but I never saw any responses to it, and then it disappeared from the site.

I found this page recently and I was wondering if the No Plane debunkers could try to rip this apart piece by piece.

If you don't believe the No Planer campaign, then do everyone a favor, and instead of arguing, just take each piece mentioned and break it down and expose it for the truth, if you can.

www.freedomdomain.com...




posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
one question. What is the white dot on the building just in front of the airplane?


www.freedomdomain.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
one question. What is the white dot on the building just in front of the airplane?


www.freedomdomain.com...


Very very good question. Thanks.

I'm not sure, to tell you the truth, but it appears to be a video effect of somekind. I would propose it represented a time/space point that something was supposed to take place in. Perhaps two pieces were spliced together at that point, because one piece of animation was made with the plane approaching the building, then another was made to show the plane entering the building, and yet another would have been made to display the explosion effect. At some point, the animator would splice these pieces together and they would need a time/space point of that would serve as the moment of impact. This is simply a guess and nothing more.

Another guess I have is that they started to create a scene for an impact explosion, then decided not to and to wait until after entry into the building. The timing though did not work out well, because the plane went in too far before the timing of the explosion. Some of this could be due to "rendering" problems and some due to mixing/splicing pieces and the timing involved.

To me, it seems as though the pieces of footage were made at the last minute, or very close to the actual time of the incident. In other words, I don't think they were made 6 months prior with enough time to work out all the problems. I think this is why there are so man y fake videos on the media and some of the same ones, the same exact ones, differ from network to network. They are different CGI animation attempts that were used. Some better than others.

One good example of this is the very one at the top of the page. Both are supposed to be the exact same video, however the planes are different sizes and shapes and also the black shadow bar under the plane, likely a video effect, is lower on the picture on the left and higher on the picture on the right. The video line or shadow should be in exactly the same place but it's not. The shadow bar i'm talking about is approx. 1" lower than the plane on the left, and only approx. 1/2" on the image on the right.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by nwodeath]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I also read a post with the theory that it was a laser guided plane/missile whatever you wanna call it. It had a video posted with it showing the dot moving along the building right up til the plane hit. I don't know though.

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I'm not saying he is wrong or anything, but he is trying to prove his point with his mouse cursor.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
I also read a post with the theory that it was a laser guided plane/missile whatever you wanna call it. It had a video posted with it showing the dot moving along the building right up til the plane hit. I don't know though.

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]


If we didn't already know the videos were faked, that "laser guided missile or plane" theory, would sound plausible. I used to buy into that, until I realized the videos are not real to begin with.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Yeah its been going on for so long now its hard to tell anymore.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by grrrrt
 


Who are you talking to?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by grrrrt
I'm not saying he is wrong or anything, but he is trying to prove his point with his mouse cursor.


Nothing wrong with that. It is used to show a flight path progression, and nothing more. It appears to be useful because that is how he is showing you the movement of the plane frame, every few frames. That shows flight path and trajectory of impact.

I wish he would make a video or something, that would be more helpful, and better than Sept Clues. But for now, this is very helpful.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
A while back someone posted a thread on here asking people to debunk this page, but I never saw any responses to it, and then it disappeared from the site.

I found this page recently and I was wondering if the No Plane debunkers could try to rip this apart piece by piece.

If you don't believe the No Planer campaign, then do everyone a favor, and instead of arguing, just take each piece mentioned and break it down and expose it for the truth, if you can.

www.freedomdomain.com...


Dude, let me break it to you easy. I watched the news live on 911. There was no cgi. theres no cgi on the news archives on the top of the page. So if theres any cgi done its post 911. September clues videos are edited. Deal with it.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by nwodeath


Dude, let me break it to you easy. I watched the news live on 911. There was no cgi. theres no cgi on the news archives on the top of the page. So if theres any cgi done its post 911. September clues videos are edited. Deal with it.


Dude, you are wrong! Deal with it! - What you saw "live" not NOT live. It was made beforehand and shown to us like a TV show. How hard is that to comprehend?

Look at the evidence on the page cited. If you cannot refute it, then take a walk!

[edit on 19-10-2009 by nwodeath]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
A while back someone posted a thread on here asking people to debunk this page...


Debunk what? Right off the bat the guy who did that page is up idiot creek without a paddle.

Take his comment:


Also, aluminum, does not penetrate steel. No matter what anyone says to mislead you. It's a lie. Steel would deflect aluminum upon impact no matter how fast the plane is traveling...Aluminum will not and cannot penetrate steel like it was shown to on the videos, and the government and 911 truthers claim. The law of the universe cannot be bent to suite this one occasion in history.


What did the plane have to penetrate? Well, first off, glass. A bunch of it. What was holding that glass? A bunch of steel spandrels that were linked together to form the outer support structure of the building. How big or thick were these spandrels? Approximately 3/8” with a box depth of approximately 1’ 2” - forming a 14” square box. These outer wall spandrels were connected together with 4 bolts and welding. (both this data comes from FEMA’s WTC Steel Data Collection, page D-5).

What was slamming into those 14" square boxes and windows? A Boeing 767 weighing in at over 100 tons traveling at around 750 feet per second.

Anyone who says that a 14" square box-beam support structure with a 36" wide strengthened-glass window will stop - no, will deflect - a 100 ton body moving at 750 feet per second is without a brain.

The aforementioned facts render *anything* else in that webpage null and void...and debunked.



[edit on 19-10-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by nwodeath
A while back someone posted a thread on here asking people to debunk this page...


Debunk what? Right off the bat the guy who did that page is up idiot creek without a paddle.

Take his comment:


Also, aluminum, does not penetrate steel. No matter what anyone says to mislead you. It's a lie. Steel would deflect aluminum upon impact no matter how fast the plane is traveling...Aluminum will not and cannot penetrate steel like it was shown to on the videos, and the government and 911 truthers claim. The law of the universe cannot be bent to suite this one occasion in history.


What did the plane have to penetrate? Well, first off, glass. A bunch of it. What was holding that glass? A bunch of steel spandrels that were linked together to form the outer support structure of the building. How big or thick were these spandrels? Approximately 3/8” with a box depth of approximately 1’ 2” - forming a 14” square box. These outer wall spandrels were connected together with 4 bolts and welding. (both this data comes from FEMA’s WTC Steel Data Collection, page D-5).

What was slamming into those 14" square boxes and windows? A Boeing 767 weighing in at over 100 tons traveling at around 750 feet per second.

Anyone who says that a 14" square box-beam support structure with a 36" wide strengthened-glass window will stop - no, will deflect - a 100 ton body moving at 750 feet per second is without a brain.

The aforementioned facts render *anything* else in that webpage null and void...and debunked.



[edit on 19-10-2009 by trebor451]


You have done nothing to render anything null and void and the fact that you claim you have rendered something null and void is highly suspicious.

No plane impact reaction on the face of the building......besides the aluminum penetrating steel, which is impossible.

You wasted a lot of space. Nothing more, and your post was worthless.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
You wasted a lot of space. Nothing more, and your post was worthless.


Great! Go at it, sport! Let's do an experiment!

Why don't you build yourself a WTC outer wall of the 14" box beam support spandrels. You stand behind it! I'll throw a 78' long airliner wing with 4 tons of fuel in it at 500 miles per hour and let's see who is still around afterward!

Seriously. What about the above do you not want to believe? The size of the box beam supports? The size of the windows? The comparative strength of the windows? The speed of the aircraft? The weight of the aircraft? The weight of the wing? The mass of the aircraft? The mass of the aircraft compared to what it was impacting?

Your first response did nothing to refute the facts I posted - you merely wrote a bunch of blather related to nothing. Are my numbers wrong? were the WTC walls actually 10 feet thick? Was the aircraft actually a feather pillow traveling at the speed of a leisurely morning stroll? Please...correct me!

What in the world makes you think that a latticework of glass and 14" box supports with nothing but 40,000 square feet of air behind it is going to "deflect" a 100 ton mass traveling at 750 feet per second?

*This* is the logic that makes this whole 9/11 debating so much fun!


[edit on 19-10-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
one question. What is the white dot on the building just in front of the airplane?


Holy mother of... How many times do we have to go over this??? Do you not know how to use a simple search function on ATS??? This has been covered over and over and over again...

It's a piece of paper.

If you find the FULL length video, the camera operator keeps on it long enough that it all comes down and lands around them. They even grab some out of the air.

nwodeath - I think you need to really focus on one notion of 9/11. At one point you seem to think there were no planes, then it's laser guided missiles or planes...

Do you HONESTLY believe this stuff, or are you just trying to throw up something controversial?

Rewey



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 

Weird how the coloring is so different in all the shots. You'd think the coloring would be more consistent.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


I already have refuted it. I said that I watched it live and there was no cgi then. I also said I watched archives and there was no cgi there. The archives are here at the top of this page and completely debunk anything you posted. If you can't find the time to look at them it is your loss, not mine. Have a coke and a smile and relax. If you want to look for missing planes start with flight 77.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
I already have refuted it. I said that I watched it live and there was no cgi then.

That's pretty funny.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 





No plane impact reaction on the face of the building......besides the aluminum penetrating steel, which is impossible.


So how do you explain this?

USS Hinsdale APA 120



USS Sterett DD 407



Empire State Building after B25 impact July 1945

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Seems back in WWII - 60 years before Sept 11 aluminium airplanes could
penetrate side of steel ships and masonry buildings



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Seems back in WWII - 60 years before Sept 11 aluminium airplanes could penetrate side of steel ships

That's a little apples and oranges. The steel hulls of ships are not very think and structurally different the outer steel beems of the WTC.






top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join