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 Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

page: 25
19
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


Oh, this is easy:


If you think NPT has no ground explain why there is no plane visible on the live shot.


In that video you are referring to, the "evening news" tape (shown first) compared to the "live" shot (which is obviously on tape...duh)...

IT IS THE ANGLE that makes all the difference. Because of the background, and what we call "clutter". Makes it much more difficult to see an object like an airplane, as it can be indistinct against the ground, when the ground --- as compared to when you are looking at a clear sky. THEN the airplane is much easier to spot.

This is very common to pilots, when we try to spot traffic that is pointed out to us, by radar for example. When the airplane is above us, it's way easier to see them, sooner...than when they're below. Against a plain sky, they jump righ tout, to the eye.

Against the background of the ground, especially a cityscape, you have to look harder, to catch the motion. Much harder to pick them out.

Look again, the first example....see the airplne against the sky.

Second example, camera viewpoint is higher up, looking more down (from the hovering helicopter's POV)...the background is, well... the ground. AND, from that distance, the camera resolution (YES, we have to take that into account!) is also a problem.

It really is that simple....pilots and others with experience in such things recognize this immediately.




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I can follow your explination I don't think that it would explain why you can not see anything at all. While I can follow your argument that the sky provides better contrast than the buildings as background, I don't see how this would make the plane disappear completly.

There are several google earth shots for example where you can see a plane photographed from above. Other then the plane should be visible above the sea at some point and I think it should provide enough contrast to clearly see it which you dont.

However I will look into your argument and try to find any traces of a plane in all the live transmissons on different channels. (well as you say, supposed live transmissons, nobody can tell for sure, but the first trasmissions coming up of the second attack anyway...)
If your argument is correct I should be able to find at least some clue that something was there, the light can't go around the plane obviously.

PS: Can you provide some sources for the effect you are claiming to be responsible for the non-visibility of the plane?

[edit on 3-6-2010 by kybertech]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


Sorry, I didn't mean to be awkward, but you can't just discount the angles. The video is without doubt purposely misleading. Not only does it try to trick the viewer at the point I mention above, but then it pulls an even more far-fetched sleight of hand at the end, where it tries to persuade us that the backgrounds are different but the angle the same.

Clearly the angle, when one watches the original footage, is different, and the way the towers look is subtly different. This subtlety is purposely obscured by the video.

Anyway, you're right that the most interesting thing is the seeming absence of a plane in the footage. I personally think it more likely that the video has either been tampered with or is just of very bad quality, than the whole thing was faked a la NPT. What remains indisputable is that the maker of the youtube snippet is not trustworthy.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Well as this whole thing with differnt angles goes it rather involves another theory: namly that several shots are in fact crops from an other focal width. I don't really care about that theory at this point but alot of no planers do because it would support the theory of general video fakery.
Why is it so hard just look at the first footage aired of the second attack as they are?

The possibilty that the plane is not visible because of the bad video quality is highly unlikely. But that the plane has been edited out on the first footage aired is ridiculous. But it fits the all so paranoid attitude of the truth movement that npt is actually based on a cointelpro. But go ahead you are getting there..

Hmm lets see, I probably will have to do a video myself to make a point, as everybody is too lazy to look at the broadcast archive themselves. Maybe just playing the few seconds of live footage over and over again a little bit slower each time.

But, I will probably be called a disinfo artist as well. Just because it can not be, it's more likely that the first footage is fake because there is more later footage which shows planes, there are so many 'witnesses', the toothfairy has been traveling back in time, etc... Go ahead call me what you want, if it feels good do it!


It is really sooo sick!



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


Well....still saying that other YT video that you posted is intentinally misleading.

There are plenty of OTHER videos available to review.

Here's one that someone made, a compilation of LIVE shots (you can note the time in the screens' corners...).

Watch around 2:50, also...another example of a fairly long shot, even WITH the sky as background, yet it's hard to see the airplane. It's a matter, in some cases, of distance, perspective, camera resolution, etc, etc...



But, people who wish to spread and promote a "conspiracy" agenda are extremely selective in what they choose to "prove" their claims. They are counting on the fact that most people don't do their own research, but would rather be led blindly by the leash....



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Yeah big collection of shots in this video, but are you positive that these are all really live shots? I ask this because the life logo doesn't always mean it is 0-second, in fact it could be a 'replay'. If you watch the whole recording you will notice that they were too 'lazy' to remove the live logo on the 'replay'

Anyways a good point, you have to consider all the first footage aired. But my problem is this particular video seems fishy because the audio is obviously out of sync during the end, and I wonder if this is the case for more of it.

The point is: Considering NPT you have to only rely on footage that is proven to be the first footage aired. So you have to get entire recordings of the transmisson, play it from the beginning and only consider the first footage aired on the particular channel of the second attack (which supposedly was recorded live). I realise this is a unreliable thing to prove anything because you cannot tell for sure if it really is unaltered footage.
As for myself I watched cnn live on that day, and the first footage aired had no plane visible. Of course I can not be sure for all the other channels.
The only reasonable way around this is are the original files from the september11.archive.org website. They have a mpeg timestamp in it were you can synronize the differnt channels and work that way. The problem is that they are no longer accessable because of copyright claims.

So if you really are serious about NPT (which claims that _all_ later footage is fake) It is not soo easy to dismiss it because of footage with a live logo which shows planes.
If you consider the possibilty of systematic tv fakery you would have to ask yourself about the authenticity of _every_ shot.
That is a really hard thing to do, so most people dont consider the effort.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech

The point is: Considering NPT you have to only rely on footage that is proven to be the first footage aired. So you have to get entire recordings of the transmisson, play it from the beginning and only consider the first footage aired on the particular channel of the second attack (which supposedly was recorded live). I realise this is a unreliable thing to prove anything because you cannot tell for sure if it really is unaltered footage.
As for myself I watched cnn live on that day, and the first footage aired had no plane visible. Of course I can not be sure for all the other channels.
The only reasonable way around this is are the original files from the september11.archive.org website. They have a mpeg timestamp in it were you can synronize the differnt channels and work that way. The problem is that they are no longer accessable because of copyright claims.

So if you really are serious about NPT (which claims that _all_ later footage is fake) It is not soo easy to dismiss it because of footage with a live logo which shows planes.
If you consider the possibilty of systematic tv fakery you would have to ask yourself about the authenticity of _every_ shot.
That is a really hard thing to do, so most people dont consider the effort.



exactly... but it all comes down to the this...

if the footage in question thats being examined is in fact un-edited and FROM the alleged live footage, then those who claim there's no fakery using the excuse its been tampered with and not the original footage, is nothing more than a diversion and easy way to dismiss through denial. Or iow, if footage claimed to be original by videos such as SC, can be shown to be from the same videos used to sell real planes and evidence supporting the OCT, then that alone is more than sufficient evidence against those who claim the nrpt/fakery group have altered the footage to support their argument.

Its absolutely absurd for anyone to suggest the footage being analyzed is not from the original footage when there is plenty of evidence anyone can find to verify that the same footage being analyzed, is the same footage thats been used by RPT and OCT to peddle the 9/11 hoax. So the burden to prove the footage has been tampered with by vid's like SC (which btw has never been done), is on them. Its nothing more than a diversionary tactic designed to confuse and obfuscate from the obvious and blatant fakery perpetrated by the MSM perpetrators on 9/11.




[edit on 3-6-2010 by Orion7911]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Yeah, I'm sold. Here is undeniable proof the planes were fake and so was the media coverage!



I mean, it's so obviously cgi fakery! It's an obvious conspiracy!




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Originally posted by Orion7911
no, my argument hinges on more than ample evidence i've presented throughout this thread that supports my claims.


Yeah. Right. Heres all your posts in this thread

98% of what you've posted is your opinion and rhetoric, claiming other people are wrong and that you are right - with no real backup as the other 2% of your replies rely on youtube clips and links to forums that, on closer inspection are either blog or forum opinions making spurious claims or regurgitating the same old ones based on youtube videos that contradict the NTSB's findings on EA990


Not only is that just YOUR OPINION, but the fact is that 98% of my posts are RESPONSES to OPINIONS and rhetoric, by others claiming they're right and we're wrong with no real backup as the other 2% of their replies rely on the same type of youtube clips, links to forums, conspiracy sites that on closer inspection are either blog or forum opinions making spurious claims or regurgitating the same old ones based on the same type of videos that are contradicted by the evidence and other facts that have
been exposed to be anything but academic or reliable. Nearly 98% of the data, questions and challenges i've posed, have been ignored and evaded because the evidence and responses i've given are irrefutable and would only make any attempting to answer the actual evidence, look foolish... so its understandable why no one arguing against NRPT/fakery will offer any intelligent line by line counter-argument to what i've presented or what docs like SC and tons others have as well... the naysayers cherry-pic what they respond to and then claim they've debunked it. Its really quite pathetic.


Originally posted by neformore
Then tell us who he is, and what they are, and how those credentials make his call superior to those of the NTSB board that reviewed EA 990.

Can't be that hard can it?


No, whats relevant and at issue, is whether the data, evidence and argument being presented is valid. The NTSB board is a government agency and subject to the same flaws that plagued the other government agencies who have helped cover up 9/11.


Originally posted by neformore
and if the data and evidence and argument is wrong, please show exactly how and where it is. if not, i guess we're done then eh?

The NTSB report on EA990 proves the evidence and argument put forward by the video is wrong. You only have to read the conclusion of the report to understand that.


which is nothing more than your opinion, not to mention your blind trust of a report by a government agency who again, would be controlled by the same group involved in the 9/11 hoax.

but then the reports conclusion was addressed in the video's argument.


Originally posted by neformore
So yes, I think we're done. You have no actual evidence at all. This theory is junk.


yet this link you found, proves otherwise... thanks for creating it

Heres all your posts in this thread



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Yeah, I'm sold. Here is undeniable proof the planes were fake and so was the media coverage!


I mean, it's so obviously cgi fakery! It's an obvious conspiracy!



these links are much better imo... in fact, there's so much evidence and data proving nrpt/fakery, that another un-biased newbie
www.abovetopsecret.com...
who took time to look at the evidence objectively, agrees with us.
you lose, again.

www.septemberclues.info...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 3-6-2010 by Orion7911]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Planes DID hit the towers , I saw the 2nd plane hit from my Back Deck... Are you going to tell me my eyes were in on the conspiracy too?... I don't agree with the "Official Story" of what happened , who was involved , or Why... But I can verify that at least 1 plane hit the towers.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


September Clueless? Lol. I think my footage is far more definitive.

And closer to the truth of "no plane" conspiracies.


[edit on 3-6-2010 by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Orion7911

i have addressed and answered it as far as i remember... perhaps you didn't read everything i've posted in this thread that also addressed it, or maybe its because you just didn't like the answers and didn't conform to your fallacious perception of reality.



You haven't answered it. I've reread the thread - which, as I suspected, was a waste of time - and you waffled on a bit but you never gave an answer as to how you thought the conspirators would be confident of controlling all the amateur footage.

As far as I can discern from your tortured logic, your answer amounted to a combination of "there wasn't any amateur footage" and "you wouldn't expect people to be filming the WTC anyway." Both conclusions are self-evidently ridiculous.


No, thats out of context and only part of what i've presented which has been a multitude of arguments responding to your question as well as links that also give more than ample explanations and viable theories addressing your question... you just didn't understand it or want to accept it. If whats been presented is wrong, then why can't you show exactly how and where it is? All you do is hand-wave how its BS, tortured logic and ridiculous. BFD! so we're done here then as well. believe what you want.. the facts and evidence validate what you claim is nonsense.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
Planes DID hit the towers , I saw the 2nd plane hit from my Back Deck... Are you going to tell me my eyes were in on the conspiracy too?... I don't agree with the "Official Story" of what happened , who was involved , or Why... But I can verify that at least 1 plane hit the towers.


and i can present evidence of witnesses who contradict what you claim.

but if your intention was sincere, Why are you dishonest in your opening sentence?

then you offer no detailed account of what you claim to have witnessed.

what was your exact location and POV for starters.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 



and i can present evidence of witnesses who contradict what you claim.


An 'eyewitness' to not seeing an airplane?
A little conradictory....

...but, we are squirming with anticipatory joy, at your soon-to-be-revealed...ermmm...'evidence'.

While you're on about it, why not come with some valid, reasonable and not-too-out-in-the-fringe responses for the airpalne debris found near the WTC, and also, try to account for ALL of the videos, (of airplanes, no less!!) not just the few that the "NPT" people pick and choose, so selectively.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, lest I forget....This Post??. This is what you think is your 'home run' "proof", of better links?

I'm ratcheting down my previously stated joyous anticipation just a notch.....


[edit on 3 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
This theory is new to me and yesterday after watching the September Clues videos I was swayed towards the no plane theory. I think because the whole thing stinks of foul play it's one possible option...

One thing that is bugging me is why NO black box recorders were recovered? Weedwacker, with your knowledge as a pilot what do you think about that?

People dont take the thoery seriously yet millions believe in an imaginary person, God?!

Apparently there are witness acounts on www.911disinformation.com but this site is down, strange!?!

In the last couple of days I've learnt about the term disinfo etc, and I didn't realise why people called others that and the reasons surrounding it. It was quite interesting to learn that those saying that did actually believe things were suspicious but thouht that people backing the no plane theory were trying to take people's minds off the subject of foul play etc? I'm not sure about that because the no plane theory is equally highlighting that all is not as they want us to believe. Maybe there are people trying to distract people, I'm not one of them though because this is all new to me.

The no plane theory does need some more details to help prove the theory but the fact there were no black box recorders, and also the fact Iraq apparently were shown videos with no plane do need explanations. Also this fade to black situation, alawson911 has tried to disprove this, but isn't it very coincidental that it happened at the 'crucial' moment? Many things still need to be addressed...



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tuffvibes
 


I sure always hoped, and expected, from the moment I saw it that morning, that the CVRs and DFDRs would be recoverable...but THEN the buildings COLLAPSED!

Those little buggers (the 'boxes') are built tough...but not that tough.

Still....pessimist that I've become (and that is entirely due to these ridiculous "theories" that have sprung up, thanks in part to the Internet, and YouTube!) even IF the DFDRs (and yes, the CVRs) were recovered, they would STILL be claimed, by the so-called "truthers", as 'FAKED!!'

I have little doubt about that, based on the fact that the American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines fllight 93 DFDRs were recovered, and readable, and YET! The "truthers" discount them...


Cognitive disconnect, and paranoid delusions are very, very powerful psychological aspects in some people, it would seem....



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Thanks for your reply weedwacker. I accept it is possible that they could have been destroyed, but it's strange that parts of the plane were apparently found but the black boxes were not. Although, I just read an article that says they were found and handed to the FBI who claim they do not have them. Obviously it's just an internet report and one should not believe everything we read.

I personally would definitely discount the no plane theory if the black boxes were recovered, there would be no doubt then for sure. I'm on the fence at the moment, I think the suspicious circumstances surrounding the events that day are fuelling all the theories, and it doesn't help that one of the most high security buildings in the USA does not have video footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Has anyone seen the videos on the 'pilots for 911 truth' website? There seems to be some interesting stuff there, although I'm not going to purchase the videos because I disagree with people making money from this situation.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tuffvibes
 


OH...I'll try to remain polite regarding the 'pilots for truth' people. ( LONG history, in case you didn't know...
). BUT, very, very glad you take that stand RE: not purchasing their...ahem....videos.

You asked about aircraft parts and debris, why some was found, but the recorders weren't? Such events like airplane crashes are, by their nature, very chaotic, and weird things happen. (*)
(*)Take the Northwest crash in Detroit, 1987. Flight 255, I believe...ALL onboard died in that take-off accident, EXCEPT one little four-year-old girl. Pretty amazing, isn''t it?


In this (9/11) case, with so many different components, and such...there are examples of the oddest things being flung clear of the main destruction zones.

have you seen this photo:



There are others, they've been put up on other ATS threads, and they're out there in a search, on the Web...

Airplane seats, embedded in automobile trunks...wheel and landing gear assemblies from the airplanes, the photo above. Of course, not EVERY instance of airplane debris was photographed, and not every photo that WAS taken is out on the Web, either. THAT is part of the problem!!



The "No Planes" people ( well, they're not alone
) scoff at what is disparagingly been termed the "OS", and they do so whilst stumbling around in the dark, in most instances. And, of couse, they scoff because small, individual items such as driver's licenses, credit cards, personal papers and, yes....the infamous Passport....were ejected, and spread out in the chaos. BUT, these sorts of things happen, very regularly, in such horrific crashes.

Many people are simply inexperienced in such matters, hence they have pre-conceived ideas about how things should look, or should behave. Much of these concepts have been reinforced by mainstream entertainment, such as movies and TV shows.



[edit on 3 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Hi weedwacker, I don't know of your history with that site, I only found the site today so know very little about them, except that they should not be making money from this situation. I'm assuming you're saying it's a dubious source?

I found this video that shows flight 175 hitting the South Tower, again people may question whether it's been edited.

jeremymorrison.com...

I'm not saying it's fake but something about seems a little odd. The person filming it had set up a tripod, to film the North Tower, obvioulsy unaware another plane is about to strike the South Tower, if that was the case it seems strange that their focus seems to be more to the left, i.e. more on the south tower, and positioned so just the right amount of sky space is visible to view the 2nd plane. Surely if you had no knowledge the 2nd plane was about to hit the focus would have been more to the right, on the North Tower? Although it could and most probably is just coincidence, I thought I mention it.

I'm just a normal person who is inquisitive and I like to have amswers to things, and so because the no plane theory has been brought up by others I'm interested to get to the bottom of all this myself.

In your picture I'm not exactly sure what I'm being shown, obviously lots of debris etc, and the only aeroplane like debris is a part that looks like some of the windows, is that what you were trying to point out? If so, the scale doesn't seem right, using the person in the picture as a scale reference it seems the windows are too close together? I'm no expert though and I'm just raising questions..



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join