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: 28
19
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

We can never verifiy The_Zomar's claim unless his friends alleged evidence is properly reviewed. You aready know that according to this theory he or his friends must be lying, yet you ask this question as a rhetorical tool. Why?


I even posted a possible motive for people to lie about being a witness, as an example I posted a video showing people in NY staring at a public screen on 9/11.
If you want we can discuss the probabilty that this would motivate people or not, just don't ignore the given explanations..

I fear this thread is, as most 9/11 conspiracy discussions just a fight of opinions, too bad


[edit on 7-6-2010 by kybertech]




posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech
We can never verifiy The_Zomar's claim unless his friends alleged evidence is properly reviewed. You aready know that according to this theory he or his friends must be lying, yet you ask this question as a rhetorical tool. Why?


Because I'm trying to show that Orion's premise requires him to call a lot of people liars. I've read Zomar's claims elsewhere, and he's a Truther. So he's unlikely to be working for the government - unless you honestly think that some operative would spend hours and weeks building a profile as a truth movement adherent, only so that they could post that NPT is nonsense. What would be the point, apart from anything else?




I even posted a possible motive for people to lie about being a witness, as an example I posted a video showing people in NY staring at a public screen on 9/11. If you want we can discuss the probabilty that this would motivate people or not, just don't ignore the given explanations..


That's my point. I'm not ignoring any explanations. I'm not being given any.


I fear this thread is, as most 9/11 conspiracy discussions just a fight of opinions, too bad



Oh, come on. This is an internet discussion forum, not an academic journal. It's bound to be composed largely of opinion.

I know Truthers like to pretend they are "researchers", like the brainy types at university, and that ATS is a proper forum for scientific ideas. But it's not, and they're not.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Because I'm trying to show that Orion's premise requires him to call a lot of people liars. I've read Zomar's claims elsewhere, and he's a Truther. So he's unlikely to be working for the government - unless you honestly think that some operative would spend hours and weeks building a profile as a truth movement adherent, only so that they could post that NPT is nonsense. What would be the point, apart from anything else?

Well there is alot of very emotional oppostion inside the Truth Movement against NPT.
I think that should be enough, just listen a minute how alex jones reacts when he is confronted with this theory. It's even worse than his usual rants and because he is somewhat of a iconic figure this greatly fuels the hatered against no-planers.

The real ostracism is that even inside the no-planers there are fractions who purpose that the planes were holographic projections using top-secret or extraterrestial technology. While I don't have an explination for this phenomena, I think this is either purposeful obscurification or an ill attempt to excluse the media from the CT.
But I rather don't discuss this in detail because I don't see any indication which would lead to that sub-theory besides some claims by shadowy individuals on youtube..



That's my point. I'm not ignoring any explanations. I'm not being given any.

Here you go: The fact that the attacks had such a emotional impact people living in NY would have been very frightend, even paralysed. Such a traumatic expirence can force the mind to change the perception somewhat in such a way that the rational mind is shut off.

So everybody in Manhattan was directly affected by the attacks in some way. Because the rational mind is now defunct for such a large group of individuals all directly connected to each other the most dominant perception of reality would be accepted by everybody (even if it is false). This way there will be a connection between every person who encounters this meme. - Resulting in pleasant stimulus for the emotional system, which can literally cure the traumatized psyche. This way a very small group of close-knit conspirators could steer the public perception of reality.

Here is the video I was refering to in my previous post. While it doesn't prove this hypothesis, no video ever could because it is a phenomen which would require an outside observer which was not possible during the event. However it provides a sufficent validation of the emotional responses I described above in respect to no plane theory.





Oh, come on. This is an internet discussion forum, not an academic journal. It's bound to be composed largely of opinion.

Allright

I hope my post is not too intellectual for this forum. I get it you may be a person who won't mind



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


Sorry - I'm asking a very specific question, not just "how could NPT possibly work when people saw it?" I outline it above.

I'm just not sure of the relevance of your post to mine, sorry.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
ok, well I hope this is the right question this time.


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
How were the conspirators confident of controlling all the amateur footage?

A difficult question to give you a definitive answer. I think the simplest explination is simply that there weren't that much footage in the first place. But you can not possible tell, obviously access to the area was somewhat restricted, but there may be still the native people of the area. And with good equipment the WTC could have been filmed from across the river. There is a source of photos from this location I know of, but it don't supports the RPT. (no plane visible on any of the photos)

I think the means of obtaining 'amateur footage' from youtube is somewhat problematic because it seems that it cannot be traced to a author by any reasonable effort.

So before we get into more details: which specifc videos are we talking about?
Or are we talking about hypothetical videos that _could_ exist? Or both?


PS: If it was just your previous post im sorry. I can only speculate on the motive, would you like that?

[edit on 7-6-2010 by kybertech]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech
ok, well I hope this is the right question this time.


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
How were the conspirators confident of controlling all the amateur footage?

A difficult question to give you a definitive answer. I think the simplest explination is simply that there weren't that much footage in the first place.


Now explain Ed(?) Pramranth, who was inside the building and looked up in time to see it come in.

The only way to explian him away is to discount what he saw.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I don't know what you are writing about. Please clarify.

Disclaimer: I regard NRPT as it is a Theory nothing more nothing less. I am not into these pathetic flamewars. You probably are adressing the wrong Person.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by kybertech]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I don't usually post in these threads because they are heavily moderated and I have a Real problem with Authority


But Your Jennifer Oberstein story don't hole up be her own admission. She heard the Boom first.. Then looked up.

After the plane hit the tower did you expect it to not burn up and stay in one piece long enough for Jennifer Oberstein to see it?

Just because she could not have seen it, does not mean it wasn't there.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech
A difficult question to give you a definitive answer. I think the simplest explination is simply that there weren't that much footage in the first place. But you can not possible tell, obviously access to the area was somewhat restricted, but there may be still the native people of the area. And with good equipment the WTC could have been filmed from across the river. There is a source of photos from this location I know of, but it don't supports the RPT. (no plane visible on any of the photos)


I agree this is a difficult question to answer definitively. That's kind of the point. For NPT to be likely, one must at least acknowledge that with such a long gap between the strikes the plotters must have considered that potentially dozens, or even hundreds, of cameras would be pointing at the WTC at the time of the second plane hit.

What I'm asking is what NPT exponents think they did about this. Because there's just no way they could be sure there wouldn't be thirty cameras with excellent footage showing no planes. Did they plan to round up those cameras? In which case how did they know who had them? The WTC is visible from literally millions of vantage points. Did they plan to search them all? Why didn't they plan the strikes to happen at the same time, thus cutting the likelihood of amateur footage to almost zero?

Note that this is a different argument to that over whether the extant amateur footage is faked (I think not, but that's beside the point). And it's not sufficient to say that there wasn't much footage, because it's the potential amount that's the issue. And furthermore, imagine trying to track down just one camcorder in the chaos of 9/11. Especially when you don't know where it is.


I think the means of obtaining 'amateur footage' from youtube is somewhat problematic because it seems that it cannot be traced to a author by any reasonable effort.


Absolutely. And yet NPT only really exists on Youtube, or at least only employs evidence from it. But I'm asking that we look at the issue in a different manner. You have to zoom out (forgive the pun) and think about practicalities and likelihoods, something that NPT-ers are often notably unwilling to do. Witness the lack of response from warisover and orion on this.


So before we get into more details: which specifc videos are we talking about?
Or are we talking about hypothetical videos that _could_ exist? Or both?


Hypothetical videos, I suppose, if that's not too abstruse! Although I'm not really talking about footage qua footage, but its position in the overall theory.



PS: If it was just your previous post im sorry. I can only speculate on the motive, would you like that?

[edit on 7-6-2010 by kybertech]


I'm not asking you to speculate on motives, though. I'm asking a very specific practical question, one which ought to be easy to answer if NPT has any proximity to reality.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Ok, considering hypothetical footage of the second attack...
At first there were only a little over 15minutes between them (There is some discussion of the timing in the conspiracy community). Then there were only maybe 5-10 minutes left between the information became public knowlege and the second hit.

So for someone to film it with a camcorder he would have to have the equipment ready. Furthermore the amateur filmer would have to be either already at a point where he could see the wtc or could get there in a very short time. The talk about a plane and its comprehension by the news commentary was basically not until the second attack.
He would basically would have to start going once he heard of the incident without knowing whats going on.

And there is the factor that almost all of manhattan is a business area with many high buildings. So considering that there would be viewer camcorder desity then in a living area and fewer vantage points.

At last while camcorders where affordable as a hobby equipment in 2001 they were still something you had to be into and a investment you had to think about as a average person.

So in summary the chance of dozens or even hundreds of people with camcorders filming the second attack was small. So for NPT to be probable the chance would have to be small enough. We would have to have some kind of study with with we can estimate the number people owning camcorders in 2001 to get a number.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


You're right in your last paragraph that the possibility would have to be small. But I don't really agree with your other observations.

New York is one of the richest cities in the world. Thousands of people must have had camcorders and the likelihood of quite a few filming the event was high. Remember it doesn't matter about planes - people would likely just film the damage caused by the first hit, even if they thought it was just an explosion.

Here's a picture of the towers. Look at the thousands of potential viewers. They were, above all, really really tall.




It seems to me that if you were planning on faking the planes, only a simultaneous strike would make sense.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


???


At last while camcorders where affordable as a hobby equipment in 2001 they were still something you had to be into and a investment you had to think about as a average person.


I was of 'average' means when I bought my first video camera. IN 1992! Forget what I paid...about $400....I used it quite a bit, too. (well, at first...until the novelty wore off...)

A Sony. 8mm cassette, back then. Still works, just fine. (Of course, much better ones out today...I like the solid state memory built in...and of course the memory chip --SSD-- cards...)


[edit on 8 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


I live/work in NJ - on 9/11 had a perfect view of the WTC from where was

Rick Siegal filmed the WTC from Hoboken waterfront, was another
film shot from upper floor of condo in Hartz development in Secaucus

Check a map....

I was in Linden NJ and could watch everything that happened after hearing
of the attack.

Many of my co-workers watched from upper floors of our buildings - 1 saw it from 5th floor. It took me less than minute to run upstairs and watch



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Make that Hartz development in Jersey City ....



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hmm 400 sounds really cheap, even now well a used one would be allright. Did it have stabilisation optic and a good zoom lens? I guess that would have to be required for a chance catch it at a distance.

But what's the point in discussing the hypothetical existance of additional amateur shots in 2010? I have seen no private website which offers unedited selfmade videos for download yet.

The only shot I have seen on youtube which has some indication of being amateur has a gap right at the worst possible point. There is a detailed shot of the wtc and the street below you even see a firetruck, it seems to be shot from a building next to the wtc across the parking space. Then suddenly you see the explosion, well as I remember there is some mention of one in the audio besides the usual oh my god, etc... rants.
I am kind of baffeld why there is no video of a plane approaching in it and it wouln't be filmed. Why should you for any reason stop filming the biggest news story in history in a safe location?
Furthermore it is not the raw footage it has crossfades and cuts at other points. I cannot explain that either. Why would anyone do that?

This is the 'Bob and Bri' Video

Google Video Link



If anyone do know of other videos with can be reasonable be threated as amateur footage please link it. It is really disturbing that there are only small clips available, if there really was that much amateur footage it should be at least some minutes long.

PS: Please do not post any claims of beeing a witness here. If you really are do something one can refernce later like creating a webpage. With 1-2 liners with some claim you will not be taken serious by anyone. Sorry but this is a fact.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by kybertech]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


That particular version of the "Bob and Bri" video is... that the one that they put up, after cutting it down to shorten it FOR TIME? Months ago the original was out, somewhere and available to view. Probably still is...well, it must be the long one, it's 25 minutes...I was thinking of the nine-minute one, also on Google...

There are plenty of other amateur videos, surprised you say only found one...


Back to their video...as I recall, they were focused, at first, on the events of the North Tower, AFTER the impact of course...just filming the burning. That became boring, rather quickly...and just about the time they put the camera down was when UAL 175 showed up...so that is the reason for the disruption in the continuity of the video.




[edit on 8 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Do know where I can find that?

Because in wtcbpc.blogspot.com... you have:



Q. Will you release the unedited version? A. We had intended to, but our plans our on hold at the moment due to time and logistical concerns. We do not feel the high-res version shows anything more than the edited version, and we don't wish to stroke any purient interests. We do not intended to sell or profit from this video in any way.


The only other amateur footage I have seen yet are some short clips and are not really convincing of being really amateur either (you know youtube
)
So anything else above 5 minutes not seen on tv would be greaty appreciated



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


Believe me, I take little pleasure in doing these searches....

This isn't exactly whant you wanted, but it does show a compilation fo various source clips, some from the media, and some obviously amateur:



THIS one sure looks amateurish...he enhanced and repeated, it seems:




AND, have seen this one many times...don't know WHO filmed it though...




Based on the sound track, and the way the camera moves, sure looks like an amateur, too: (Anyone who can translate?)



[edit on 8 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Then don't. It is more of a general request to anybody...

And you are right this video is not what I am thinking of, imho it classifies as these emotional self-pity supporting clipshows. Sorry you are over the top this time

Trying to debunk a theory which purposes video fakery by short low quality clips is nearly impossible.

Allright, as for the cameraplanet shot: Well I guess this has never been debunked by NPT. Or has it?


So first things first:
To be really a amateur footage it would have to be much longer, why would one in this position stop filming after the plane hit?
The zooming seems fishy, I dont think a camcorder would deliver that performance. I am no expert on this but I think that with a camcorder it shoud look differnt.
Well I guess with this new canon dslr with video function this shot would be possible, but in 2001?

If this was done with a professional cam well....

My best guess is that the original is high resolution and the zoom was edited in order to make it look like it was filmed on a camcorder. That alone wouldn't support NPT though.
Although I am not really into this hunting for fakery artefacts thing you have the missing wing phenomena on this one.


PS: I didn't ment to be sarcastic but its really kind of silly considering how this could happen with RPT. Well any hints? Am willing to explore any reasonable explanation...

[edit on 8-6-2010 by kybertech]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech

But what's the point in discussing the hypothetical existance of additional amateur shots in 2010?


The reason I'm doing it is to point out this gaping hole in NPT. I'm not going to harp on any more because I think the point stands - no one has been able to effectively describe how the perpetrators would control the amateur footage.

Just as an example, imagine you are part of a team involved in a similar crime. I live in central London, so for arguments sake let's imagine we bombed Barclays Tower in Canary Wharf and twenty minutes later did the same to One Canada Square. We're going to pretend that planes flew into the building and our network footage is already in place. We now need to get hold of all the amateur footage.

Let's say you have a staff of a thousand people charged with doing this.

Here's a shot of One Canada Square



As you can see it's visible from miles, and by potentially millions of witnesses, lots of whom might have cameras. This despite being half the height of the WTC towers.

How would you and your enormous team go about rounding up those cameras? Okay, it's 2001, so there are fewer. But that doesn't even make it that much easier. Do you go door to door, checking every single house for a potential film maker? How do you know if they are lying to you? Do you search every house?

There are, at a conservative estimate, probably about 3 million dwellings with potential views of the tower. Then there are the offices - some people may have brought camcorders to work. Or semi-pro filmmakers - people shooting adverts, or tourists who happen to be out and about filming. How an earth can you round up all tehse - even with 1000 operatives, or 10000 - with any degree of certainty?

For NPT to make any sense these questions have to be answered with some degree of plausability. Since I'm confident they won't be I think it's pretty easy to discount it.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join