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: 29
19
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
the planes were probably holograms of some sort




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   
This probably is just a diversion thread from the real discussions. Or honestly mistaken idea by the OP. Either way we can spend time discussing what they really and the how the flight came to NewYork without being intercepted by one of the 18000+ jets with US airforce and so on.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by chaosinorder
This probably is just a diversion thread from the real discussions. Or honestly mistaken idea by the OP. Either way we can spend time discussing what they really and the how the flight came to NewYork without being intercepted by one of the 18000+ jets with US airforce and so on.
This post is probably just a diversion from the real discussion happening in this thread.

As I have written before: This kind of statement is like asking which branch of goverment is responsible for ufos in a thread about the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

@teosty
If you have something to contribute to the discussion feel free to do so, but back up your opinion with some logic and reason.

@TrickoftheShade
I have thought about providing you with a detailed answer but have decided against it for now. The reason is that I can not follow your argument like you probably intended.

I have made a previous statement that I think the perps would just have regarded the possibilty of amateur footage which would expose a hoax as a calculated risk. They would just rely on their power over the society and the fear it produces. And NRPT is so violently opposed form so many directions that it would seem they succeeded.

This may be still in effect so that anyone who would possess such footage would have to fear constant ridicule by people who follow their particular theory with religious fanatism.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by kybertech]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by chaosinorder
 


Well...it is this sort of mindset, and continued unsubstantiated hyperbole that keeps most of the nonsense "conspiracy" junk alive and well:


...how the flight came to NewYork without being intercepted by one of the 18000+ jets with US airforce and so on.


Let's examine that statement...and so on....:

en.wikipedia.org...

There, a living document that will show the total of USAF (and other military) aircraft, overall.

Will someone PLEASE count them up for us, and see if it totals "18000+"?

(OH, and make sure you ONLY include those 'jets' that are in the Lower 48 States...)
(Those stationed overseas don't count...right?)



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech
@TrickoftheShade I have thought about providing you with a detailed answer but have decided against it for now. The reason is that I can not follow your argument like you probably intended.


I'm happy to elucidate. What exactly are you having trouble with?




I have made a previous statement that I think the perps would just have regarded the possibilty of amateur footage which would expose a hoax as a calculated risk. They would just rely on their power over the society and the fear it produces. And NRPT is so violently opposed form so many directions that it would seem they succeeded.


I can't follow you at all here. You're saying that the fact that NPT is generally opposed is de facto evidence of its truth because it shows how powerful its perpetrators must be? This is extraordinary logic. Like Team B "proving" the USSR's secret submarine by the lack of evidence for it.

I also can't see how they would just take such a risk. They could have been left with a dozen clear videos with no planes. Also NPT exponents argue that manipulation has taken place in "amateur" videos. How did the perpetrators get hold of these videos? Some sort of dragnet operation seems the only answer, and yet an operation of that kind is beyond plausibility.




This may be still in effect so that anyone who would possess such footage would have to fear constant ridicule by people who follow their particular theory with religious fanatism.


This seems a weak argument. If you had such a video would you release it? I would. So would 99 per cent of people on ATS, I suspect. Why are we to assume that everybody else is so cowed by others' opinions of their ideas?

Just visualise this for a second. You are contending that there is someone with a tape, sitting in their house, every now and then nervously watching it back, seeing the lack of planes in it, and not releasing it for fear of ridicule? That just seems very unlikely to me.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Well exactly, but keep in mind that is my own interpretation. I mean can you explain why there are no more longer videos out there? Independent of NRPT or any other theory this has not been answered as far as I know.

All this discussion has motivated me to look into it abit. Simonshack for example has done very much on this fakery issue. But you could call his theory kind of radical or offensive for some one believing in any theory at all well...
His explination is that every single media from the 9/11 event is a complete forgery. Every single photo and video and the sound comes from a studio. People running away are actors or are a video composite, all tower shots are done with 3d rendering software, etc...
So he has a pretty easy time with your argument and states that they used some sort of electonics jamming device so nobody could get a video. Haven't yet found out what he thinks about the bob and bri video, but if he is consistent I guess he would have do dismiss it as a forgery aswell.

While I always wondered how much of the footage is fake or real I never put any real effort in investigating it. But Simonshack even goes one step further, by postulating that there were no people killed and everything was scripted.

With that thinking he would have to deconstruct every single media there is to prove it. pretty big task. But besides that I find the thought as 9/11 as a complete 100% psyop interesting and something like that was my first thought in the first few minutes of live tv i saw on 9/11.

But, coming back to the general opposition of NRPT it will be difficult to discuss this in a rational way...

[edit on 10-6-2010 by kybertech]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


This is just not really an operational hypothesis. Not because it's impossible - although I would contend that it just about is - but because if you can believe that then it's impossible for you to trust anything. ATS could be a complex psy-op directed solely at you. You could be in your very own Truman Show.

My point is that if you really believe that something like that could happen then it becomes difficult to put much faith in anything. To the extent where proving stuff becomes just about impossible.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Hehe, right. But: who says its ATS but not the people on the streets, they all know what's going on and are feeding me subliminal messenges all the time on my way to burgerking... or it could be both!


Anyways, you brought up a pretty compelling question, even for all other theories out there... Where is all the amateur footage that could be there?
Care to formulate a suggestion yourself?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I am surprised there aren't more, to be honest. But unless we hear about squads of MIBs forcibly confiscating dozens of video tapes then I don't think that's particularly suspicious.

Also, notice how NPT simultaneously requires people to question why there are so few videos, but then spends considerable time (as at September Clues) asking why there are so many.

This paragraph, from their site, swallowed whole by posters like Orion earlier, is just ludicrous:

What are the odds that so many amateur cameramen would capture a clear shot of an unexpected 550mph airplane[1] in its very last second of flight - both 'plane' and towers nicely framed - with no apparent motion blur of either? There are, for instance, no such precedents in the history of motorsport photography: no speedway crash has ever been captured by 55+ cameramen, in crowded arenas where hundreds of lenses are aimed right at the action.

Do they honestly think it remarkable that a few hundred people (I am discounting those that missed the plane, or whose videos were poor quality) had cameras trained on the WTC after the first crash? It beggars belief.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   
"Anyways, you brought up a pretty compelling question, even for all other theories out there... Where is all the amateur footage that could be there?"

The only "amateur footage" of a distinguishable airplane crashing into the Tower is fake, just like the media footage. Why isn't there more footage?

1) The answer is obvious; there was no commercial airplane to videotape.

2) When the second alleged plane impacted shortly after 9 AM, most people were at work or going to work and had no clue what was going on, let alone have time to pick up a video camera and start videotaping.

3) Most, if not all, eyes were trained on the first tower which was hit. It's the old magician trick of distracting you with one hand while he creates the illusion with the other hand.

The only people who had their eyes and cameras trained on the second tower were those who created the phony amateur footage of the second strike. Can someone explain why these amateur filmmakers who supposedly caught the second strike had their cameras trained on the second tower when all the action was at the first tower?

[edit on 11-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 



The whole post is a source of amusement, but one thing really stands out. Your third point - you really think that people were distracted from looking at or filming WTC1 by the GAPING HOLE in WTC2?

I mean look. They're pretty close together.



If you were anywhere except a few metres away it was pretty difficult to look at or film either tower without taking in the other one.

So if the perpetrators were performing a sleight of hand to make people look elsewhere, that's a pretty odd way of doing it.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Well I consider #2 even likely, independent of the question if the planes were real. Haven't often seen anyone with a videocamera running around here in vienna, except the tourist areas. I guess this is the case for every city, well you could argue the wtc was a kind of tourist attration, most people have seen a photograph of it or seen it in a movie even before the attacks. So well you can say it was popular.

The point is almost everybody who owns a camcorder have it at home, most people got to work so the only people wo would likely capture such an event are tourists and people staying at home during that time. That is not a very large number and I dont think that there would be over 100 people which own a camcorder, can get into position and have it with them/nearby all together during that time period. (About one hour)
The scenario that some camcorder owner rushes home to pick it up and then into the area to film it is very unlikely so we are left with only a few potential amateur camaramen.

What I find suspicous is that there are very few clips for other then the towers themself, the amount of footage which shows whats going on in the city is very small.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


Your last point doesn't strike me as that suspicious. Amateurs - and indeed professionals - would mostly concentrate on getting to a safe place and then filming the towers. There is footage from the bases of the towers and the streets, about as much as you might expect - the Naudets, some tv news crews.

I'm not sure what the former part of your post is getting at. There's not that much footage. About the amount one might reasonably expect. You seem to vacillate between thinking there's too much and too little.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


Sorry - I see what you're saying now. You agree with the idea that "most" people would be going to work and not carrying a video camera? Well, with all due respect that's why there aren't ten million videos. Yet there are a few because not everyone was on there way to work and a tiny percentage had cameras.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Um, yeah thats what I wrote.
My suspicion is more about the ratio of the footage. What would make me discard NPT or TV Hoax for example would be a 15minute (the avarage camcorder tape) video of someone walking around manhattan during that day showing whats happening on the streets what people are doing, the towers and maybe the second plane.

While the existing plane videos seem fishy, the lack of "raw footage" is what is find the most supicous. The bob and bri video is a noteable exception an imho the strongest point against this whole theory. were is the raw footage of the naudet crew. Well what did they? They made a film... Everything seems to focus on selling you the story.
While there are some things I find strange about the bob and bri video (cuts, crying, if she thinks she's gonna die now why don't she get the he out of there) its not just a obvious fake like the plane crash videos with missing wings etc..

I thought about doing a fake aircaft into building video myself just to make a point how easy it is, but ill have to buy a camcorder for that...well lets see

I mean would you at least consider the possibilty of fakery of some of the more obvious airplane videos? The point is that would not necessarily prove that there were no planes but just that some of the footage is forged to make the story more convincing. I mean most of the plane crash footage is _so_ pathetic that you would ask yourself if they screwed it up on purpose


Ah and something more, during the broadcast I always wondered when they will show me some reporter with a mic 'live at the scene' Wihe there are 1-2 shots like that there should be _alot_ more considering the length of the broadcast. This did not happen, just watch it again if you'd like. They are just very rare...

[edit on 11-6-2010 by kybertech]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
"I thought about doing a fake aircaft into building video myself just to make a point how easy it is, but ill have to buy a camcorder for that"

Make sure the camcorder has a setting where the resolution is crappier than a cheap faded Polaroid and it has the ability to change colors, such as making a beautiful clear day with a blue sky into a gray miserable looking one. Then I think you'll be all set for capturing a cartoonish one dimensional black outline of a plane.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I think I would get that!
Maybe I just snap a picture and use crops of it to simulate zoom and camera shake with a crop area, thats probably the way some of the footage was done


Hmm but what Building should I choose?

Here are the ones I came up with:

Millenium-Tower (most obivous)


Vienna Twin Tower (most obvious name)


Vienna International Centre alias UNO City (most interesting/feedback generating
)


Prater Theme Park Space Shot Attraction - with R/C Plane (most ridiculous
)

If I'll buy a camcorder I'll could even do a naudet parody with free people screaming an looking up


Feel free to add suggestions for your area



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Passenger planes cannot punch through structural steel girders and 20 ft wide slabs of concrete, only bunker busting technology which the military defense and research spend billions on, and weaponary beyond that is capable of the destruction that we see caused by the plane impacts.

Thus no 'real' plane ever hit those two towers, or the Pentagon (a re-enforced military command center) for that matter. Hell, even the Shanksville event was too abnormal for a passenger plane crash.

Here is a nice example of what just a tiny fraction of steel can do to a large plane:



How can one watch this and insist a plane would easily cut through a heavy steel and concrete tower like a hot knife through butter?

What if the steel was travelling at 500mph. Would you expect the plane to cut through it, or expect the plane to get shredded to pieces?




posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I originally thought that all the no planer/sept. clues stuff was either bs or disinfo.

And I can respect AE 9/11 Truth and other organizations having a zero tolerance policy.

But the more I looked at it, the more intrigued I became.

Most of the "debunkings" I've read online side step these concerns.

How did "flight 175" go through the South tower with it's nose intact?

That means it penetrated the perimeter steel columns, the 47 CORE STEEL COLUMNS, and than the perimeter steel columns on the other side of the building as well.

Not to mention the nose of the plane is aluminum.

And why did they go to black for 15 frames right when this happened?

Coincidence?

And why did CNN cover this with their banner when they reshowed it?

Another coincidence?

If you have nothing to hide, why hide everything?

On some of the 'amateur' footage for "175" they use the same woman's voice screaming "Oh my God" in multiple videos. That proves to me that at least some 'amateur' videos were fabrications.

Also, the Nadet footage looks staged as hell, there is nobody on the streets on a Tue morning at 9:00 AM in New York???? WTH????

I still think it's possible that "planes" or drones hit the buildings, but I wouldn't rule out SOME of the footage being doctored either.

Not with a close minded iron fist at least ...



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I could have swore it was a plane i saw hit at least one of the buildings on the news. Also I have a cousin who was present at ground zero and saw the second plane go hit the second tower. Don’t get me wrong I am no believer of the official version but it was definitely a plane that hit those buildings. I am not convinced however that it was a plane that hit the pentagon.




top topics



 
19
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join