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.

 

9/11 nose cone comes out the far side of tower

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by LieBuster
 

You Truthers SLAY me...

"No planes hit the towers" You would not know reallity if it fell out of the sky, landed on your face and wriggled. You impose your own reality.

Go ahead, keep it up. You simply make yourself look foolish.


The official story could not possibly have happened unless the USA is manned and run by the dumbest people on earth. I would personally give the USA more credit than that, but its becoming a stretch.

I am not going to argue the physics, the laws of nature or even the observable evidence that was not only covered up and whisked away but also totally ignored. No I am not going to argue these and other facts.

I have seen on TV many things that did not happen. The 7 castaways left on the island..weren't really lost. In the movie scanners, the peoples heads..did not explode, and in star wars...well NONE of it really happened. It sure looked like it, and yup I was sure entertained, but really NONE of it occurred.

If you choose to believe everything you think you saw on television, that is your prerogative. It would not be prudent, but that isn't a concern for me. Do what you will. I know something hit the towers, I have no idea what it was, but the official story is total crap. The govt shills that keep chanting their mainstream mantra have no affect on me. What should be a concern is just how steadfast the belief in the official story is for some people. Seems almost... brainwashed.

..Ex




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Sorry, with your absurd tirade against simon shack and your conspiracy that he's only in it for profit, obviously means you personally know the guy......oh hang on...... you don't. How do you know his beliefs on the NPT aren't genuine?

I've watched all the vids he has done, and whether I believed them or not, guess what...it didn't cost me a penny. Who exactly is he making a profit from?

And Ive yet to see the nose out theory debunked. Having people against the NPT argue against it with no facts only their own opinions, is hardly proof of a debunking.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


OK....granted, you have a point.

Since I personally do NOT know "Simon Shack", can only infer motives behind his "productions" on video.

BUT, I base a bit of my opinion on various 'replies' that are attributed to him, as he responded to a few of his detractors.

His vitriol, and vile anger, was quite evident.

Two main assumptions spring to mind...in viewing those sorts of reactions:

----Insanity.

----Defensiveness.

I won't go with the 'insanity' defence, since I'm unqualified to judge, based on the tools to hand.

"Defensive", though....that strikes me as more plausible, but agian, as to motive, I know not.


To be clear....(and, in honesty....I haven't deemed it necessary to waste another block of minutes to see his "VIDEO" again....)...but, in the main, as I recall....the POINT he attmepted to convey was...


"CGI"???

Isn't that the issue, regarding Simon Shack's claims?

Nevermind the overwhelming evidence that refutes everything he has come up with....set that aside, and JUST focusing on the errors exhibited in his video "analysis"...(that woud be his "September Clues" mockumentary) should be sufficient to indicate he's not knowing a bloody thing about what he's saying....

To summarize....THE 'NOSE' of a Boeiing 767 would NOT survive the impact, NOR travel fully through an office builidng lke the WTC Tower skyscraper, to come out "intact" at exit...

NOR WOULD anyone who wished to "fake" any such event be that stupid!!!

Cannot anyone see the basic, basic logical flaw? The "September Clue" nonsense is based, entirely, on the alleged stupidity of some nebulous "people" who chose to "fake" the WTC attacks....


The cognitive disconnect in this sort of twisted "logic" boggles believability, in that...ANYONE would fall for believing such nonsense.


It insults the intelligence of viewers, "Simon Shack's" mockumentary. It is astonishing, really, that there is ANYONE who can't see him for the charlatan (even IF he has only the best intentions, but is misguided...or just insane) that he is.....



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


But his argument isn't that it's impossible for a nose of a Boeing to go through concrete and steel. It's in the time frame they had to supposedly CGi it, they messed up and didn't account for the helicopter it was filmed from to be gradually moving to the left.

Nose out theory aside. There is plenty of evidence to suggest some sort of tampering to the vids, especially the MSM ones.

Was the home footage of the second strike shown later on in the day of 9/11 or the days following?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


Ah....

Yes, you are correct.

"Simon Shack" doesn't know what he is talking about.

You mentioned it, in your 'reply'....about "helicopter" footage...but there's more!

"Simon Shack" ALSO tries to pass off a normal photographic event, depending on the lens used in the camera ,,, the focal length, and so on....(which explains the one you mentioned) in the silly stuff about erh "moving bridge"...that WAS "Simon" who claimed this, right?

(Forgive me, if I get my idiots confused, at times....)

Apparently Mr. "Shack" has never seen a motion picture.

The kind of things that Holllywood, and Bollywood, put out...but easily seen in just about EVERY recording of just about ANY news footage, bothe before, and since, 9/11.....

PERSPECTIVE, in a video, based on the lens. This is so basic, and so understandable to anyone who has evewr worked with photography, even as a hobby (as I have) it is pure simple!!!!

THEN, since in photography (I admit) I am an amateur....ASK some PROFESSIONALS in the field!!!

It isn't difficult, just ask....




[edit on 15 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
It is impossible for any nosecone to survive hitting a Tower. That silly. What it looked like to me was a cannister being ejcted purposely and as it falls apart we see a piece of something fly away.

I believe that this is the engine part that was found laying on a street...the perps had to show SOME parts after all, and a planeted part would do the trick. Look at it carefully, the elongated object that is ejected from the Tower seems to fall apart or turn to dust midair, and another piece streaks away...it had to land somewhere, and if nothing else was found at that trajectory then it is likley the part seen in photo's.

I think I have weedwhacker figured out, but I do not want some mod accusing me of being personal, so I will just never respond to him again.
The people who ignore vast evidence and insist that up is down just cannot be dealt with in a way that helps the issue at all.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but first things first, I have not fallen for Sept. Clues' lies. The level of editing, twisting, faking video footage of the 9/11 attacks in order to promote nonsense like the NPT is quite stunning. But what is even more stunning is the numbers that fell for it, suckered in, and believed it.

I automatically started noticing little edits here and there throughout the video series. One was a good one, in I believe the 7th part, about the alleged angles on the aircraft. The maker of the video purposly edited the video of the aircraft's impact by layering the video TWICE with one offset ever so slightly higher, in order to skew the "angle" of the impact. Once I saw the level of sophistication and slight of hand editing done for Sept. Clues, has made it lose ALL credibility with me. Every single thing they put on that video series is a load of edited hogwash done not by the MSM but by the video maker him/herself.

This "nosecone out of the far side of the tower" is a nother example of clever editing, and using grainy footage to create an illusion. No nosecone, intact came through that side. Debris from the plane yes, absolutely did come through, but no intact "nose" of the plane came through. But alas, here goes Sept. Clues trying to sucker in the uninformed and gullible, with nonsense that was long ago debunked.

Sept. Clues is NOT credible in ANYTHING it claims.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


Ah!

A personal challenge!!!



I think I have weedwhacker figured out...



Oh.....(chin on hands....) DO tell!


....but I do not want some mod accusing me of being personal...


Only IF YOU resort to personal, and unwarranted verbal attacks....still, bring your best....



I believe that this is the engine part that was found laying on a street...


VERY possible!!! You are thinking, and that's good.

But, please explain how parts could be "planted":



.....and a planeted part would do the trick.



"ONE" 'planeted' (sic) part???

How about a whole lot more than
ne:....

This requires an INCREDIBLE amount of foreknowledge, about vectors of debris patterns, that could be PREDICTED!!! Come on, use some rational tinking skills, we all have them from birth.


Oh...and this irrational 'fear' of the "Mods"?

Speak your mind, state your opinion...and WHEN your 'opinion' can be shown to be formed fronm flase assumtions, then...OTHERS will let you know.

BUT, your opinions won't be censored....not by ATS 'Mods'....

Wouldn't be that paranoid.....is inhibiting....



[edit on 15 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 15 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I'm sorry, but first things first, I have not fallen for Sept. Clues' lies. The level of editing, twisting, faking video footage of the 9/11 attacks in order to promote nonsense like the NPT is quite stunning. But what is even more stunning is the numbers that fell for it, suckered in, and believed it.

I automatically started noticing little edits here and there throughout the video series. One was a good one, in I believe the 7th part, about the alleged angles on the aircraft. The maker of the video purposly edited the video of the aircraft's impact by layering the video TWICE with one offset ever so slightly higher, in order to skew the "angle" of the impact.
...



That is a quit innovative debating tactic you have here. So instead of the videos being faked in the first place the NRPT people did it to support their theory.

So whats up with the videos where the wing of the plane isn't visible in some frames?
Where they edited as well? Did the no-planers hack into the internet archives to place their edited videos there? Or do you just discard it beause it were just 'some' frames?

Come on, give me a break...



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 



So whats up with the videos where the wing of the plane isn't visible in some frames?


I do believe that's already been covered...

It is really, in the "Simon Shack" video, his decpetive use of a particular clip...mnade by a camera that just didn'thave the resolution to get a sharp, clear, constant image of every part of the airplane.

has to do with the CCD, the pixel sizes, the zoom amount, etc.

Higher-end cameras that recorded footage of UAL175 do NOT show any "disappearing" wings...

"Simon Shack" seems to be counting on insulting people's intelligence, in order to promote his garbage....



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech

Originally posted by GenRadek
I'm sorry, but first things first, I have not fallen for Sept. Clues' lies. The level of editing, twisting, faking video footage of the 9/11 attacks in order to promote nonsense like the NPT is quite stunning. But what is even more stunning is the numbers that fell for it, suckered in, and believed it.

I automatically started noticing little edits here and there throughout the video series. One was a good one, in I believe the 7th part, about the alleged angles on the aircraft. The maker of the video purposly edited the video of the aircraft's impact by layering the video TWICE with one offset ever so slightly higher, in order to skew the "angle" of the impact.
...



That is a quit innovative debating tactic you have here. So instead of the videos being faked in the first place the NRPT people did it to support their theory.

So whats up with the videos where the wing of the plane isn't visible in some frames?
Where they edited as well?

No. The wing is not visible because the downloaded video was highly compressed with poor resolution, whilst the impact took place inside the shadow of the South Tower, further reducing the contrast between the wings and the facade of the tower.

Originally posted by kybertech
Did the no-planers hack into the internet archives to place their edited videos there? Or do you just discard it beause it were just 'some' frames?

Nope. You misunderstand the situation (perhaps deliberately because you are trying to create an Aunt Sally to knock down).

Originally posted by kybertech
Come on, give me a break...


And give me some logic......



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Well I don't think that explenation is good enough. Why would one wing be visible while the other is not? While you could argue that if the wing would be below one pixel width for the camara would disappear I dont think that should be the case. There should be something visble at least until a faction of a pixel, the color would be the mean of everything for of its field of view, depending on the contrast.
Further the naudet video however does clearly show the disappearence of a wing wider then two pixels. That is difficult to explain.
While I could explain the disappearence of a wing where its resolution is below the resolution for a rendering and for a camera if the resolution is significant below one pixel, There is now way I can think of to explain the shots were is clearly is obove one pixel wide except some error in the video overlay or a false crop area.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


Oh, come on....based ONLY on "Simon Shack's" deceptive and dishonest editing, and selectivity in his "video"...that completely ignores the REST of the evidence....



No "CGI", only camera artifacts....





[edit on 16 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


Its all about compression of the video, blur, increased grainyness, that creates the illusion that one wing is "missing".

Didnt you notice that much of the videos shown in Sept. Clues and by many in the NPT camp use the BLURRIEST, GRAINIEST, OUT OF FOCUS video to "prove" that the planes were "added in"? I sure as hell did. But watching the ORIGINAL videos that were not compressed, blurred, etc, and we watch those video artifacts disappear. But people like SimonShack and those that created the videos Sept. Clues, In Plane Sight, and other crappy snake-oil infomercials dont use those, and chose to use the WORST versions of the video. That alone should be a HUGE red flag for those truely searching for truth.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Well Gen, I am sure you are well aware the Sept Clues and other ridiculous theories are created and spread by debunkers and people who's agenda is to smear 911 truth, forums, and any rational discussion.

Classic disinformation techniques.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech
Well I don't think that explenation is good enough. Why would one wing be visible while the other is not?

Because the plane hit near the edge of the tower, where the light level changes quickly because it is in shadow.

Originally posted by kybertech
While you could argue that if the wing would be below one pixel width for the camara would disappear I dont think that should be the case. There should be something visble at least until a faction of a pixel, the color would be the mean of everything for of its field of view, depending on the contrast.

Firstly, the plane was in the shadow of the tower, reducing contrast between colours. Secondly, the pixel resolution in this infamous video was poor. The low sharpness of the image made the wing of the plane appear to blend into the background. This has been well-known to 9/11 investigators for years, but the no-planers are incapable of understanding the point, it seems...

Originally posted by kybertech
Further the naudet video however does clearly show the disappearence of a wing wider then two pixels. That is difficult to explain.

To whom? To the webfairy?! In my books she is not a credible analyst.

Originally posted by kybertech
While I could explain the disappearence of a wing where its resolution is below the resolution for a rendering and for a camera if the resolution is significant below one pixel, There is now way I can think of to explain the shots were is clearly is obove one pixel wide except some error in the video overlay or a false crop area.

How about if the video pixels in the image of the wing nearer the tower and in the wall near the impact region happened to have RGB values that were close to one another? You wouldn't be able to distinguish the edge of the wing and the wall, in that case. This is the case. There is NO mystery about the invisibility of the wing(s) of Flight 175 in the video just before impact once one realizes the poor quality of the highly compressed video and the fact that the metallic wings were reflecting light from the walls of the tower a few feet away, so that they WOULD have a similar colour, creating the illusion that the wing nearer the wall had disappeared because it was able to reflect more of this light.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by kybertech
 


Oh, come on....based ONLY on "Simon Shack's" deceptive and dishonest editing, and selectivity in his "video"...that completely ignores the REST of the evidence....



No "CGI", only camera artifacts....





[edit on 16 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Thanks for posting that vid. I was about to believe the no plane theory. I suppose the OP vid was tampered with, maybe so it could be sold right after 911. Lots of jet fuel ended up in the twin towers and there is no explination on how it would have got there without being on airplanes.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Hmm, I might actually consider this possibility if it would be consistent with the observed error.

While this for example is very much so...
(you might want to skip the second half of the video)



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


No...the "second half" of the video just seems to be a rant...albeit, from a TV show that I enjoyed watching, when it was on the air....

BUT, the diatribe, in the script and video clip snippets from "Boston Legal" merely reflect a dissonance with the CURRENT administration, in the USA at the time....Bush.

The ranting in the second half of that video? Window dressing. No relaiton to 9/11.

Whilst I have empathy for many of the points raised IN THE HOLLYWOOD TV show, as portrayed....I see its relevance to events of 9/11 somewhat lacking, and vague.



[edit on 16 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
so what? I think too that this is not really relevant to 9/11, its the authors opinion, or he just wanted an emotional response from his viewers, I don't know.

But the 'plane part' speaks for itself... the result he gets is almost identical to the original and imho a very good theory of how the fakery could have been done with very little effort.
What I don't understand is why to defend the theory that all footage is genuine? The fact that there was tv fakery going on doesn't nessecarily prove that there were no planes in reality, they could just have no or not enough shots.

The angle of the 'live' shots makes perfect sense for this chroma key technique, while this doesn't prove that it was done this way, I think it is likely enough to be seriously considered.

Even more almost no popular figure in the truth movement denies that there was really tv fakery going on on 9/11, but the really are trying to avoid going into any specifics.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by kybertech]




top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join