Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

VIDEO: Large Airliners Did NOT Hit the Twin Towers on 9/11!

page: 16
74
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905
If you believe the government was involved with 9/11 fine, that can be debated. To deny that planes hit the towers is INSANE. Its absurd. I am not a truther but when I read this dribble the first thing I think is that these posts are being created by people for the sole purpose of discrediting that movement.


IOW, Basically its the same mentality the majority of the worlds uneducated and unenlightened had back when only a few were revealing the world was round, or than 9/11 was an inside job... uumm yeah right, got it.


Clearly this is one of the most controversial subjects of the conspiracy and takes far more research and critical thinking due to the advanced nature of the plane psyop that was carried out with the help of the media and so called "amateurs".

there's mountains of evidence supporting NRPT if you have an open mind, take the time and aren't afraid of the truth. No one has ever conclusively disproven the Nrpt and it only continues to grow because the evidence is real.

Sadly though, even In the age of information, this is indeed one of the most ignorant ages and generations in the history of the world, so its no surprise so many are in denial and cannot comprehend even the most basic fakery and physical impossibilities.

Unless one can PROVE and show exactly how and where ALL the evidence supporting NRPT is wrong, the movement will only continue to flourish.




posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by CHA0S
It actually does seem as though those planes were edited into the footage now that I look closely.

Is that so? How about the footage shot by private citizens? How do you think that the planes were edited into peoples' cameras in their homes in real time?


the same way the alleged "plane" in this vid was edited OUT OF




Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Here's a home video and you can hear the camera operator say "What's this other jet doing?":


omgeez,,, that vid has been thoroughly proven fraudulent here:
www.youtube.com...

using such a blatantly fake video as evidence supporting npt isn't gonna help your case.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There are plenty of other home videos where he camera operators talk about the planes and weren't getting their information from tv. That automatically proves that this claim is false disinformation


Actually there's plenty of operators and even news hosts that didn't talk about planes nor even saw the planes until they developed their film under suspect circumstances, or got back their COPY/DUB from the FBI

lets not even mention how most of these "amateurs" had connections to the media or were almost all professional photographers in the industry. just Another coincidink of course.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
the nose didn't come out of the other side of the south tower.


As you can see, there is not exit hole. That proves that there was no real nose that exited the other side of the building.


No, it proves there was no real plane in the footage, only cgi



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Orion7911
 


What kind of veiled innuendo is meant by this?:


...another detail you might not know is the author of that video is Luc Courchesne, yet another coincidental professional video photographer lucky enough to have actually been in the right place at the right time (LOL).


It isn't difficult, in today's Google era, to search for the man's name, and discover his details.

French-Canadian, Montreal-based artist. What is so unusual for a fairly well-known artist to be in New York City???


His Wiki Bio, in French

Wiki has a translate function. I snipped this segment from the English version:


On September 11, 2001, when he was in New York as part of the cultural event "Quebec-New York," he was filming the north tower of World Trade Center struck earlier by a Boeing 767, when Boeing came the second hit the south tower. The video, lasting 23 minutes, is available in the archives of Radio-Canada .


AND, also found 11 mintues of it (YouTube). Funny, filming has already begun AFTER American11 hit....and the focus of attention for MANY many people and their cameras was already directed towards the WTC Towers.

Oddly, he doesn't seem to have a very high-quality camera, at the time of the filming....since you "hinted" that it was such a "lucky" thing that he was there on that day??



(Oh, and BTW --- those who speak French will be better able to follow the comments, in the soundtrack, as people casually discuss what they're seeing. My French is very weak, but when I take my time I can catch most of it).

It is puzzling, this continued spread of disinformation, regarding the airplanes on 9/11.

What purpose does it serve?






edit on 28 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: BTW


Weed,
A very poor set-up, in any case you can still make out an aircraft, in either video. But there are other things to consider, what is the aircraft that momentarily visible seconds after the crash seen around 4.19 in the extreme right of the video you posted? It looks more 'plane than helicopter, but it's hard to tell.

edit on 28-9-2010 by smurfy because: text.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


somebody shoot me please. I want off this planet if people actually believe this.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by CHA0S
It actually does seem as though those planes were edited into the footage now that I look closely.

Is that so? How about the footage shot by private citizens? How do you think that the planes were edited into peoples' cameras in their homes in real time?


the same way the alleged "plane" in this vid was edited OUT OF




Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Here's a home video and you can hear the camera operator say "What's this other jet doing?":


omgeez,,, that vid has been thoroughly proven fraudulent here:
www.youtube.com...

using such a blatantly fake video as evidence supporting npt isn't gonna help your case.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There are plenty of other home videos where he camera operators talk about the planes and weren't getting their information from tv. That automatically proves that this claim is false disinformation


Actually there's plenty of operators and even news hosts that didn't talk about planes nor even saw the planes until they developed their film under suspect circumstances, or got back their COPY/DUB from the FBI

lets not even mention how most of these "amateurs" had connections to the media or were almost all professional photographers in the industry. just Another coincidink of course.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
the nose didn't come out of the other side of the south tower.


As you can see, there is not exit hole. That proves that there was no real nose that exited the other side of the building.


No, it proves there was no real plane in the footage, only cgi

Orion,
There are by far too many other videos that show a 'plane hitting the South tower. Something did exit the South tower from somepoint, maybe the remains of an engine. What looks like the nose of an aircraft emerging is to me, just a large quantity of small debris and dust, enough to look like a form which could well have been tinkered with in other video showing the silhouette image into the sun, to assume the shape of a airplane nose. Look at "Steve Vigilante's" very clear video at the same moment and you can see the same thing flying across, consistant with other videos, except that you have to look very closely at the very middle bottom and almost out of sight, but it is there nonetheless. The thing is, SV's is also alluring in that it shows the North tower in a volatile reaction which is also open to interpretation visually, but is connected in some way to whatever hit the South tower. You decide.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 28-9-2010 by smurfy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
OK OK,i have asked over and over and over and over again where in the hell are the people THAT SUPPOSENDLLY WAS ON THE HOLOGRAPHIC PLANE and u have not yet given me a straight answer.



I am a gemimi and one of our gifts in this world is to see both sides of an argument to the highest degree of truthfullness and quality about a situation and point so,after looking at this videowww.youtube.com...

I will be the first to say that the people was just assaninated so that this event could happen. I dont no about animated but in this video there is a 47% maybe rating.I dont usally do less then 78% but..This will do for me right now as to say i have to keep an open mind.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


Well, i am of the inclination to
believe they are buried in a mass grave.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


The flash in the nose was most likely the Crew's Emergency Oxygen Supply Bottle exploding.



The O2 bottle is located in electrical and engineering compartment just aft of the nose gear.



Here is a photo 767 overlaid on still from one of the videos, to give a clear position of the flash in relation to the plane. It is in exact position of the O2 bottle.



edit on 28-9-2010 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 


The flash in the nose was most likely the Crew's Emergency Oxygen Supply Bottle exploding.



The O2 bottle is located in electrical and engineering compartment just aft of the nose gear.



Here is a photo 767 overlaid on still from one of the videos, to give a clear position of the flash in relation to the plane. It is in exact position of the O2 bottle.



edit on 28-9-2010 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


well,u sumed that up real quick for me, BOY ! im really glad i can get off that conspiracy...thanks.
So again ! where did the people go?



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
um, i'm a pilot....it's all wrong, the lack of video from the outlying areas, the melted glass at the street, the fake and ready and rehearsed expert witnesses, the lack of follow-up and corroberating evidence....someone famous lies....and the posters on this with claims so trying to say done deal....yeszzzz i see whats up these days....we get squat for logic, sounds about right for these end times. i read all about this coming! read it in a book


ps...a 757 doing acrobats at the pentagon....yeszzz right

oh, one more thing no one mentions.....the jets we see aroud the city are doing 175 knots indicated airspeed.....not 550 mph.....huge dang difference my brothers....huge freaking discrepancy in the story....

edit on 29-9-2010 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


At the very low altitude these planes had to be flying at, the sound would have been amplified by the sound waves bouncing off and reverberating around the surrounding buildings...so a jet at full throttle, at near sea level, would have been the same as someone standing right next to you, shouting through a megaphone pressed right up to your ears...yet there was NO reaction from the public on the sidewalk, until the 'boom' from the explosion?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Yes, and wouldn't the sound waves bouncing around like that have blown out lots of windows? I've heard of the "No Plane Theory" before and the whole hologram idea, but never gave it much thought until I heard Alex Jones commenting on the supposedly "eminate disclosure[UFO's ...aliens etc]" Well he said something that caught my attention: something to the effect that the PTB have the massive hologram technology, and if the MSN is suddenly on the UFO bandwagon then we may be beeing prepared for another gov't hoax by way of these holograms.
Now, I am kinda starting to wonder about the people who are the "No Planers", maybe they're on to something?
I don't know, call me weak minded, but it caught my interest.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GBP/JPY
 



um, i'm a pilot....


Oh? Well, so am I. How many hours do you have? Me, I've got ~20,000. Been flying since a teenager, and total now is just under 40 years. At this point, it's just not worth it to keep real accurate records anymore. But, yeah...I DO happen to know what I'm talking about, and writing about here on ATS.

So, you're a "pilot", but then you write this???:


ps...a 757 doing acrobats at the pentagon....yeszzz right


Please cite an example of these alleged "acrobats" maneuvers at the Pentagon. You're a pilot, so explain it in pilot speak (you can use aviation terms and jargon), I will understand it.

(PS: "Acrobats" is the plural form, a noun, to describe people doing acrobatics. In aviation, an airplane performing like, say, at an airshow is doing "aerobatics". Terminology, my dear man....).



...it's all wrong;....


Oh? How so?


...the lack of video from the outlying areas...


That's a new one! Could you explain why that is "wrong"???


...the melted glass at the street...


Huh? There were fires. Glass.....fire.....melts.


....the fake and ready and rehearsed expert witnesses....


Again, huh?? This is all new territory, apparently. Your opinion is certainly yours to own, but you can't just come here and make ## up, without some corroboration and evidence to support your assertion.


...the lack of follow-up and corroberating evidence....


Third time, huh??? "lack of follow-up"? Gee, show where there was any "lack".......


....someone famous lies....


Oh, well NOW we're getting somewhere! You mean John Lear, correct? He's famous (well, sorta...his Dad is more famous, really.....John made a certain name for himself in his own right, however. But, most people outside of aviation aren't that familiar with him). Of course, John Lear's "lies" (actually, I think he's more of a prankster, to tell the truth. Poor taste, though, given the circumstances and deaths related to 9/11....)

No, John is (partly) responsible for these reprehensible "claims" of "no planes", by lending his voice, and the weight of his 'reputation' (such as it is)....and if he really believes it, and is NOT doing it as a practical joke? Then I fear for his sanity......



oh, one more thing no one mentions.....the jets we see aroud the city are doing 175 knots indicated airspeed.....


Well, sometimes, some are. We usually fly airspeeds on multiples of ten, though....except for Ref speed on final approach, where we strive to be "on the money". But, whilst being vectored and maneuvering in the vicinity of airports, whether departing or arriving, it varies greatly. What's your point?


....not 550 mph.....huge dang difference my brothers....huge freaking discrepancy in the story....


I don't follow......the hijackers, intent on inflicting as much damage as possible, and not CARING that they were going to die doing it, knew the basic physics: F=MA

The FORCE of the impact increases with the VELOCITY (acceleration in the formula). It is pretty basic physics, I would think....even taught at grade school levels, I thought. Definitely in High School. Guess some people just weren't paying attention in school.....



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by missvicky
 


Your opinion...however, it is grossly mistaken:


...At the very low altitude these planes had to be flying at, the sound would have been amplified by the sound waves bouncing off and reverberating around the surrounding buildings...


In the case of American 11, which flew OVER most of the buildings and the city, the sound DID catch some people's attention. Watch the Naudet brothers' film clip, and the people's reactions.

But, no....it is NOT an "echo chamber" (which is what you seem to have implied).

And, in any case, United 175's path was mostly out over the bay.

I have already posted several examples of YouTube videos (with sound) on other threads (maybe on this one too?). I won't again, but suggest anyone who wishes can research for videos (can use Google too, search in "videos") for many, many examples. Look for "airshows" and "high speed passes" and "airplanes" as keywords.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


weedwacker,
did you ever refute the nose of the plane coming out of the building.
this was filmed from a couple of different angles.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GBP/JPY
 



um, i'm a pilot....


Oh? Well, so am I. How many hours do you have? Me, I've got ~20,000. Been flying since a teenager, and total now is just under 40 years. At this point, it's just not worth it to keep real accurate records anymore. But, yeah...I DO happen to know what I'm talking about, and writing about here on ATS.

So, you're a "pilot", but then you write this???:



oh so weed are you a part of the airforce internet squad fighting its war on conspiracies? It now makes sense.
I love it first you admit it and a few others on here admit being pilots.

It seems pretty odd don't it?




edit on 30-9-2010 by dragnet53 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 



...refute the nose of the plane coming out...


I don'thave to. It's such nonsense, I can't believe anyone would think it's true. No one with any sense, anyways.

You are referring to that crap put out by "Simon Shack" in his crap video, I assume? It's crap. Junk. Totally worthless as a "study". His entire motive, there, was to allege "video fakery" ( as if, somehow, EVERY video camera pointed in that direction had their tapes and memories altered....
). What utter nonsense!

Guess it's time to show everyone (again) a very good dissection of Shack's stupid video:


Google Video Link



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
Orion,
There are by far too many other videos that show a 'plane hitting the South tower.


and upon closer inspection and analysis of these "other" videos that allegedly show a "plane" "hitting" the south tower, one may conclude that the term "other" is subjective, deceptive and hardly conclusive as to being REAL, unaltered, or not containing fakery. But then, you give no specifics or examples with evidence supporting exactly how and where what you're saying is true. And this is one of the biggest mistakes MOST make and why MOST have a mis-understanding of NRPT and why its never been conclusively disproven... each video and context of all the evidence in totality MUST be examined in order to have a full understanding of this Psyop perpetrated by the MSM and US military PERPS.


Originally posted by smurfy
Something did exit the South tower from somepoint, maybe the remains of an engine.


or maybe the remains of a missle or explosive material being ejected.

however before claiming it was an engine, you need to have a better understanding of a boeings engine composition as well as an explanation for the lack of crash physics upon impact for starters.

saying it was "something" leaves far too many possibilities.


Originally posted by smurfy
What looks like the nose of an aircraft emerging is to me, just a large quantity of small debris and dust, enough to look like a form which could well have been tinkered with in other video showing the silhouette image into the sun, to assume the shape of a airplane nose.


First off, since when does debris and dust have any symmetrical or otherwise FORM, especially that of anything resembling an airplane nose as closely as it does?

the BLACK OUT "glitch" has yet to be properly explained or debunked which MUST be factored in due to the
coincidence/time of its occurrence in relation to this anomaly/nose out.

the video glitches all need to be explained or factored into ones conclusion as it pertains to cgi.

and what do you mean by TINKERED WITH?


Originally posted by smurfy
Look at "Steve Vigilante's" very clear video at the same moment and you can see the same thing flying across, consistant with other videos, except that you have to look very closely at the very middle bottom and almost out of sight, but it is there nonetheless. The thing is, SV's is also alluring in that it shows the North tower in a volatile reaction which is also open to interpretation visually, but is connected in some way to whatever hit the South tower. You decide.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


first, see the CLARITY of the SV footage? AND THIS FOOTAGE IS SUPPOSEDLY FROM AMATEUR EQUIPMENT... why is there NO CLEAR FOOTAGE of this caliber in any footage showing a "plane" hitting the towers? LIVE FOOTAGE from MSM equipment should have been at the level of clarity this video was in.

second, this SV footage reveals nothing about the NOSE IN NOSE OUT anomaly primarily because this to me is what REAL VIDEO clarity should look like and the MSM footage of the NOSE OUT has the anomaly because its fake or been altered via CGI... so using that SV vid to argue against the nose out, is impossible.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

The FORCE of the impact increases with the VELOCITY (acceleration in the formula). It is pretty basic physics, I would think....even taught at grade school levels, I thought. Definitely in High School. Guess some people just weren't paying attention in school.....



yourself included... or went to schools that didn't cover those things... or perhaps you weren't paying attention to TIFFANY from LA's Thread... or that you weren't able to comprehend the material she was arguing... or maybe you don't understand crash physics and Newtons Laws of motion.

yep



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

...refute the nose of the plane coming out.

I don'thave to. It's such nonsense, I can't believe anyone would think it's true. No one with any sense, anyways.

You are referring to that crap put out by "Simon Shack" in his crap video, I assume? It's crap. Junk. Totally worthless as a "study". His entire motive, there, was to allege "video fakery" ( as if, somehow, EVERY video camera pointed in that direction had their tapes and memories altered....
). What utter nonsense!


so you claim without any proof whatsoever not to mention the evidence proves otherwise and you've hardly addressed any of it let alone have the alleged debunkings like video you're linking to which was far from debunking anything, it was incomplete and points re-debunked....too bad you left that fact out... typical of your M/O here though,,, you only present half the evidence and one side of the argument... but then, how else could you make it appear you've debunked anything? Clever you are... but those like me see right through it.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by smurfy
Orion,
There are by far too many other videos that show a 'plane hitting the South tower.


and upon closer inspection and analysis of these "other" videos that allegedly show a "plane" "hitting" the south tower, one may conclude that the term "other" is subjective, deceptive and hardly conclusive as to being REAL, unaltered, or not containing fakery. But then, you give no specifics or examples with evidence supporting exactly how and where what you're saying is true. And this is one of the biggest mistakes MOST make and why MOST have a mis-understanding of NRPT and why its never been conclusively disproven... each video and context of all the evidence in totality MUST be examined in order to have a full understanding of this Psyop perpetrated by the MSM and US military PERPS.


Originally posted by smurfy
Something did exit the South tower from somepoint, maybe the remains of an engine.


or maybe the remains of a missle or explosive material being ejected.

however before claiming it was an engine, you need to have a better understanding of a boeings engine composition as well as an explanation for the lack of crash physics upon impact for starters.

saying it was "something" leaves far too many possibilities.


Originally posted by smurfy
What looks like the nose of an aircraft emerging is to me, just a large quantity of small debris and dust, enough to look like a form which could well have been tinkered with in other video showing the silhouette image into the sun, to assume the shape of a airplane nose.


First off, since when does debris and dust have any symmetrical or otherwise FORM, especially that of anything resembling an airplane nose as closely as it does?

the BLACK OUT "glitch" has yet to be properly explained or debunked which MUST be factored in due to the
coincidence/time of its occurrence in relation to this anomaly/nose out.

the video glitches all need to be explained or factored into ones conclusion as it pertains to cgi.

and what do you mean by TINKERED WITH?


Originally posted by smurfy
Look at "Steve Vigilante's" very clear video at the same moment and you can see the same thing flying across, consistant with other videos, except that you have to look very closely at the very middle bottom and almost out of sight, but it is there nonetheless. The thing is, SV's is also alluring in that it shows the North tower in a volatile reaction which is also open to interpretation visually, but is connected in some way to whatever hit the South tower. You decide.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


first, see the CLARITY of the SV footage? AND THIS FOOTAGE IS SUPPOSEDLY FROM AMATEUR EQUIPMENT... why is there NO CLEAR FOOTAGE of this caliber in any footage showing a "plane" hitting the towers? LIVE FOOTAGE from MSM equipment should have been at the level of clarity this video was in.

second, this SV footage reveals nothing about the NOSE IN NOSE OUT anomaly primarily because this to me is what REAL VIDEO clarity should look like and the MSM footage of the NOSE OUT has the anomaly because its fake or been altered via CGI... so using that SV vid to argue against the nose out, is impossible.


You don't know where I'm coming from, not that it matters that much. I, unlike Weed have some misgivings as to what actually occurred on 9/11. As far as I'm concerned apart from SS, tv companies will play with footage as is their want, just because they are news channels doesn't mean they give out as is. The big companies were getting a picture feed and most were the same pictures, although some stations pictures appeared different in colour and clarity than others. What I said about SV's pictures was that you can see something flying out of the south tower, but you have to look hard, and you will see the same thing in other videos from other angles and it is not anything elongated like a nose of an aircraft or a missile, it is quite squat, but that is how I see it. But there's the rub, why accept a missile or an airplanes nose, as you seem to be saying "closely as it does" and "since when does dust and debris have a form" of course it has form coming out of the tower when seen in silhouette, and even an elongated shadow to match, the point about the SV video is that it acknowledges just that. As far as CGI being acted on in a live feed, I don't know, sure they played about with contrasts and colour alright, Simultaneous CGI anybody know about that?? This thread is about no planes, where is the rationale for that in the first place? no matter what you may think about what actually made the towers fall... and any scenario is available, the one thing that makes it all coherent is the prescence of sacrficial aircraft.

edit on 30-9-2010 by smurfy because: text.





new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join