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

page: 17
74
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


So I "claim"??

I post facts, and links to whatothers have done, as well.

Did you not care to watch the video link?? (Perhaps you're unable?)

Do you bother to actually research, and see the photos documented of airplane debris?? NO, better to remain denial, and in fantasy I suppose.....

The "no plane" nonsense is so ridicuous, it's amazing anyone still bothersattempting to argue FOR it.




posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GBP/JPY
 

wowww, and u sound so passionate about what u said AND your a pilot.
Hey, my mine is open to a lot of things and i am able to close allot of them, some in ease some it will take some time.
U know ! There was a news station i was looking at, and it said that out of the debris from the first plane hitting the towers this mysterious lady out the blue found Mohammed attar what ever his name is, {Wallet}, and originally that TO ME WAS THE START OF how his name popped up with him going to atm in the video they always.

That’s the one thing that always struck me very ..hmm,very suspicious the last airliner blatantly shot down and building 7 was the only thing that ever intrigued me.

WHO WAS THE WOMAN ?
And the funny thing is ,I cant find it any where.
But if some one ever finds it, how lucky can u be ,I mean, what are the odds of u finding the wallet of one of the high jackers ,in fact come to thank of it, the picture they always show of him ..is that same wallet,lol.

1. How did his wallet come out of the airliner ,the building ,through the fire of the airliner ,through the fire building and land on the ground as ifff, it’s a “Magic wallet”.
2. What knocked down building 7?
3. and ,the last airliner shot down.
and my new on look project will be..number 4.the melted glass at the street, the fake and ready and rehearsed expert witnesses,
rehearsed expert witnesses,
rehearsed expert witnesses,
rehearsed expert witnesses,
rehearsed expert witnesses,
I think basically if all this was true then that will ultimatly mean thateither alot of real families are rich or alot of families was ultimatly moved to another location,or they was all killed.
What happened to the people on the airliners..What happened to them to make all this come true.



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

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.


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



First, I have never before in my life remotely seen anywhere near the level of low res/quality dodgy and vastly extreme color schemes that was broadcasted supposedly LIVE on 9/11... another first that happened only on that day... gee what a coincidence. To say or describe the "pictures" which was allegedly LIVE and taken via equipment that supposedly employ a standard of resolution and clarity higher than most any others with amateur equipment was DIFFERENT, is at best, extremely naive or at least lacking in description most likely based upon lack of having actually seen and examined all the footage that was taken or exists.

Second, SV's footage shows absolutely nothing useful that can be used in a discussion as it relates to the NOSE IN NOSE OUT issue... all you see is some type of debris... thats not whats at issue in the Nose out debate... and the fact that you say there's nothing in any other video showing anything elongated like a missle etc, shows me you haven't seen all the footage that DOES show SOMETHING elongated... whether its the nose of an aircraft or missle isn't really the issue in a sense, but it DOES show something elongated protruding out and through within a debris plume and then disappears suddenly in a debris plume.

Third, once again, the SV "doesn't" show or acknowledge the nose out issue...only explosion debris... the form in question isn't seen in the SV footage!

Fourth, the FORM i'm describing has a symmetrical and/or "ORGANIZED" FORM... DEBRIS shadows are not ORGANIZED in that way... debris shadows etc are random and have a chaotic unorganized form.

Fifth, your comment and inference about not knowing what or if Simultaneous CGI exists or has any rationale behind it, shows me you haven't researched far enough into NRPT yet if you're asking such a question... I'll be happy to answer and point you to the FACTS, evidence and data that answer your questioin if you're really saying you haven't heard about the fact REAL TIME CGI can be done and was being done before 9/11 and even warned about the media being a military tool for such manipulation of propaganda. So you haven't researched or know about that? Realllly?



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

imean the story that the 757 missed the light poles but was able to get to level flight at ground level before skidding in....too many g's....and there are no scrapes on the concrete at impact site.....so, it's the swoop in there looking at the glass....it has strange energy patterns with heat look more later



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GBP/JPY
 



imean the story that the 757 missed the light poles but was able to get to level flight at ground level before skidding in....too many g's....and there are no scrapes on the concrete at impact site.....so, it's the swoop in there looking at the glass....it has strange energy patterns with heat look more later


AA77 hit Pentagon just above ground level - it actually struck a construction trailer parked outside fraction of second before impact


Eyewitness reports of the attack aircraft describe it as clipping lamp-poles and a generator trailer on its approach to the Pentagon. Post-attack photographs corroborate these reports, and show a pattern of damage fitting a Boeing 757.


Longer version of the srticle

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
it's not that no planes at all hit the buildings, it's that no commercial airliners hit the buildings. The first plane to hit the building left a white flash before it hit. The second plane can be seen as having a tracking device aimed at the building, the pentagon hole is too small for a commercial airliner, as well as the shanksville hole.

Fact: everyone saw 2 planes hit the building, but in all instances, the plane was seen so quickly it can not be confirmed to be a commercial airliner, eye witnesses disagree on what they saw, some said it looked like a military jet. All anyone saw was two planes that looked like commercial airliners, no evidence they were in fact commercial airliners.

Fact: the forensic evidence of pentagon and shanksville suggests the planes were not commercial in nature.

edit on 1-10-2010 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifENcircleS
I watched the second plane hit with my own eyes from the street corner in New York City on 9/11! I can tell you for an absolute fact that an airplane did indeed hit the tower. I would now like to take this moment and agree with a statement from the post that says that the "no planers" are part of the disinformation"ers". However on the conspiracy side I am positive that explosives were used in some way or another because an airplane could not take down those towers. Even if the airplane was packed with explosives the towers would not have crumbled to dusk in mid air the way they did. Thank you for your disinfo and goodnight.

LifENcircleS

Did you see the AA logo and windows on the aircraft? Mention that and the noplaners might go away.



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Everything you wrote is wrong....


Fact:


FALSE


Fact:


FALSE



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Considering the fact that there is the speed of the plane as well as the speed of sound, people at street level could have missed even the tiniest of gap to here the jet engines before the sound also got overwhelmed by whatever happened to TWTC. Also could the planes have been gliding?



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911



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


I just love how conspiracy theorists love to point out video evidence they find on the internet as SOLID proof to anything.



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


Exactly!!!!
How many of the victims families and friends are in on the secret as well? Cuz if it was my dead husband, I WOULD LIE FOR NO MAN, especially the goverment.

OP, you know where the allegations of conspiracy started don't you? The theory that Jews blew up the trade center came out of the Middle East immediatley after and just spread like a disease across the globe. I'm always amused and saddened how over the years, truthers keep changing the story when they're proven wrong.

This past 9/11, I watched the live playback of that day on MSNBC, the whole thing, and heard all these comments like a policeman saying to a reporter that there were car bombs, well he did say that was a possibility, but he also said "we're not sure if they are exploding due to the fires, we just don't know right now." There were many examples that are now being used as evidence by the truthers that were obviously just random reports coming in amongst the kaos. There was a report that morning that a car bomb exploded in DC outside the capital, FALSE, didn' t happen.

I am ashamed of Americans that think the gov. did this to start a war so we can take all the oil. Are you people delusional? What makes you think the gov. needs a reason to do anything? If they wanted war, there would be a war. They would not need to attack the Pentagon, NY twin towers, and crash a plane in a field (or what ever ya'll are saying hit there now) to go to war. They do as they please, or have you not noticed that, especially now days. Oh, and where's all that oil we're stealing? Oh yes, still beneath the Iraqi's feet. We are paying to rebuild everything, as we should, and last time I checked, it's not an American leading their government. So much for taking and conquering Iraq.
Please let the victims RIP.



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by kykweer
 



Also could the planes have been gliding?


"Gliding" is a relative term. However, not in the sense that (I believe) you mean, here.

The engines were operating, and were developing high thrust. If you wish, you can compare to a NORMAL airline flight when, during descent from cruise, in preparation for arrival, you ARE actually 'gliding'....in the sense that the engines have been pulled back to their lowest in-flight settings. We call that "flight idle" (because, there is a lower setting, for most modern jet engines..."ground idle". The minimums, that is, the rotational speed minimums, at "idle", of the primary components are increased slightly in the "flight idle" settings....and the engines "know" this (actually, the various controls that are responsible for engine operation, mostly computerized nowadays....much like a modern automobile is) "know" through something called "Ground/Flight" logic. Basically, mechanical switches, primarily installed on the Landing Gear....both Mains, and also the Nose Gear....they sense the compression of the oleo struts (think, again, of the automobile. The "shocks" on a car are comparable to an airplane's landing gear strut design).

"Flight Idle" is slightly higher than "Ground Idle" for several reasons...one, is to prevent flame-out in the dynamic in-flight environment. Also, to allow the engine to respond more quickly, when the power levers are advanced, and power is needed. The higher idle settings used in flight, though, would result in higher taxi speeds on the ground...and more brake use (you can, again, compare to the car, with the engine's idle set too high)....



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks that was pretty technical, just to make sure i understand, the engine idle of the jets when in air could be compared to an automotive when it is in neutral and have higher revs? What would happen if the power to the engines were cut? Thats what i was wondering

I just considered though that it would be irrelevant to cut the power to the engines for a "sneak" attack for unless John McClane was patrolling the streets of New York for if people heard the planes coming from 50 miles or 1 there was no way to stop it anyway and if the engines were cut it would make an accurate hit of the twin towers an amazing pilot feat lol.

What my point is, people not hearing the planes has to be explainable, I'm sure more people were aware of the second plane over the first for they will be aware of the skies. Also there will be a significant difference to sound from hearing a plane fly a high altitude over Mid city New York and flying a low altitude as one user has stated that New York is Canyon like.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   
To say that airliners did not impact the twin towers is beyond absurd. There is home footage that shows the second impact...not to mention many eye witness testimonies from regular folks...including NYC natives. Claiming airliners did not impact the WTC is just a big fail and ridicules the 9/11 truth movement.
This is nothing, but a distraction from the facts.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by kykweer
 



What would happen if the power to the engines were cut?


By "cut" I assume you mean "shut off"? Well...actually, in terms of the engines, and the gliding performance of the airplanes...if engines are completely "shut down" inflight (this would only be due to a lack of fuel flow, whether intentially shut off by the engine start switches, or because of fuel quantity exhaustion. (This has happened, at least three times I can think of, off-hand. United DC-8 in Portland, Oregon. Tragic story. Air Canada B-767, dubbed the "Gimli Glider" after the incident, and then somewhat more recently another Canadian airline, Air Transat, had a major fuel leak, in an Airbus A-330....they landed safely in the Azores. Lucky, being overwater, that they could make an airport. VERY lucky...). Of course, engines can (rarely) suffer substantial mechanical damage....USAir 1549, in the Hudson, for example.

Anyway, whether the engines are "running" in idle, or just hanging out in the breeze not getting fuel and flame, it is much the same...since they will continue to spin. It's called "windmilling", for obvious reasons.


I just considered though that it would be irrelevant to cut the power to the engines for a "sneak" attack...


Yes, since the sound wouldn't be that much different....if that was what you were going for. Remember that light (eyes) travels much faster than sound (ears). So, a fast-moving airplane will usually be seen (if seen at all) before being heard.


...if people heard the planes coming from 50 miles...


No, not unless you have Superman's hearing ability, you won't hear it at 50 miles. Can you hear a jet flying overhead, when it's at cruise altitude? That's six to eight miles above you, usually. (I guess, in a really quiet setting, like in the wilderness, you might barely hear them....).

But, as I was also going to mention, the engines do a lot more than just provide thrust to pull the airplane through the sky.... but you can read about that in the articles linked.


What my point is, people not hearing the planes has to be explainable...


I believe I just did.


.... one user has stated that New York is Canyon like.


ONLY if the sound source is below the tops of the majority of the buildings will there be a pronounced "echo effect" as suggested, like in a canyon.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by kykweer
 



Anyway, whether the engines are "running" in idle, or just hanging out in the breeze not getting fuel and flame, it is much the same...since they will continue to spin. It's called "windmilling", for obvious reasons.


Yeah it will still make a very loud noise


I just considered though that it would be irrelevant to cut the power to the engines for a "sneak" attack...



Yes, since the sound wouldn't be that much different....if that was what you were going for. Remember that light (eyes) travels much faster than sound (ears). So, a fast-moving airplane will usually be seen (if seen at all) before being heard.


I agree. I made reference to that in an earlier post.


.... one user has stated that New York is Canyon like.



ONLY if the sound source is below the tops of the majority of the buildings will there be a pronounced "echo effect" as suggested, like in a canyon.


So in my "canyon like" reference I meant, that if ur on street level the sounds will reflect off the incredibly high buildings with traffic and all that there is a very little chance that you would hear anything going on about the same level as the top of the twin towers. To which you said and what I actually tried to say.



edit on 5-10-2010 by kykweer because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-10-2010 by kykweer because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-10-2010 by kykweer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


"ONLY if the sound source is below the tops of the majority of the buildings will there be a pronounced "echo effect" as suggested, like in a canyon."
Weed, sound is multidirectional and also effects resonance to its surroundings, that includes echo and reverberation.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


sound tavels at 1100 fps.
an airplane travelling 500 mph is going @750 fps.

you would hear the plane before you see it.
the sound wave is travelling faster than the plane.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by smurfy
 


sound tavels at 1100 fps.
an airplane travelling 500 mph is going @750 fps.

you would hear the plane before you see it.
the sound wave is travelling faster than the plane.


Light. Moves. Faster. Than. Sound.

That is all.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


light travels at 386.000 miles per second..
sound travels at 1100 feet per second.
palne going 500 mph is travelling at 750 feet per second.

Standing on the street in New York it is very improbable that you woule ever see a big enough piece of sky, except if you were looking straight down a street.

so the noise fron the pane arrived to stimulate their sense of hearing prior to their visual sense being stimulated by the plane.

Hardly anyone on the ground in NYC could see the plane, but they sure could hear it.

The videos of the plane impact were for the most part shot from an elevation and a distance.
There are a few that people were in the right place to video the final trajectory of the second plane.

The sound would have alerted people on the ground of a plane about half second before they could ever have the chance to see it.



new topics
top topics
 
74
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join