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.
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.
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
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.
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
Originally posted by Orion7911
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
the nose didn't come out of the other side of the south tower.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb3953e10f0c.jpg[/atsimg]
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
Also could the planes have been gliding?
What would happen if the power to the engines were cut?
I just considered though that it would be irrelevant to cut the power to the engines for a "sneak" attack...
...if people heard the planes coming from 50 miles...
What my point is, people not hearing the planes has to be explainable...
.... one user has stated that New York is Canyon like.
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.
.... 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.
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.