Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
74
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
This video is the one that makes me really wonder.
It is the second impact.
And the one from the local news. Before the airwaves were taken over by the national media.
Do you hear the anchors? Do you see any airplanes?

There is a small "something".
And a huge explosion.

The engineers' commentary also makes sense.

www.youtube.com...




posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CiphorWhat? Are you miss-quoting my name in your reply? I don't think missiles did anything. Where did you get that from? And if your talking about missile/pentagon theory, It was not televised, all we saw was the aftermath and a clip so blurry that I could argue the case it was a flying pitchfork.

I apologize for not being clear.

Originally, I wanted to agree with your assessment, but then I also wanted to show you a conundrum in the original post. My mistake.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by thegoodearth
 


That's cool and all. However you are saying that dismisses everyone else who clearly saw a commercial plane hit both buildings? A youtube video dismisses thousands of eyewitness on the scene and billions of home viewers like myself? I watched the second plane hit Live. It was a plane. You could show me a video of the rocket missile recorder tapped to the tip of the rocket as it rode all the way into the building... it still would not even come close to dismissing everyone who saw the plains in broad daylight. All the people on the planes etc. I could go on forever but it really doesn't take much to prove how utterly insane this idea is. I hate to be blunt, but you are gullible. There I said it. Sorry but it's true. You can always change, live and learn.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


No worries, half my replies on this thread have been jokes and sarcastic so I wouldn't take anything from this topic serious.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I have seen a video in Youtube about a guy who analyzed the videos released (sorry I can't find the video now). His conclusion was that a ball of sphere hit the twin towers and a plane was superimposed on it. There was a video from NBC (I think) in which a ball of sphere was going to one of the towers (they might have forgotten to edit this video). Yes, 3d hologram was already available at that time. It is not surprising though. That is the reason why there was something that looked like a bomb at the bottom of the plane. That is the only real thing there while the plane was just a hologram.

edit on 18-9-2010 by wavemaker because: (no reason given)



edit on 18-9-2010 by wavemaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
If we are going to use YouTube videos, here are some clips that were shown on television:

WTC Plane #1
WTC Plane #2
As you can tell from the clips, they were both hit by a plane.

Clear shot of the second plane hitting the second tower can be seen in this news clip. (0:56) seconds into the clip.


edit on 18-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I don't know why anyone would seriously debate this. The poster is either immature and lacking wisdom, severally gullible, or disinfo disease.

None of these people can be reached by logic. If they could be reached by logic it would have probably happened already. I say post a picture of a smurf, say papa smurf did it, and move on. Debating them makes them feel like it might be legitimate, when the rest of us know it is absolutely absurd.

How did this get 30+ flags and make it to the top? Seriously. Embarrassing for ATS *facepalm*

edit on 18-9-2010 by Ciphor because: (no reason given)



Well if I had to guess the OP simply just believes what he was told by someone who is professional disinfo. That's the thing with good disinfo... some people will actually believe it. Very few are actually "on the payroll", those who are paid are very good at what they do, those who follow them are the ones who actually believe. That is why you see 30+ flags on this thread. Some people will believe it if you make it "sound" believable. The majority inherently KNOW there is more to what we saw and more to what we were told in regards to the events of 9/11. I KNEW it when I saw it happen on TV, but yet.. I couldn't tell you at that time WHAT was wrong or WHY. That took some actual research it, but some how... some way.. I KNEW something was wrong.

Btw- LOVE the Marvin the Martian pic... classic



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Maybe one question you have to ask is how in the world have those two planes elude the radar of the US military? US warplanes would have intercepted those planes had they been seen on the radar.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by space cadet
 


Another Gov Op's post to discredit all truthers - even when the practical and tangible evidence has been presented but ignored.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by wavemaker
Maybe one question you have to ask is how in the world have those two planes elude the radar of the US military? US warplanes would have intercepted those planes had they been seen on the radar.

We live in a complacent society. Since we think our borders cannot be crossed by evil people, we were not always thinking that someone can exploit such vulnerabilities.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by wavemaker
I have seen a video in Youtube about a guy who analyzed the videos released (sorry I can't find the video now). His conclusion was that a ball of sphere hit the twin towers and a plane was superimposed on it. There was a video from NBC (I think) in which a ball of sphere was going to one of the towers (they might have forgotten to edit this video). Yes, 3d hologram was already available at that time. It is not surprising though. That is the reason why there was something that looked like a bomb at the bottom of the plane. That is the only real thing there while the plane was just a hologram.

edit on 18-9-2010 by wavemaker because: (no reason given)



edit on 18-9-2010 by wavemaker because: (no reason given)



lol that was funnier then when I said it was marvin the martian. Oh, wait. You're being.

You're being serious right now? SHHHLLLLL alrighty then. flying orbs, holograms, photoshopped missiles, this debate is really heating up! Next up: It could not have been missiles, it was H.A.A.R.P. They bounced it off the moon and edited the laser beam out. This is going to be my theory. I like it. Discuss. I will have a picture with the evidence later when I get home to my laptop with photoshop.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I would like to submit this as further evidence that Martin the Martian is to blame. Here is the proof!!!





Sorry I couldn't resist



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Let me solve something for you: airplanes hit the towers. You know how I know? Because 8.4 million people watched it happen in front of their eyes while the 300 other million Americans watched it on tv on numerous channels. But besides that, more evidence proves that it was an inside job rather than outside. That much I'll give you.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


complacent society - that's funny

Almost as funny as running military drills - that day - 9/11

Military drills based on hijackers hijacking planes and flying them into high profile targets - on 9/11

How convenient! That is what it was - convenient, not complacent.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I think it is absurd to say that the two towers were not hit by planes. It is just not possible, given that everyone was watching the skies after the first impact.

I also think that the videos are ok. For example, I don't think there is anything wrong with the nose out video, since there is another much clearer video from a different angle that clearly shows the nose out of the building.

There is also nothing wrong with the video that shows the 2nd plane coming from above: it's simply perspective fooling the eye.

The real issues are other:

1. how come people with boxcutters could overpower the veteran pilots and the crew?

2. why there was no red alert after the 1st impact?

3. why the WTC7 fell down so easily, given no plane impact on it?

4. Is it a coincidence that PNAC has published a book one year before 9/11 saying that it would take a new Perl Harbor to provide the basis for American strategy in the 21st century?

5. why is there no at least somewhat clear video from the Pentagon impact?

6. how come the Pentagon was unguarded and allowed an incoming plane to impact it?

7. how could people talk to their peers through cellphones on flight 93, given that cellphones don't work on a plane?

8. how come the next day the US government knew Bin Laden was responsible?

9. what happened with the airliner stocks the previous day?

These are some of the hot questions that led me to believe 9/11 was a coup. It is not the silly no airplanes theory. I wish people stopped with that nonsense and focus on the real questions!

edit on 18-9-2010 by masterp because: grammar



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
Is it just me or has the "no one listens to Dr. Judy Wood" threads really just kick into high gear in the last couple weeks?

Allow me to explain something to you OP....

It doesn't matter. Not one bit.

Now allow me to explain why I say that. People who are for 9/11 truth are more interested in having a NEW INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION of the events of that day. They are not out trying to promote one theory over another. A new investigation should be the goal. A new and real investigation into the events of 9/11 will tell us what really did happen. All this speculation serves no purpose at all except to divide everyone and keep them bickering over theories. That's all it does. It doesn't matter if you believe in DEW, Holograms, CD, or Government involvement. None of it makes any real difference. What does matter is getting a new, independent investigation.



Now this video is making a big deal of the fact that this witness did not see a plane, or in fact that there is no talk of a plane hitting the WTC Tower. Now it is my belief that this video is entirely misleading. How many people do you know who walk down the street and stare straight up at the top of buildings? I don't know any. Before they look up, something has to grab their attention and CAUSE them to look up. So why is it a shock that no one looked up and saw a plane? Why is it shocking to anyone that no one looked up until AFTER the first plane impact and resulting explosion? That seems very reasonable to me.



I beg the differ. I have gone to NYC every year from 1990 to 2001. Everytime I was there, no matter where I was, I spent alot of time looking towards the WTC. I seem to have been obsessed with it. So for someone to just look up, that not really strange.

Once again people throw in subtle talking points that have no basis. just like the, "someone would have seen someone planting explosives" arguement. You cannot ASSUME that someone wouldnt look up unless something attracted their attention up. You can ASSUME things like, if a building falls at near free fall speed, that something brought it down. You cannot ASSUME that someone would have seen someone planting explosives. You can ASSUME if someone lies about subtle details, that they lied about other details.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   













Too many eyewitness accounts...
Too many amateur videos...

Too important an issue to befuddle with bad information...

Even if you aren't a disinfo agent and truly believe in
the no-plane theory, you should abandon this tack
and find some other motivating evidence to pursue.

The no plane theory makes the entire truth movement
look foolish. There is too much corroborating evidence
to the contrary....



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Im not convinced about the no planes part, but the rest of Dr. Woods work is interesting. I think some sort of weapon apart from conventional explosives were probably used.

I find this sort of phenomena interetsing...

( Steel columns disintegrate into steel dust with WTC7 and water tower in the foreground)

Poof! and the steel turns to dust. Just this one on its own means nothing but Dr. Wood seems to have collected enough examples that im pretty much convinced. To explain all the crazy things like instant rust etc. and stick by the theory it is just explosives would require a crazy set of circumstances.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by polarwarrior
 


that steel disintegration just looks CGI k?

Please don't tell me that you believe that steel frames can just turn into dust.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by die_another_day
 


As an engineer, yes I do believe its possible. But like I said, that example on its own means nothing, nothing at all.






top topics



 
74
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join