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.

 

UA 175 Flight Paths Reconciled: No Inconsistencies Between Video Angels

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
These videos have been out for over a year, but seem to get little attention from No-Planers and Shack Huggers. The work on these is impressive. Achimspock's methods are thorough. The guy is genius, Basically he and some fellow independent 9/11 truther researchers over at pumpitout.com pinpointed the locations (geo-coordinates) of the cameras in various clips and then cross-referenced the positions of the plane in space and time among camera angles looking for inconsistencies. He then plugged all the data into a geo-referenced 3D model to check his findings . He found NO discrepancies in the flight paths among the various clips. If you haven't seen it, check it out:




edit on 30-11-2010 by brainsandgravy because: Fixed video link.




posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
S & F ......Great find.

You probably won't hear from the "no planers" but really, who cares? Thank you for brining these out here on ATS.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
S & F ......Great find.

You probably won't hear from the "no planers" but really, who cares? Thank you for brining these out here on ATS.


What do you mean Mike? You are one of the very few people I've ever seen bring up the idea of "no planes".
'



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 


That plane would be the most visible and filmed plane of 9/11..
If there's any doubt about actual planes it would be the other three....



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


I have NEVER bought into the no plane theory. You are mistaken. I have talked about it with a few others but I have never and do not support that theory at all.
edit on 11/30/2010 by mikelee because: Spelling...Too early in the morning : )



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Ok buddy, just keep on tellin' yourself that. The only time its really ever brought up is by you and your circle of buddies that use it to slander the so called "truthers". None of us actually believe that, we have said so countless times, yet in virtually every single thread there it is...from the mouths of babes.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Most no-planers I've encountered believe that the 2dn WTC plane footage, because of it's supposed abundance of anomalies and inconsistencies, contains the the most salient bonafied proof of T.V fakery and news media complicity in the 9/11conspiracy and cover-up.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
These videos have been out for over a year, but seem to get little attention from No-Planers and Shack Huggers. The work on these is impressive. Achimspock's methods are thorough. The guy is genius, Basically he and some fellow independent 9/11 truther researchers over at pumpitout.com pinpointed the locations (geo-coordinates) of the cameras in various clips and then cross-referenced the positions of the plane in space and time among camera angles looking for inconsistencies. He then plugged all the data into a geo-referenced 3D model to check his findings . He found NO discrepancies in the flight paths among the various clips.


....which proves what???

The geo coordinate work and analysis in this video are far more impressive that present more than enough overwhelming irrefutable facts and evidence supporting NRPT.





posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The guy who made these videos trying to prove no plane hit the South Tower is an incompetent woo-woo who lives in a world of tinfoil hat make-believe.But let him enjoy his five minutes of internet fame amongst his fellow woo-woos. It seems to be all that so-called "9/11 researchers" want these days.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by elnine
 


Sorry, but intelligent people can watch those videos and see them for the crap that they are.

The "richplanet" junk has been covered in other ATS threads. and torn apart already.

Like I said, smart people realize that the crux of his entire so-called "analysis" relies on using that one image, the long shot where, due to the illusion and the camera angle, it APPEARS that United 175 is descending at a steep angle in the final few seconds. Again, this is an ILLUSION, and is because we are indeed seeing a three-dimensional event...but in TWO dimensions, in the video.

When "Rich" calculated the "3D" trajectory (as the video shows his computer image camera "moving" around the building) the resulting trajectory "angle" is pure fiction.

He COMPLETELY IGNORES all of the other camera angles, that clearly are in disagreement with that "steep" angle he represents, in the computer "recreation". What total bollocks!!

The man is a con artist, pure and simple. A charlatan, preying on the gullibility that is so common, nowadays, in the uneducated masses. Either that, or he is just a delusional loon....lost his marbles. BUT, I think the first explanation is more likely....since, there's a HUGE market, and potential profit to be made, from the business of "9/11 truth".



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 

Achimspock's methods are thorough. The guy is genius,. . .

I would agree with that much.
Other than that, no.
He made a simulation that uses some approximations, and includes things he had surmised, but he does not claim it to be 100 % accurate. I applaud his effort and I greatly encourage that kind of work, but I do not think it is done.
This does not answer the question, as far as I am concerned.
Here's one; the "radar blips", what are those? Is it actual radar beams bouncing back to an antenna showing where a real, solid, big jumbo jet sized object was, or was it a signal picked up by a location transmitter.
My opinion is that the simulation is wrong. I will show you where that would be.

You notice that over on the right he does not show the corresponding video. The reason?
It does not fit. The plane, at this point in the video, would not be over to the right side of the black building that it is above. It is barely popping up from above that same building, but right at the center of it.
I am not knocking achimspock but he made a path that reconciled the data he had to work with and that is one way to do it, which is to start with the assumption that it is reconcilable and there was only one object being tracked.
If there were two objects and there were transmitters behaving in an odd sort of way, then no amount at trying to reconcile them will work. I think that, if anything, it confirms the eye witness reports that the plane that hit tower 2 was coming from the south and low, because the "dive bomber" plane does not match up.
I think what he was doing was to disprove the no-plane theory and here is another instance of how smart it was for Them to create this distraction of the "no planers".

edit on 13-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

The man is a con artist, pure and simple.


Or, insane.

More fudging around with what amounts to guessing.

I do think it is worth watching ONCE to just get your mind working to wonder
what was really going on.


edit on 13-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Like I said, smart people realize that the crux of his entire so-called "analysis" relies on using that one image, the long shot where, due to the illusion and the camera angle, it APPEARS that United 175 is descending at a steep angle in the final few seconds. Again, this is an ILLUSION, and is because we are indeed seeing a three-dimensional event...but in TWO dimensions, in the video.


I'm not knocking your post WW, I'm not a "no planer" but I'm just amazed at the amout of times this argument of it being an illusion is used in debunking...
What it is saying is, yes, you did see it but it wasn't what you really saw..
I just had to point that out



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


I think people should be careful quickly brushing off the 'no plane theory'

Now, I do believe planes were used, but purely because its so easy to aquire a boeing plane from the graveyards, paint it up and fly it in. It leaves little to no room for error.

But, in saying that, that sort of technology you'd assume is impossible, because you havent seen it yet.
Im sure people said the same thing about nuclear bombs in the 1800's, or stealh plane technology in the 1920's.

See what im saying?

There's technologies out there that would baffle the mind and make you doubt your very 'solid' understanding of the world around you.

We are only 9yrs past 9/11, and already technology has gone leaps and bounds. holographic technology? has been around since the 60's, who's to say it hasnt been re-engineered to achieve such a fete?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 

Just look at what the military is saying now about how
future wars will be fought with planes with no pilots.

How long do you think they would have been working on that
before they would be so bold as to show their hand?


edit on 14-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


exactly.

what we see now are relics.

anythings possible.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by elnine

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
These videos have been out for over a year, but seem to get little attention from No-Planers and Shack Huggers. The work on these is impressive. Achimspock's methods are thorough. The guy is genius, Basically he and some fellow independent 9/11 truther researchers over at pumpitout.com pinpointed the locations (geo-coordinates) of the cameras in various clips and then cross-referenced the positions of the plane in space and time among camera angles looking for inconsistencies. He then plugged all the data into a geo-referenced 3D model to check his findings . He found NO discrepancies in the flight paths among the various clips.


....which proves what???

The geo coordinate work and analysis in this video are far more impressive that present more than enough overwhelming irrefutable facts and evidence supporting NRPT.




The Richard Hall video is complete nonsense--hardly scientific.




posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 

Achimspock's methods are thorough. The guy is genius,. . .

I would agree with that much.
Other than that, no.
He made a simulation that uses some approximations, and includes things he had surmised, but he does not claim it to be 100 % accurate. I applaud his effort and I greatly encourage that kind of work, but I do not think it is done.
This does not answer the question, as far as I am concerned.
Here's one; the "radar blips", what are those? Is it actual radar beams bouncing back to an antenna showing where a real, solid, big jumbo jet sized object was, or was it a signal picked up by a location transmitter.
My opinion is that the simulation is wrong. I will show you where that would be.

You notice that over on the right he does not show the corresponding video. The reason?
It does not fit. The plane, at this point in the video, would not be over to the right side of the black building that it is above. It is barely popping up from above that same building, but right at the center of it.
I am not knocking achimspock but he made a path that reconciled the data he had to work with and that is one way to do it, which is to start with the assumption that it is reconcilable and there was only one object being tracked.
If there were two objects and there were transmitters behaving in an odd sort of way, then no amount at trying to reconcile them will work. I think that, if anything, it confirms the eye witness reports that the plane that hit tower 2 was coming from the south and low, because the "dive bomber" plane does not match up.
I think what he was doing was to disprove the no-plane theory and here is another instance of how smart it was for Them to create this distraction of the "no planers".

edit on 13-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


I believe you are mistaken. He shows the video as soon as the plane is visible in the frame. The pointer in the side video shows the location of the plane when it's out of frame.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

edit on 16-12-2010 by brainsandgravy because: Accidental double post.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


Sorry, Agit8d, but this is utter fantasy:


.... because its so easy to aquire a boeing plane from the graveyards, paint it up and fly it in.


NO!! It is not "easy" to just grab a jet from the boneyard (that's the American term for them, not 'graveyard'). This is such an off-hand remark, but is totally thousands of miles away from reality!

I mean, they aren't just sitting there, ready to go! Those that are in "storage" have many vital fluids removed (just look up recommendations for long-term storage of an automobile, for example!), and are configured to protect them from the elements, for the long term. Others that are parked in the boneyards have been scavenged....we call it "robbed".... of various parts, to use on other airplanes. Those are the ones that will never fly again...many of them are parked such that they're blocked in.

You also don't just "paint it up" in a day! It is NOT a car...a large airliner takes many days to paint...AND, did you know the rudders either have to be removed, and painted separately...or, special equipment used? The weight of the paint on both sides has to be equal, for proper balance. You can see this, when you look at photos of airplanes in the factory production lines at Boeing or Airbus --- the rudders are painted, then installed. Long time before the final paint is applied to the rest of the airframe...modern techniques have been refined, to speed painting a bit, IF they can keep it even on both sides.

Honest, the things people imagine.....this is WHY these silly "9/11 conspiracies" flourish! People have no idea, sometimes, that what they come up with as a "theory" is completely impossible and unworkable....

Example photos:

Airbus A-330s in factory:



(You see that Airbus is a bit different from Boeing...they paint the rudder AND the entire vertical fin).



And, new Boeing 787s on the production line, in the factory building hangar:



More about painting a jet: Process of Painting an Airliner.


"I saw UAL 747-400's get painted in about 10-14 days working 3 shifts.... I've seen Piedmont Dash-8 get painted in about 7 days. Keep in mind a lot of that is driven by the number of people you have working the job."


Just two video examples (search for others, if you wish):





So, somehow ALL of that is done "in secret"??

Oh, and here's a Wiki article on boneyards....en.wikipedia.org...






edit on 16 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join