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: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   
That was that old theory a couple people were pushing about "masking"
where some secret agents had supercomputers that manufactured
fake video that got superimposed in odd fragments over the news
broadcasts on 911. One of the tricks was comparing the Devin Clark
video from One Penn Plaza, from an office window (not live tv but
broadcast later when he submitted his video to the network) with the
video that was aired live, by CNN, which my investigation showed was
from Five Penn Plaza, where CNN had offices on the top three floors.
They just went out the penthouse and onto the roof to set up their
camera. Five Penn is a shorter building, so the roof of it was close to the
height of around the center of One, where Clark was. The proponents
of this theory like Simon Shack said it was the same video but just
tinted with a filter to change the color to make it look like a different
video. When you compared the two, you could see a building some
distance from the camera, and close to the World Trade Center, that
shifted from side to side, proving how there was this "masking" by a
secret intelligence organization inside the government, falsifying
the video, done on the fly in real time with secret computer technology.
Then I showed him the evidence and the identity of, and the correct
position of the so-called walking building and why it moves, and where
the two videos were made from, he said, "I can't let someone jeopardize
my research."
This same sort of theory is applied to the video of the towers, as seen
in the posts above, on this thread. I went to a lot of trouble creating
overlays that demonstrate how different the camera angles are, and
have posted it on this forum. I'm a little too tired of it to find it in my
archives right now but I could say that it is ridiculous and it is about
time people stop it and do some personal research and not believe
in weird theories meant to make real researchers look stupid.




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

Did you make this video?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 
That's funny.
That's Eugene, he finally ran across my videos after he made some on the same subjects.
Mine is really low tech and about a year earlier than his. Here's one:



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Nice. Too bad Simon Shack ignores such common sense.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by lord9

Originally posted by micpsi
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.


So why is it that you can show a shred of evidence to support that claim? The videos lay out a very concise and detailed analysis with evidence and facts to support their argument. Its just so funny you nor anyone can offer any intelligent line by line counter-argument showing exactly how their analysis is wrong. The only criticism those like you have is based on Opinions and ad homs or iow, Epic Fail


Here's something interesting I found regarding the Richard Hall video. In the opening of the video, Hall lauds Simon Shack and September clues and uses "evidence" discovered and presented by Shack upon which to base and formulate his own theory. So how does Simon Shack respond to the Richard Hall theory? On Shack's website he states this:

"If you wonder what the "BALL" is, you may wish to watch this fresh new theory :
www.richplanet.net...
(yet another attempt to make us think that any REAL CAMERA was involved in filming the events of 9/11)."

So according to Shack--the Richard Hall theory is irrelevant and meaningless since he regards the video footage in question as potentially "real" video (as opposed to 100% CGI).



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Weedwhacker linked up the Divebomber video on an earlier
post on this thread. There is another version available at
911conspiricy.tv which is a lot cleaner and you can see the
details better. Here is a link to download it. It's short and I
think only 2MB.
download.bbcmotiongallery.com...
The important thing is to watch the timer closely and see how
many seconds the plane is flying pretty much the same angle
as when it hits. Now compare it to this video and how long it is
flying at the same angle.

I did a little checking on that same site for where the video here (Jersey)
was taken and checked it with Google Earth to see if it matches.
This could have been taken from the control tower at Newark
Airport, so that gives you a perspective on the general direction
the plane was traveling in.
edit on 1-1-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I'm not sure what the big deal is. Some no-planers thought that the flight paths weren't consistent. I was never aware that belief was a staple of NPT. I never thought is was a good one because if the planes were CGI inserts, I'd think the perps would use computers to make sure they were all on the same flight path.

So at best, the video in the OP (if accurate) debunks a belief held by some no-planers, but doesn't disprove NPT as a whole.

BTW, the person who did the video in the OP, is that one of those truthers who is only seen trying to debunk other truthers, but never the official story? Got to wonder about those types.


.
edit on 1-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Weedwhacker linked up the Divebomber video on an earlier
post on this thread. There is another version available at
911conspiricy.tv which is a lot cleaner and you can see the
details better. Here is a link to download it. It's short and I
think only 2MB.
download.bbcmotiongallery.com...
The important thing is to watch the timer closely and see how
many seconds the plane is flying pretty much the same angle
as when it hits. Now compare it to this video and how long it is
flying at the same angle.

I did a little checking on that same site for where the video here (Jersey)
was taken and checked it with Google Earth to see if it matches.
This could have been taken from the control tower at Newark
Airport, so that gives you a perspective on the general direction
the plane was traveling in.
edit on 1-1-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Based on this clip, at what point or for how many seconds would you say the plane is flying at the same angle before it hits?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 

It seems to stay the same to me.
It twists a little as it gets close.
In that version of Divebomber I linked to,
it is easy to see it transition from a steep
descent, to a more level attitude.
So maybe I should have worded my
instructions a little differently.
How long is it flat in Divebomber
compared to the entire time the plane
is visible in the Jersey video?

edit on 1-1-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 

It seems to stay the same to me.
It twists a little as it gets close.
In that version of Divebomber I linked to,
it is easy to see it transition from a steep
descent, to a more level attitude.
So maybe I should have worded my
instructions a little differently.
How long is it flat in Divebomber
compared to the entire time the plane
is visible in the Jersey video?

edit on 1-1-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I believe the dive-bomber shot is deceptive. It was zoomed-in from a camera six miles away in Queens. This creates significant perspective compression--and, it's flying almost directly into the viewing angle of the camera foreshortening the perception of depth. There's also about 12 seconds from the time you see the plane come into the top of the frame until impact. That's covering a lot of ground at 500 mph. Also(in this video)--it looks to me like the plane is descending almost the whole time.


edit on 1-1-2011 by brainsandgravy because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2011 by brainsandgravy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
I'm not sure what the big deal is. Some no-planers thought that the flight paths weren't consistent. I was never aware that belief was a staple of NPT. I never thought is was a good one because if the planes were CGI inserts, I'd think the perps would use computers to make sure they were all on the same flight path.

So at best, the video in the OP (if accurate) debunks a belief held by some no-planers, but doesn't disprove NPT as a whole.

BTW, the person who did the video in the OP, is that one of those truthers who is only seen trying to debunk other truthers, but never the official story? Got to wonder about those types.


.
edit on 1-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)

I agree about those types. Plus they could be anyone, anywhere. Be vigilant.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I searched around on Google Earth at the photos people had contributed.
Here's a link to one that was taken somewhere at the airport that is looking
off to the World Trade Center. This can give a better idea of what we are
looking at in the the Jersey 911 video.
commondatastorage.googleapis.com...



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 
Nice work on the image, there.
While you were making that, did you notice how the size
of the plane changed? And can that help in determining
what sort of angle to the camera the plane's path was?
Take a look at the photo I linked to in my post above.
Do you think the flight path was skewed so that the right
side of it would be closer to the camera than it would be
if it was tangential to the radius of a circle centered on
the observer? If so, you would expect that side to appear
higher even if it was flying level.


edit on 2-1-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
This is one of the ways 911 research is a lot of work.
I am looking at that Google user contributed photo and
comparing it to the video and it seems to be too far
south to be a good match, even though this photo was
supposed to have been taken at the north end of the
airport. If that is so, then that kills the theory that the
video was taken from the Newark control tower.
I need to Identify this photo's place of origin and that
means identifying buildings and roads, like I said, a
lot of work. But that is what separates the real 911
researches from someone who watches a video and
then declares himself a researcher (just for the
information to the general reader of this forum).
edit on 2-1-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Just in case anyone is following this, I did find a spot in the photo on a map so the photo is where the little place mark is on Google Earth, which is the north terminal of Newark airport. This means what people have accepted up till now about where this "Jersey West" video was taken, is wrong.
Here's a capture of the w 63rd st overpass of 440 which is across the water in Bayonne, right in line.

Here is that same overpass in the photo which I am posting a crop of, showing the detail.

edit on 2-1-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join