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.

 

Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11? [HOAX]

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 



Secondly, I have seen the "Truthers'" evidence. It's garbage. It's mostly arguments from personal ignorance, quotemining, and trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

It's retarded to say the least.


Well if you don't wish to debate the information presented in the OP then I don't know why you even post in this thread..




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Any of you "truthers" care to comment on the Norday footage?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
Any of you "truthers" care to comment on the Norday footage?


What, was that in the OP??

That is what the thread topic is you know...
You are welcome to start a thread on another topic...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Okay so you guys think that the Norday footage is fake then?

Have you actually seen the whole documentory footage that the Norday brothers made and therefore seen the 9/11 clip in context rather than just an isolated clip?

I have, and nothing looks fake to me,

edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
reply to post by backinblack
 


Okay so you guys think that the Norday footage is fake then?

Have you actually seen the whole documentory footage that the Norday brothers made and therefore seen the 9/11 clip in context rather than just an isolated clip?

I have, and nothing looks fake to me,

edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


There's plenty to discuss in the OP..
How about doing that??



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Logical one
reply to post by backinblack
 


Okay so you guys think that the Norday footage is fake then?

Have you actually seen the whole documentory footage that the Norday brothers made and therefore seen the 9/11 clip in context rather than just an isolated clip?

I have, and nothing looks fake to me,

edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



There's plenty to discuss in the OP..
How about doing that??


Errr because if the Norday footage is genuine........and there is no reason to cast doubt upon it.....then it blows away the theory that NO planes hit the towers!

edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Okay alls gone quiet here:

So I say to all "truthers".......watch the Norday documentory in its entirerity, then try arguing that No planes hit the towers!



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Please watch the Purdue video again, and listen to the narration:


...the video you posted clearly shows the plane initialy enter the building over 6 or 7 floors..
It's not much of a stretch to think it was angled enough to take out 1 or 2 more..

Therefore the 8 floors quoted seems reasonable.


And, LOOK carefully. Especially the interior "camera" view, reverse-angle. It certainly does not encompass the "6 or 7" floors you stated.

@1:25. Again, @1:45, narrator says "...the two floors that sustained most impact damage...."


Recall, from the airplane line drawings of the interior arrangement, the majority of the mass exists centrally. This makes sense, when you think about it....The engines have to be supported by very strong structural members, since they are attached and provide all of the thrust for the entire airframe. Further, the Main Landing Gear struts, where they attach, are supported quite substantially. So, the main "core" of the airplane, and majority of mass, is roughly centered between the two engines. Outboard, the wing structure is progressively lighter, less substantial. ONLY as strong as need be, to do the job.

Remember, excess weight, above and beyond what is required, is not a desirable aspect of airplane design.

Looking again at the animation, you see the actual width of the main center of mass....even in the approximately 30 degree angle of bank, at impact, which gives it a slight vertical diagonal spanning the two floors that took the brunt.

The "8 floors" claim is a distraction, and as I noted, and exaggeration....intended to continually cloud the issue, and "boost" the stance of the person arguing this "no planes" nonsense.

Sorry, but it IS nonsense.

I see the continued discussion (false) of the engine core that was found. The lie that it was from a Boeing 737 still persists, to this day, and it is amazing to see it being trotted out, at this late point in the "no planes" game.

Astonishing......



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
reply to post by backinblack
 


Okay so you guys think that the Norday footage is fake then?

Have you actually seen the whole documentory footage that the Norday brothers made and therefore seen the 9/11 clip in context rather than just an isolated clip?

I have, and nothing looks fake to me,

edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


A favourite tactic used in debating is to misrepresent your opponent's position so as to provide an easy, bogus target to knock down. Advocates of video fakery don't claim that the complete film of the Naudet brothers was a fabrication. I saw the whole film and it was only too real, frighteningly so. They claim merely that the brothers were part of the 9/11 conspiracy in that their filming the daily work of the New York fire fighters was simply a cover for being in the right place to film what sounded and looked like a plane hitting the North Tower, when in fact, according to them, no plane was involved. I personally find this hypothesis preposterous. The footage shows a fire fighter looking up into the sky as the soundtrack becomes filled with the sound of a plane flying low almost overhead. Then the camera turns towards the North Tower. If there was no plane, the sound had to have been added later, in which case this particular fire fighter was an actor pretending to hear a plane. This seems highly implausible to me because it creates more problems, e.g., surely, the other fire fighters would have known if this actor had been added to their company and was appearing to have hallucinations! The alternative that they were ALL actors pretending to see a plane fly over is just as preposterous. The notion that the Naudet brothers fabricated this part of their film therefore does not stand up to scrutiny. Their film provides NO evidence for video fakery, as far as I am concerned.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Logical one, it is "Naudet", as in Jules Naudet. I discuss it in the first 15 frames of "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?", which I think you want to view. And Leslie Raphael has several extensive studies that explain why it appears to have been staged. Try, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged", www.serendipity.li...

reply to post by Logical one
 



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Come on! Surely no one is going to take an animation from Purdue seriously. You need to study the evidence I have presented and refute it, if you can, rather than cite an obvious fabrication of an imaginary event. Is that OK? You have to address the impossible speed, the impossible entry, the plane passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, the missing strobe lights, and all that. Switching to an animation isn't going to cut it. If you can't refute my arguments, you can simply admit it. That's just being honest.

reply to post by weedwhacker
 



edit on 5-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Hi everyone,

To the OP welcome to debunker land where words are put in your mouth which you didn't say and proper evidence is dismissed out of hand. It's called having the cake and eating it, I mean look at the evidence that has been presented by some on ATS, the answers are clear in my mind.

I do disagree with the OP's points about video fakery, the problem is even if footage is fake, not all of it was fake and fake footage does not equal no planes, but the problem is the theory even if correct sounds crazy and its all about the take down of the towers, an issue with much more science and evidence behind it.

Keep researching and telling truth to power



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
reply to post by backinblack
 


Okay so you guys think that the Norday footage is fake then?

Have you actually seen the whole documentory footage that the Norday brothers made and therefore seen the 9/11 clip in context rather than just an isolated clip?

I have, and nothing looks fake to me,

edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


Slight nitpick, but it's the Naudet Brothers.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
This is about the quality of response I would expect from some of the know-nothings who resist the truth about 9/11. Did you look at the first fifteen slides of my Powerpoint presentation, "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?" If you had, you would have learned that Flight 175, had it been a real plane, would have intersected with no less than eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4"-8" of concrete, which were connected to the core columns at one end to the external support columns at the other. The horizontal resistance they provided would have been enormous, since they represent about an acre of concrete apiece. When you consider the damage done by hitting a tiny bird in flight, it becomes apparent that anyone, like hooper, who buys into the official account of 9/11 simply does not understand either the design of the building or the basic elements of classical mechanics. Sorry, hooper, but if you wanted to demonstrate your ignorance of these issues, then you have hit a home run!


Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by JimFetzer
 



Neither the impact of United 175 with the South Tower nor the impact of American 11 with the North show the damage done to the steel and concrete


There was no concrete in the fascia of the towers.

Fail. If you can't get the basics just give it up.


Wow. That's the only nit to pick? I think you might have been the one to fail...


Are you in consruction or aircraft design ? You seem to think aircraft are fragile they have to carry passengers their luggage many tons of fuel and their own mass and fly at a few hundred miles an hour and also be able to bank and turn with all those forces acting on their structure.

You can see many videos on the net with softer objects passing through harder one think of martial artists breaking blocks and wood.

The concrete in the floors was a lightweight mix as was nothing like concrete that would be used in walls or foundations.

The open trusses would have not provided that much resistance either.

You also dont see your bird impact claim shots you in the foot the softer bird can damage a plane but you say the softer plane cant damage the building that proves you dont have a clue about what is happening.
edit on 5-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Okay thanks for the spelling correction guys!

Jim I have Googled but not found your partiucular video, but I have read what Leslie Raphael has said on the matter.

However Raphael only theorises that the Naudet film was staged......but he provides little to no concrete evvidence to back up his theory.

Now how is it that as micpsi rightly points out, that noone from the Fire Dept has cried foul?

Ahhh they must be all in on the plot then.......and just to give the plot some authenticity they risk their own lives and enter the towers even though they know full well the buildings are about to collapse!

And obviously the Naudet brothers who also knew that the building was going to collapse so instead of staying far from the danger area.....they rush to it and get footage from inside the towers.

I haven't had the opportunity to know your views Jim about the Naudet footage......but please explain the points that I have raised here.

edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



And, LOOK carefully. Especially the interior "camera" view, reverse-angle. It certainly does not encompass the "6 or 7" floors you stated.

@1:25. Again, @1:45, narrator says "...the two floors that sustained most impact damage...."


WW, I DID look carefully..I even went almost frame by frame..
YOUR video CLEARY shows the plane entering over 6-7 floors..I'm not sure why you are even debating a FACT shown clearly in YOUR video..
The REAL video shows the plane DISSAPEAR into the building so we MUST assume it sliced through ALL of them 6-7 floors..
What your narrator says is

the two floors that sustained most impact damage

NOT, the ONLY floors..!!!

It's ODD that you are even debunking your own video evidence..



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Dude, we aren't communicating properly here.

You are looking at the video, and the portions that show the exterior view...with the damage to the facade from the wings, as they entered.

That is ONLY the facade, for the most part, when it comes to major floor truss and concrete slab damage. LOOK at the angle of the airplane, at about 30 degrees of bank, and the section from engine to engine (as I keep mentioning). THAT was the main massive portion of the airplane.

Then, as I also mentioned, look at the interior "reverse angle" view of the virtual camera. The areas outside the engines, while certainly the wings had enough force to cause many connecting bolts of the exterior facade sections to snap, and caused other sorts of deformations, as seen.....the OP here was way overboard with the outrageous claims of "8 floors".....because it was written with innuendo, to "argue from incredulity" so the reader would scoff right along.

The true representation (at least to the limits of the computer programming....which, since physics IS a very well-defined discipline, and computing power is quite amazing, nowadays, is likely very similar to the actual event, overall.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Dude, we aren't communicating properly here.

You are looking at the video, and the portions that show the exterior view...with the damage to the facade from the wings, as they entered.


Yes WW, "as they entered'....

That means the Whole Plane, Wings INCLUDED, sliced through around 8 floors of the building..
They didn't "bounce off" or "splatter" into the facade...They ENTERED the building as YOU put it..
That means damage to 8 floors....
Just as the OP stated...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Just go to "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?'", archived at twilightpines.com... , and watch the first fifteen (15) frames. The report back what you found there. I offer that suggestion for those who are having trouble understanding why a plane like this--which would have a hole through its fuselage if it hit a tiny bird in flight--could not possibly have passed into the building without crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, and seats, bodies and luggage falling to the ground. Some parts, including the engines, would have been expected to pass into the building, but most of it would not have. Yet that is precisely what we see in the film: an impossible entry in violation of Newton's laws. Check it out. I want to be sure we all understand what I am contending, which is illustrated by those first 15 slides--including, of course, why the Naudet footage does not seem to show a real plane hitting the North Tower, either. More on that, too.

(To be continued)

reply to post by backinblack
 



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


As you are so incredulous about a Boeing 767 entering either of the Towers how do you account for the fact that a comparatively tiny B 25 bomber knocked a hole 20 feet high and 18 feet wide in the masonry, concrete and steel construction of the Empire State Building with debris passing right through. Here is some film :-

www.firefighter-emt.com...

By way of comparison between that 1945 event and 2001 here are some statistics. The bomber weighed approximately 22,000 lbs compared with 330,000 lbs for the 767. The bomber was estimated to be travelling at 200 mph compared with 500 mph plus for UA 175. The kinetic energy of the bomber collision was of the order of 40 million joules but UA 175's impact was about 4.5 BILLION joules.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join