It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

page: 42
<< 39  40  41    43  44 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:16 PM

Why they didn't use planes 4/3/04
Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes"?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.
At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.
Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?

1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.

Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."

Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.

This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.

What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.

In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.

So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.

Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.

Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves...

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:19 PM

So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.
Now to the other problem.

Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.

Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.
This immediately splits into two sub-choices
1) Pilot them with suicide pilots

2) Remote control them.
The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.

Remote control.

Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.

1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard.

2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.

Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes.

Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.

And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.

And what are they going to find? Two choices. A plane with no-one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.
1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.

2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media, innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target.

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:20 PM

And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.

In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.
As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.
In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.

Sounds about right!

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:38 PM
reply to post by pshea38

Yeah, sounds about right to me too.

Using real planes was much more risky than using precision guided missiles with the videos layered with pre-recorded animations of a jet.

edit on 2-11-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:42 PM

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by septic

Forget it septic. I abstain. Proving me wrong is the least of your problems it seems.

Fact is there were hundreds of thousands of people in the downtown area that day. So you'll still need to prove that there were witnesses who didn't see planes. And then prove that their testimony is true.

Prove it chief, prove it.

You didn't see squat, and the fact is that hundreds of thousands of people didn't either. You and they saw jets hit the towers on TV, and TV only.

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:51 PM
reply to post by pshea38

This mess of nonsense is from one Gerard Holmgren, whose ulterior motives in this load of horse crap are as yet undetermined.

(OR, he is merely bat-spit insane). I will let others decide for themselves, once they read Mr. Holmgren's ravings, and compare with any number of proofs and evidences that shoot his baloney down in flames.

Meanwhile, here is a site that specifically addresses this particular brand of nuttiness and delusion:

The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?

.....The proponents of the no-767 theory discussed here are Gerard Holmgren, well-known for his analysis of the Pentagon crash and his ongoing compilation of evidence called "The Truth of Sept 11":
and Scott Loughrey:

I took an interest in this because I have been a professional video editor for 11 years. What I immediately noticed is that there are gross errors in most of the analyses of the video evidence. One of the reasons for this, in the case of the first strike, is that Holmgren and Webfairy used a poor quality mpeg movie from the internet to make their analysis.

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:54 PM
reply to post by septic

Why should I waste my time debating something for which there is no evidence? If you have anything besides speculation, I will consider debating you but I'd like something more than what you've showed so far or it will continue to be a matter of you denying all evidence that doesn't fit your theory.

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:58 PM
reply to post by septic

No no septic. You're completely mistaken.

I did see it. Heard it. Felt it too. Live and in person chief.

Deal with it

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:58 PM
The lesson of this thread:

It's always easier to assume your conclusions, but you will only persuade idiots in this way.

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 11:09 PM

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

Why should I waste my time debating something for which there is no evidence? If you have anything besides speculation, I will consider debating you but I'd like something more than what you've showed so far or it will continue to be a matter of you denying all evidence that doesn't fit your theory.

Why the reluctance? I have access to the same information you do. If all I do is deny evidence that doesn't suit me I will have blown my best chance to make my case, so why would I waste my time?

Besides, if ATS even allows it, it would be "scored" by ATS staffers who have a vested interest in keeping the lid on it anyway, so whatever the real outcome will be, you'll still win.

Come on, it'll be great.

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 11:10 PM

Originally posted by septic
Let me paraphrase:

I believe the planes were real on 9/11. People say otherwise. They are lying or deluded because I believe it is easier for a lightweight aluminum wingtip to slice a half dozen steel box-columns, a four foot wide spandrel, and the concrete floor; than for the media to lie. I know the planes were real even though physics says otherwise because the media don't lie. Because I believe the media and not physics, I know the eyewitnesses they showed us are genuine, because the media don't lie. Physics lies, scientists don't.

To clarify your post, which was starred for no particular reason, these are hardly my beliefs.

Here is a translation which better fits the way I see things:

I believe the planes were real on 9/11. Only a couple fringe people say otherwise. They are most likely delusional, because logic and reason dictate that the physics allow a high velocity, ie. high energy projectile to penetrate a relatively thin (in comparison) wall and continue forward with momentum. The media lies all the time, though they are not always aware of it. It is considered to be more like spin than lies, and each section of the media is fighting for the better story with more impact than the others. I know the planes were real because of witnesses and papers by MIT which provide mathematical support. I know the planes were real because they DO line up with physics, and the majority of scientists (some I have even conversed with, though they were not connected to any official scientific committee) agree that there was nothing impossible that day.

Now, surely you won't read into this and see me as some disinformation shill bent on stopping your truth from becoming accepted, but I know you will. After all, I'm just one young man, typing on a computer to argue what I think is right and attempting to stop people from coming to false conclusions. Obviously, I must have an ulterior motive specifically against you. It's all about you, one of the only people who seems to see things this way. I'll let you in on a secret. Crazy people think that they are sane, and that everyone else around them is crazy. When you start to think everyone else is against you, take a look around you and return to reality. You might be off your rocker.

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 11:12 PM
reply to post by Varemia

here you favorite post:

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 11:21 PM

Originally posted by septic

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I have already proven this picture is a fake using septic logic in a post quoted below.

This picture is fake it cant be real look at it. The INSTANT the nose came in contact with the concrete roof, the velocity of the missiles nose would have deminished, which would have immediately affected it's connected parts.. With the fuselage coming to an abrupt stop, or at best an abrupt deceleration, the wings' forward momentum should have been noticealbe as well. Why didn't the fuselage crumple and the wings and tail snap forward? Look at the wings how deep they cut into the concrete. Composite wings cant do that concrete is so much stronger and stiffer than fiberglass. And look at the nose it comes out of the other side of the concrete totally unscathed, not a scratch on it. Why didn't the nose just crumple up like a real missile would ?

Because it's a cartoon; not real.

Now I have even more septic logic to add. Lets imagine for a minute that it's not the missile hitting the roof at 280 miles per hour. But instead the roof hitting the missile at 280 mph.

Pretend the missile was hovering motionless and the roof came up and hit it at 280 mph. That would be exactly the same as the missile hitting the roof. And if that happened the missile would simply bounce off the roof and head off in the opposite direction at 559.42 mph. As small as the JASSM is it would probably reach escape velocity and enter a low earth orbit. And yes I do have the physics to back up that claim.

Fear of Physics

Also looking at the picture you will notice there are no explosions. The JASSM missile is powered by a turbojet engine, that means the missile was carrying jet fuel. The instant the nose of the missile touched the roof it should have exploded destroying the missile. But as you can see the missile continues on, disappearing into the roof as if it wasn't there, and no signs of any fire.

The only thing I can conclude from this is... JASSM missiles are fake and anyone who says they seen one is lying. The people in Afghanistan who say they've seen one are either mistaken a lier or a shill. The media has brainwashed them into thinking we have missiles, so every time something whizzes' over head and blows something up they just assume its a missile. THERE ARE NO MISSLES.No evidence for JASSM missiles exist. They are a myth.

Now that I've proven missile fakery using septic logic, there is only one thing you can do septic.

Put on your tap shoes and dance.

Here's some music to dance to.

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 12:11 PM
I slowed the vid way down. I can see the flash occur just a hair before the impact with the building if not at the exact time. It's hard to tell with the quality of the vid. However, what my eyes believe they saw, does not support the oxygen tank theory. Had it been the oxygen tank, I would expect the flash to originate from near the cockpit, where said tank is located. What I see, is a flash from the building itself. Initially, and up until now, I had seen it as the glash shattering and the resulting reflection of light. Slowed down though, the glass would not have shattered from impact yet. My eyes believe there was an external force involved.... Which if there was such external force, it could slightly change the crash pattern as well., I would think.

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by NorthernPheonix

The O2 tank is located under floor aft of the cockpit. The flash happens after impact and at the exact location of the tank.

Follow the steps below:

Step 1: Click the link I have provided for you below. It will take you to a frame by frame HD version of the Evan Fairbanks video.

Step 2: Type 16 in to the box marked "go to frame:"

step 3: click the button marked "Go"

step 4: after frame 16 has loaded click the button marked "Next".

step 5: after frame 17 has loaded click the button marked "Prev".

step 6: click the button marked "Next".

step 7: click the button marked "Prev".

step 8: repeat steps 6 and 7 as necessary.

All of the evidence points to an oxygen tank exploding upon impact with the building.

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 01:28 PM
I checked those frames, but the beginning of the flash that I am basing things off of is between those frames. I repeatedly watched between 2:15-2:19 on the video, even pausing/playing through the whole thing to catch every little bit. Though I would like to be convinces by those frames, I am not.

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 02:07 PM
reply to post by NorthernPheonix

Post a link to your video or at least give us its name.

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 05:03 PM

Originally posted by waypastvne

I have already proven this picture is a fake using septic logic in a post quoted below.

No you haven't, because you have no idea what that roof is made of.

We know what the towers were made of.

Different materials have different effects. That roof could simply be wood planks and tar for all you know.

If you happen to find out it was made from construction steel box sections, let us know...

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 05:16 PM

Originally posted by NorthernPheonix
I checked those frames, but the beginning of the flash that I am basing things off of is between those frames. I repeatedly watched between 2:15-2:19 on the video, even pausing/playing through the whole thing to catch every little bit. Though I would like to be convinces by those frames, I am not.


You can clearly see the flash happening after the nose is entering the building, and the engines on the plane pop too, with some bounced debris hitting elsewhere on the facade of the building. Isn't proof fun!

posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 05:44 PM
reply to post by ANOK

We're using "septic logic" in this thread at the moment. The rules allow you to deny any evidence at all, on the grounds that it contradicts your conclusion.

top topics

<< 39  40  41    43  44 >>

log in