It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mikem
What really bothers me is and what most people don't talk about it is building 7.. the third building that fell.. in free fall.. and if that building was a controlled demolition then the whole thing was a set up.
Originally posted by libertytoall
Originally posted by Alfie1
There are plenty of videos shot from closer, like this one :-
It is perfectly obvious that there was no explosion prior to the plane hit. Plus thousands of people were craning their necks to watch and would surely have noticed a vast explosion and fireball before a plane showed up
Originally posted by IamAbeliever
reply to post by ProudBird
Let me ask you something. Were you there? I was. That is not what I saw. The landing gear I saw was completely intact. It wasn't one dusty wheel. It was an entire, fully intact, PRISTINE set of four, not one but four, wheels.
Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.
After the Event:
Witnesses can be subject to memory distortions that can alter their account of events. It is of particular interest that the memory of an eyewitness can become compromised by other information, such that an individual's memory becomes biased. This can increase Eyewitnesses' sensitivity to the misinformation effect. Individuals report what they believe to have witnessed at the time of the crime, even though this may be the result of a fabricated false memory. These effects can be a result of post event information. It is very important to provide witnesses with helpful response options on memory tests and to be warned of misleading influences that might affect how the memory of the event is recalled at a later time. Many employees, police force workers, and others are trained in post-warning, in order to reduce influences on the misinformation effect, which can be predicted before crime. In their studies, many researchers use eyewitnesses to study retrieval-blocking effects, which interfere with a witness’ ability to recall information. Misleading information prior to the event can also influence misinformation effects. However, retrieval-blocking methods can counteract misleading information in most cases. In addition, when eyewitnesses are given warning to avoid misinformation, more significant and accurate testimonies could be produced. Other studies also address how misinformation effect seems to amplify over increasing recall. Discussing events and being questioned multiple times may cause various versions of the testimonies. However, the earliest records prove to be most accurate due to a minimized misinformation effect.
Many mistaken identifications are the result of unconscious transference, or the inability to distinguish between the perpetrator and another person who was encountered in a different context. In many of these cases, the culprit is confused with a different person present at the crime scene. Implicit processing takes place during the event, in which the witness encodes the general features of innocent bystanders, creating a sense of familiarity. At retrieval, this familiarity could cause people who were merely present in the crime scene to be confused with the culprit. After viewing a video of a crime involving a thief and two innocent bystanders, participants were asked to identify the perpetrator from a lineup including the three persons present in the video and three other people never before encountered. Most participants falsely identified an innocent person from the lineup. Furthermore, participants were more likely to misidentify one of the two innocent confederates in the video than one of the three unfamiliar people. Unconscious transference occurs in this instance when the witness misattributes his or her sense of familiarity of the perpetrator to a bystander. This confusing effect of familiarity is found in the mug shot procedure as well. The presentation of mug shot arrays alone does not seem to influence identification accuracy. However, this presentation can be influential if the police lineups include individuals who were earlier featured in the mug shot array. Individuals appearing in police lineups that also appeared in previous photo arrays may be identified as quickly as identifying the actual target. Therefore, in cases where a suspect is identified from mug shots following a line-up, it is uncertain whether the line-up identification is a result of the recognition of the perpetrator or of the detection of a person seen previously in mug shots.
Originally posted by BrianOrion
My question about this footage is this:
Q) Why didn't any of the crew in the helicopter see a 'plane' approaching the WTC?
You would think that one of them would have seen the 'plane' or at least seen something 'hit' the WTC? Not a single word from any of the people in the helicopter about a plane???
The plot thickens...
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by BrianOrion
One needs to understand human nature. People react differently, and some get a sort of "tunnel vision" that filters out everything else when something crazy is happening, just like here. Maybe they werent looking right it all the time, maybe they were looking somewhere else, or were trying to gather notes. There are so many variables that is is foolish to believe that just because YOU see it, doesnt mean others can, or can notice it.
Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by Human_Alien
those pleasure boats were evacuating half a million people from that area.. So they say.. I do find it odd the lack of views from the "2nd planes" angle. No helicopters... Its as if they were aware and didnt want to get in the way?
Originally posted by guitarist
If you freeze the video at 2:14 and scroll forward past 2:15, 2:16 you can see the black dot in a square box of a different color as if it was added in, the pixels are different from the surroundings, dosen't mean it was but looks like an obvious paste of footage, unless it was highlighted during editing but it also disappears to abruptly.
The dot is coming in at a very steep downward angle also at a high rate of speed. The explosion comes out straight and not at an downward angle as the debris should be heading, As the angle of decent of the dot and the debris should be the same but aren't
But is tough to determine from the angle and the film. i was on the Queens side in long Island City when it happened on my roof with a clear view of the buildings but couldn't see the 2nd plane since it didn't hit on the side of my field of vision plus i was at a distance from my point to WTC, is about 21/2 miles.
Just my observation of what i see in the video.