Originally posted by Djarums I recused myself from any "moderating" actions regarding this topic long ago because of the fact that I live in downtown Manhattan and personally eyewitnessed the second plane smashing into the tower. So, in light of that, I have always refused to take any staff action on these threads.

Originally posted by Djarums As for my personal opinion, keeping in mind that I was there that day and saw and heard much of what people have decided to write articles about based not on "seen and heard" but on their own theories, I only know what I saw. I know I saw a monster fireball blast out of the front of the second tower.

The second hit I saw personally. For those of you familiar with manhattan I was standing on Madison street with a rather clear view. Obviously from my angle the plane was not visible, but the explosion sure as hell was.

The first comment was placed by Djarums in this thread. The two others were made previously.

So why would you come on a no plane thread to debunk it, specifically mentioning seeing a plane hit, when you have specifically mentioned not seeing a plane hit in the past?

Why would an honest reliable person do that?

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I saw a reference to this, perhaps in Ace Baker's video, where it was alleged that these scenes were purposely shot at less than the highest definition as an aid to creating the fake effects.

That's counter to what is needed to create "effects."

Editing suites need high-quality footage in order to create effects, especially in real time as what many claim.

Ace Baker needs to engage in some real research.

I don't think anyone in this thread has pointed out yet that Ace Baker missed something very important in several of his 'The Key' videos.

In The Key, at around the 5 minutes mark while showing the Chopper 5 wide-angle shot he states:

"Wait a minute. Is something missing here? With the camera zoomed in, now it looks like the chopper is arriving at the scene. Seems that we weren't supposed to see that wide shot. And that's because there's no plane in it...
The plane should be visible for over five seconds. That's 340 separate images. And there is no plane."

A plane is visible, but not in most of the YouTube videos. If you go to the source video, which is a slightly higher resolution, you will see an image (plane) moving towards the towers for the five seconds that Ace was referring to.

So either Ace isn't aware of the higher quality video, or is and chose to ignore it.
If he isn't aware of it he needs to be advised.
Either way, the videos should be updated to make this correction because it's quite central to his pitch.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by waveydavey
Why are 'no plane theories' a no no on ATS?

Because every attempt we see is ridiculous amateurish attempts to interpret the artifacts and dropped frames of heavily compressed low-resolution digital videos as absolute reality and evidence. Laughable.

In many previous threads about the subject, I've often stated the following, or something similar: If anyone creates a detailed analysis that proves any video manipulation or questions regarding the passenger jets over Manhattan the uses original full-definition uncompressed source material, I will personally pin it to the top of the ATS home page.

As someone with deep (seriously deep) experience in Digital Video (creating reference material for developers dating back to 1994) from its beginnings to contemporary tools, techniques, and compression techniques -- none of the "no planes" analysis videos I've seen are to be taken seriously. As soon as we have one that can be, you have my promise I will do what I said I will.

That's called censorship. You are dumping it because of your opinion, not based on facts. None of the fake plane footage can be taken seriously in a real world debate because there aren't any fakes that resemble what a real boeing looks like.

Originally posted by Crakeur
why is it that the no planes theorists never want to discuss the eyewitnesses, such as Djarums, myself and the thousands upon thousands of people who lived in the city that day or worked in the city that day and were staring up at the actual buildings or out at the actual buildings?

y'all come in here and bemoan ats for labelling this aspect of 9/11 a hoax and you call us disinfo agents, shills etc when, in reality, it would seem that the people who doctor these videos and the folks who continue to press the tall tale that we all hallucinated the airplanes, hallucinated the sound of the plane as it roared over lower manhattan, hallucinated the quake of the impact etc are more likely to be the ones with an agenda.

it serves a greater purpose to come up with something as ludicrous as no planes as it does to deny the silly tale. I'm of a belief that there has been, and clearly continues to be, a concerted effort by some group, to distract the public from the real issues of that horrible day.

The no plane theory, the hologram theory etc are all planted into the public eye to make anyone and everyone who questions any aspect of 9/11 appear nuts. If you remove the nutty theories and, yes, no planes is nutty, you might actually wind up finding answers.

Instead, you have these groups of people who spread this garbage and watch the entire pool get tainted.

That's false. The no plane truth is provided by simply looking at the best live footage, chopper 4. No plane was recorded in that footage.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
There are many people in some 9/11 videos that claim they experts in this or that, some even have valid credentials, and they do support alternative 9/11 theories...but they are shunned. Why would your "expert" opinion be any more important than theirs to me...or to anyone?

Can you explain why those "experts" aren't using high-quality original source videos for their analysis?

No "expert" would rely on YouTube videos for evidentiary analysis.

I rely on youtube videos and what those witnesses said, especially in the live recordings. No one filmed a plane for either tower.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
It's actually quite simple.

We can't prove a negative. So far, nobody, and I do mean NOBODY has been able to prove the no-planes theory.

As they haven't used any High Definition, full lenght sources to do analysis. As pointed out by SO, they've used low quality, hardly "evidence" and cut short videos to prove their "Hoax" as being truth.

Incredible claims, require incredible evidence, which has not been provided.

Hence the hard line stance IMO that is actually appropriate for this particular issue.

~Tenth

It's actually quite simple. NO BOEINGS WERE FILMED BY ANY PERSON ON 911.

NOBODY can prove a negative. So far, nobody, and I do mean NOBODY has been able to prove the PLANES theory.

As they haven't used any High Definition, full length sources to do analysis. As pointed out by SO, they've used low quality, hardly "evidence" and cut short videos to prove their "PLANE Hoax" as being truth.

Incredible claims, require incredible evidence, which has not been provided.

Hence the hard line stance against the debunked plane myth.

I got my headphones out ready to watch the video and its been removed