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 Skywatcher2011
Originally posted by filosophia
The video seems to have captured the non-impacted side of the building, so maybe the plane is shielded by the building? It is hard to tell if it is a plane moving along or just traffic. My question is, if the video shows the wrong side of the building, why confiscate it? That is just fueling the conspiracy theories.
After taking another look, even if the video is filming the wrong wall, there is no way a huge jet couldn't be seen. Plus the video seems to be edited, the black car goes backwards after going forward. No trusting it after the feds got a hold of it.edit on 26-11-2012 by filosophia because: (no reason given)
There was no plane wreckage discovered at the Pentagon dude...WAKE UP ALREADY!
Originally posted by Philippines
To transcend all of this, I find it very odd that anything was allowed to be that close to the pentagon and not shot down, especially since the first plane struck WTC 1 at 8:28 am, and then the pentagon was hit at 9:37 am, and then the FAA orders all aircraft to be grounded at 9:40am, after the last crash.
Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by WoodSpirit
Wasn't there eyewitnesses that claimed there
was a second plane that flew over the pentagon
right before the explosion?
If I remember correctly they said it was a
small white plane?Or was that Shanksville?
Imo our government is up to their necks in this.
We may never know exactly how it was done but I do know even I
would have put up a fight if I was threatened with just a boxcutter.
Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by NavyDoc
This is the vid I posted,
It was pretty clear by my description that I wasn't talking about the Doubletree vid, and I only posted screenshots of that vid.
Stay alert navydoc.edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by WoodSpirit
I meant the lamp posts that were hit by the plane, they are not shown in this footage but are clear as day in stills taken at the scene. You can split hairs and draw arrows all you want but this footage clearly shows a plane coming in from the distance and a split second later blows up. You seem to be getting pretty hysterical and that is a sign you know you are wrong. notice in the vid that I linked to the damage to the objects just before the wall, looks exactly like something hit it from the outside in towards the building. Why are you ignoring the plane parts scattered all over the place?
The video is basically some dude going on about real time video compositing at an extremely complex level to show that a plane did not hit the south tower. Based on this video this guy seems to be saying you can pretty much fake anything with real time video compositing then gets very geeky about some interesting photography stuff. His argument is essentially that because it is possible to fake the real time videos then its proof that the whole thing was faked and there were no planes. My issue is that just because it is possible does not mean that it actually happened and the main issues he raises, “Pinocchio’s noes “can be explained.
In addition to this this video only (as far as I watched) talks about the south tower and is based only on video images. He does nothing to explain for example the multiple eye witnesses who all say they say a plane or at the very least a flying object. I would like to include amounts these eye witnesses my own relatives who saw the second plane hit the tower. It also does not address the issue of the phone calls and the passengers of the planes and all the evidence there had been hijackings, such as evidence from the FAA and NORAD. In short your video proves nothing and has nothing to do with events at the pentagon on which this thread is based.
In short your video proves nothing and has nothing to do with events at the pentagon on which this thread is based.
It seems to me that you have a strong confirmation bias and an inability to admit when you are defeated or merely misinformed. If you cannot see the stupidity in basing all your believes regarding 9/11 on a highly questionable 45 minute video then all hope for your ignorance is lost. The “no planes” conspiracy of 9/11 is right up there with the “shape-shifting reptilian” theory, the “Galactic Federation of light” and the “KFC makes black men impotent” theory in terms of utter rubbish and I cannot take anyone seriously in a debate regarding 9/11 if they cannot at the very least accept that something hit those towers.
I am not going to waste my time trying to help you, you are the one who is being consumed by ignorance based on a 45 minute video, it’s makes no odds to me if you chose to believe such nonsense. I would ask respectfully however that if you ever want to engage in meaningful debate regarding 9/11 you go and do some more research regarding the planes because until then you are quite simply a joke as I cannot take what you have to say seriously.
Sorry you probably haven’t read my edit but some key things to remember other than what he has said other than faking TV feeds which is not enough alone so can you explain the following
• All videos have to be proved beyond doubt that they are fakes; so far none have been proven beyond doubt to be fakes.
• How do you explain eye witnesses, such as my relatives who have said time and time again that they saw a plane hit the second tower? • What about videos that show other people watching as planes hit, how do you explain that are they all extra’s. • How is it possible for every media organisation to be in on this, even the news anchors would have to be in on it at some level and all of the production team. • Why if the footage of the planes is fake not just have a delayed live feed other than the immense complexity that goes along with real time video compositing, the extra work and huge risk just is not worth it. If they did want to fake it they could have done it much easier. • How to you explain away the likes of the FAA and NORAD accounts of activates in the sky that day • How do you explain the physical evidence of a plane such as wreckage at the site of flight 93 and the pentagon • If faked then what actually happened to those flights I could go on like this all day, and like I said I am not going to engage you in any active debate until you stop with this no planes nonsense or can provide a very strong argument to back up your no planes theory. To do that you must address all of the above questions
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by WoodSpirit
How about we make things simpler, if you are arguing that there were no planes then can you tell me what my relatives saw that day they have told me they saw a plane. If you can explain away what they claim to have seen and what all the other eye witnesses have claimed to see then I might start to understand this “no planes” theory a bit more.