Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hotel CCTV Video of 9/11 Pentagon Explosion... And NO Plane!

page: 23
90
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I KNOW witnesses give varying stories---about someone's height, yes. About a suspect's clothes. Yes.

But we're talking about a PLANE here. Not some little trivial detail, like what someone's eye color is, for god sakes.

We're talking about a PLANE capable of carrying more than a hundred people, with huge engines. A giant plane that dwarfs you when you go out onto the tarmac and stand next to it.

A plane that makes so much noise and is SO loud that airport employees wear ear plugs.

Now, tell me WHY if a giant plane hits the side of a building, all witnesses wouldn't agree!!??

The fac that there is any disagreement about what hit the Pentagon is ludicious!

If a plane hit the Pentagon, think about it! It's a plane! It's huge! It makes a lot of noise!

Witnesses don't tend to disagree about giant object like that, as in my tractor trailor example. They might disagree on the smaller details: that's to be expected. But to disagree whether a huge airplane hit the side of a building?

That doesn't---in any way--seem a little fishy to you?

Not at all?

edit on 28-11-2012 by MRuss because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


You keep trying to connect my judgement to that of random cluesforum posters and their satelite theory. I'm not interested.

Explain the the nose out footage and the following fade to black of the whole broadcast right after it.

Explain the over/under puffball inconsistency in two different vids of the exact same supposed event.

That's two.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


Good post, I know the Naudet footage and you can see the hole in the building being drawn in as the vid plays. Among other anamolies.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MRuss
I KNOW witnesses give varying stories---about someone's height, yes. About a suspect's clothes. Yes.

But we're talking about a PLANE here. Not some little trivial detail, like what someone's eye color is, for god sakes.
...
Now, tell me WHY if a giant plane hits the side of a building, all witnesses wouldn't agree!!??

I think you're confused, there are around 100 witnesses that saw the impact, with something like 20 seeing it directly with a clear line of sight. The witnesses that didn't see a plane impact all had their views obscured or were not looking at the impact. Here is a spreadsheet detailing them: sites.google.com...


That doesn't---in any way--seem a little fishy to you?

Not at all?

edit on 28-11-2012 by MRuss because: (no reason given)

No, but then again I've seen the above spreadsheet before, so maybe that will change your mind.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit


Laugh it up bruv, you mean nothing, facts are facts, and the reality is that the footage was faked.



this is what I don't understand about people like you- why does the story have to go to such lengths? what evidence do you have that proves this footage was faked? and it's not a smudge it is a reflection



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
You keep trying to connect my judgement to that of random cluesforum posters and their satelite theory. I'm not interested.

If you can't answer such a simple question, then perhaps you should examine the logic you're using.


Explain the the nose out footage and the following fade to black of the whole broadcast right after it.

The nose-out is debris exiting the tower. It's corroborated by many other videos that Ace shows in his video. As he shows from his interview on Hardfire, it's neither at the right place or the right time, and he never explains why someone wouldn't mask in the middle of the tower to eliminate any chance of nose-out.

The black-out is attributable to a number of factors. Ace is wrong on both counts though. In broadcasting it's reasonably common to have a black screen for a no-signal condition and the WTC did suffer huge power fluctuations at both impacts, so a transmission failure is plausible. Equally a 2x converter when built into a full camera system often results in a complex scenario of shutter changes, focal and zoom changes and an introduction of a lens element. It makes perfect sense that the camera system would zoom out the appropriate amount as after all this is a helicopter camera designed for tracking moving objects on the ground.


Explain the over/under puffball inconsistency in two different vids of the exact same supposed event.

There's no discrepancy. Ace is highlighting the portion of the dust which is lit by the sun. Even in his lower quality copy of the videos it's clear that there's dust extending from the building that isn't lit by the sun.


That's two.

And they're incredibly easy. Any tiny amount of research will show you that Ace is wrong.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I don't know my friend.

There seem to be a lot of experts out there who believe there are many, many problems with the 9/11 story. There are peer reviewed papers, there are documents, expert testimony from engineers, demolition experts.

I can't imagine all of these people are just bored with their lives and are looking for something to do.

There are a lot of problems with the 9/11 story.

Now, you can pick out one facet of the story to argue about--like what hit the Pentagon.

But please don't sit here and tell me that the WHOLE story is just a perfectly seamless narrative that all adds up and makes sense.

I'm not a huge 911 researcher, and I wasn't swayed either way when I began to poke around in it.

But it became abundantly clear to me that there were a lot of problems and holes with the official story.

What would be the harm in investigating these irregularities?

If 911 was played out exactly as described, then no worries, right?

As an American, why wouldn't you be all for clearing the record---so all of these bright and concerned citizens could get on with their lives, all the holes filled---no more questions!?

Have you personally been able to debunk each and every point made by the 911 Truth movement?

Have you seen the plethora of documents, peer reviewed articles from experts and witnesses alike?

Can you go in and debunk each and every point that has ever been made about that day?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





The nose-out is debris exiting the tower. It's corroborated by many other videos that Ace shows in his video. As he shows from his interview on Hardfire, it's neither at the right place or the right time, and he never explains why someone wouldn't mask in the middle of the tower to eliminate any chance of nose-out.


Debris that are indistuingishable from the plane cockpit before it flew in.

Tell me, without peeking, which is which.



What do you mean not at the right place and the right time?

Ace suggests that the right side of the building was masked by keeping it in the middle of the screen, but that the chopper drifted off to the side too much which is accurate.



edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MRuss
reply to post by exponent
 


I don't know my friend.

There seem to be a lot of experts out there who believe there are many, many problems with the 9/11 story. There are peer reviewed papers, there are documents, expert testimony from engineers, demolition experts.

I can't imagine all of these people are just bored with their lives and are looking for something to do.

I agree. I think a lot of these people genuinely believe there are issues with 911 and genuinely want to do something about it. However, I give the counterexample of Evolution. There are hundreds upon thousands of people challenging Evolution, there are peer reviewed papers, documents, expert testimony from engineers, biologists etc.

Despite this the whole issue is complete ideological nonsense, and in many cases I feel the 911 issue is too. It's used as a proxy for general authoritarian hate or hate of a specific authority.


But please don't sit here and tell me that the WHOLE story is just a perfectly seamless narrative that all adds up and makes sense.

I'm not a huge 911 researcher, and I wasn't swayed either way when I began to poke around in it.

But it became abundantly clear to me that there were a lot of problems and holes with the official story.

I'm not going to tell you there's any perfect seamless narrative because there certainly isn't. What there is however is very strong evidence that 19 extremists crashed 4 planes and that the buildings collapsed due to fire and impact. This has been looked into in insane detail and I am confident that no future investigations are going to change the gross narrative.

However, when it comes down to what precisely happened when, who is responsible for failures or why the failures occurred etc. This is all very much up in the air and the narrative is fairly likely to change with more investigation.


What would be the harm in investigating these irregularities?

If 911 was played out exactly as described, then no worries, right?

Right. I don't have any opposition to new investigations as long as I am not paying for it. I have to ask though, who would run a new investigation? No 911 truth groups even seem to be able to agree with each other, nevermind nominate a chairman!


As an American, why wouldn't you be all for clearing the record---so all of these bright and concerned citizens could get on with their lives, all the holes filled---no more questions!?

I am not American, but I understand your concern. I don't think this will ever happen though. Not every question can be answered, and many people that may have been able to answer them are now dead or may die before they can be questioned. It has already been a decade and medical complaints are still common amongst those who were there.


Have you personally been able to debunk each and every point made by the 911 Truth movement?

I don't want to sound arrogant but yeah pretty much. I've been posting in 911 truth forums for a long damn time now and I have seen the same arguments repeated over and over despite there being very strong evidence for them. See this thread as a perfect example, people genuinely still posting "hijackers were found alive" claims. These are claims based on information over a decade old and repudiated by the very source of that information, but repeated regardless.


Have you seen the plethora of documents, peer reviewed articles from experts and witnesses alike?

I have, although obviously I can't tell if I've seen every document but I've read enough for a lifetime. My friends think me mad for my posting here



Can you go in and debunk each and every point that has ever been made about that day?

Feel free to ask anything. I have a pretty good knowledge of all of 911 unfortunately.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Then why confiscate the video?
You say it's a plane, I say it's a missile. The video is too grainy to prove either way. The only hard fact we have is, the feds confiscated the video. Why?


The point is, they conviscated any possible video in the area for investigation...who knows how many. And not once have they shown us one with an undisputable aeroplane hitting the building.

THAT says enough for me that it wasn't a plane that caused the impact/explosion. Remember, "they" love to shove things in our face that back up their stories and further agendas but not this time eh?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
Debris that are indistuingishable from the plane cockpit before it flew in.

Tell me, without peeking, which is which.

I can't, but since when does that prove anything? It's a small blurred blob, indistinguishable from many small blurred blobs. The fact that Ace calls the other videos fake instead of correcting his understanding of what is occurring is the tell tale sign of someone blind to reality.


What do you mean not at the right place and the right time?

Did you watch your own video? Ace is shown how he is wrong so instead of correcting himself he adds another caveat, that they would slow the plane down to 'compensate' for any camera movement. It makes no sense, if the plane slowed down visibly in the sky then it would be a tell tale sign of fakery. It's just another added condition so Ace doesn't have to face reality.


Ace suggests that the right side of the building was masked by keeping it in the middle of the screen, but that the chopper drifted off to the side too much which is accurate.

Ace also suggests that the video cannot contain any "zooming or panning" and then goes on to claim that this video was done despite the zooming and panning. He also thinks 'a few hours' is enough to create basically all the other videos he dismisses, despite the fact that he barely managed to half duplicate one in a decade.

It's absolute nonsense, Ace has very little experience and even his opening composition is pretty poor and forced. For God's sake he sings a damn song in the video. What will it take to convince you he's not all there?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
The point is, they conviscated any possible video in the area for investigation...who knows how many. And not once have they shown us one with an undisputable aeroplane hitting the building.

THAT says enough for me that it wasn't a plane that caused the impact/explosion. Remember, "they" love to shove things in our face that back up their stories and further agendas but not this time eh?


"They" is such a fantastic get-out clause. You don't even have to know their name!

Anyhow, if it wasn't a plane, why did firefighters find bodies strapped into seats and personal effects of the plane passengers? You can read it all in Firefight as I've recommended about a billion times



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





I can't, but since when does that prove anything? It's a small blurred blob, indistinguishable from many small blurred blobs. .


So what are the odds that debris would be indistuinghisable from the cockpit before it flew in. How ridiculous is that?




Did you watch your own video? Ace is shown how he is wrong so instead of correcting himself he adds another caveat, that they would slow the plane down to 'compensate' for any camera movement. It makes no sense, if the plane slowed down visibly in the sky then it would be a tell tale sign of fakery. It's just another added condition so Ace doesn't have to face reality.


He explains that they slowed it down as soon as it hit the building to create "resistance", the guy he is debating even discusses the exact same technique with an airplane in one of his tutorial videos.

What do you mean in the wrong place?




It's absolute nonsense, Ace has very little experience and even his opening composition is pretty poor and forced. For God's sake he sings a damn song in the video. What will it take to convince you he's not all there?


Stick to the footage. You are obviously not debunking anything. You didn't debunk the masking gone wrong, you believe debri looks exactly like the cockpit, you keep refering to unrelated issues.

I'll get to every single point you made.




He also thinks 'a few hours' is enough to create basically all the other videos he dismisses, despite the fact that he barely managed to half duplicate one in a decade.


They are not building from scratch, in these cases they used real footage minus the plane, and layered in an already existing plane model.

It was not time consuming at all. They did it real time.




The black-out is attributable to a number of factors. Ace is wrong on both counts though. In broadcasting it's reasonably common to have a black screen for a no-signal condition


But the guy that filmed it says it is the extender of the zoom lens going in front of the screen? and the other expert says it's because of an auto dim function on the camera because of the brightness of the explosion which are both proven false.
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I found your post interesting. When a jet slams into a building - wouldn't a fireball erupt? My understanding is that aviation fuel is highly flammable. How would there be any bodies still strapped in seats? I would have thought that they would have been incinerated and beyond recognisable as a body.

Just curious - any photographs??

Much Peace...



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Here are some questions for you:

Have you ever seen this document: Rebuilding America's Defenses. Written just before 9/11.


The core of the Bush Administration was predominantly made up of members of an organization called “The Project For The New American Century.” This group produced a document entitled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that said the “process of transformation” they wanted our military to undertake would take an excessively long time, unless there was a “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”


Kind of eerie, huh?

2) Do you find Cheney's involvement in oil/petroleum/Haliburton at all disturbing? Just months before 9-11 he was talking about how important Middle Eastern oil was. Well documented.

3) Kind of seems like Bush came into office chomping at the bit for war with Iran. Have you read about this in depth? Lots of good info on it if you want links.

4)How do you account for this:


it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”


5) On 9/11, the Bush ad. was already trying to tie the attacks to Iraq. Why?

6) How do you explain the Saudi tie in---and yet nothing was done?

7) The 911 families had to fight “tooth and nail,” and lobby to get an investigation because the Bush Administration clearly did not want one. Why not?

8)NORAD gave three different timelines with regards to their response on the day of 9/11. Why?

9)Kevin Delaney, the quality assurance manager for the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, destroyed a tape recorded by six Air Traffic Controllers on the morning of 9/11 “by breaking up the plastic housing and cutting the tape into small fragments, depositing the remnants in trash cans throughout the Center.” This and other documents were destroyed...many, many things were destroyed. I assume you've seen the list...

I shall write back with more questions shortly.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
So what are the odds that debris would be indistuinghisable from the cockpit before it flew in. How ridiculous is that?

What are the odds a small fuzzy blob would match another small fuzzy blob? I'd say fairly high. In Ace's own video the front of the plane is equally indistinguishable from the 911 planes. It's not remarkable at all.


He explains that they slowed it down as soon as it hit the building to create "resistance", the guy he is debating even discusses the exact same technique with an airplane in one of his tutorial videos.

Again though it's just adding and adding rather than looking at the reality. Every single statement is predicated on the idea that it must be the nose sticking out, despite the only piece of evidence for that being some visual similarity. Don't you see how ridiculous that is?


What do you mean in the wrong place?

I mean the exit point is several pixels lower than a straight plane track would be. Oh wait, don't tell me, they added that in too for some reason.


Stick to the footage. You are obviously not debunking anything. You didn't debunk the masking gone wrong, you believe debri looks exactly like the cockpit, you keep refering to unrelated issues.

I'll get to every single point you made.

On the contrary, I clearly illustrated how Ace adds inventions rather than comprehends reality.


They are not building from scratch, in these cases they used real footage minus the plane, and layered in an already existing plane model.

It was not time consuming at all. They did it real time.

You don't even know the arguments you're making. Ace contends that several of the videos were faked after the fact and only three were faked live. How can it be 'real time' if it takes hours, and if it takes hours, what does? adding a mask layer? That certainly doesn't take hours? Rendering video? I don't think so.


But the guy that filmed it says it is the extender of the zoom lens going in front of the screen? and the other expert says it's because of an auto dim function on the camera because of the brightness of the explosion.
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)

Did you even read my response? I said that the zoom lens is perfectly plausible. AGC is too but I don't really think any algorithm would be that aggressive.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




This is where the "debris" cloud supposedly blew out the building while looking exactly like the cockpit.




Did you even read my response? I said that the zoom lens is perfectly plausible. AGC is too but I don't really think any algorithm would be that aggressive.


It can't be the zoom because the picture isn't zoomed in after that, it is a proven lie by the camera guy.

Why was it only rebroadcasted on cnn with a big banner obscuring half the picture and the nose out mistake?




You don't even know the arguments you're making. Ace contends that several of the videos were faked after the fact and only three were faked live. How can it be 'real time' if it takes hours, and if it takes hours, what does? adding a mask layer? That certainly doesn't take hours? Rendering video? I don't think so.


The live broadcasts were obviously real time and the other "amateur" vids came up later. what is your point?




I mean the exit point is several pixels lower than a straight plane track would be. Oh wait, don't tell me, they added that in too for some reason.


As far as I can see that is not true, and if it is it can be caused by a small heli tilt.




Again though it's just adding and adding rather than looking at the reality. Every single statement is predicated on the idea that it must be the nose sticking out, despite the only piece of evidence for that being some visual similarity. Don't you see how ridiculous that is?


It makes perfect sense. It is ridiculous to think to nose out is debris.




What are the odds a small fuzzy blob would match another small fuzzy blob? I'd say fairly high. In Ace's own video the front of the plane is equally indistinguishable from the 911 planes. It's not remarkable at all.


Anyone can see it's the exact same object before and after impact. Not sure what you mean with the rest. I concur that planes look like planes.

At least the newsanchor recognised the blobs for what they were, as he said when watching the footage live in the studio,"the plane went completely through the building!"
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amanda5
I found your post interesting. When a jet slams into a building - wouldn't a fireball erupt? My understanding is that aviation fuel is highly flammable.

You are correct and a large fire did erupt. It was fought immediately however and was brought under control in most areas quite quickly.


How would there be any bodies still strapped in seats? I would have thought that they would have been incinerated and beyond recognisable as a body.

On the contrary if you look at some of the available body photographs (I advise you do not, they are quite harrowing) there are clearly identifiable bodies that likely suffered death via smoke inhalation.


Just curious - any photographs??

Much Peace...

None of people from the aircraft but as I mentioned, there are pictures of dead people in the Pentagon. They really aren't worth viewing, you'll never be able to un-see them.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MRuss
Here are some questions for you:

Have you ever seen this document: Rebuilding America's Defenses. Written just before 9/11.

I actually read the whole of it. The document assumes that a New Pearl Harbour won't happen. Not really that creepy when you have actually read it.


2) Do you find Cheney's involvement in oil/petroleum/Haliburton at all disturbing? Just months before 9-11 he was talking about how important Middle Eastern oil was. Well documented.

Sure, I actually consider Cheney a war criminal so it's not like you're going to be hurting my feelings



3) Kind of seems like Bush came into office chomping at the bit for war with Iran. Have you read about this in depth? Lots of good info on it if you want links.

He went to war with iraq, not iran, but yes Bush was also a war monger.


4)How do you account for this:

Easily. Who would betray a stand down order to such a junior and in front of the very people who later repeated this story? He was giving the order to shoot down those aircraft if they could. Why do you think he was so anxious?


5) On 9/11, the Bush ad. was already trying to tie the attacks to Iraq. Why?

Because they wanted to attack Iraq.


6) How do you explain the Saudi tie in---and yet nothing was done?

Well exactly, if it was a conspiracy done by Bush to attack Iraq, surely they'd be Iraqi, not the US' largest ally in the region?


7) The 911 families had to fight “tooth and nail,” and lobby to get an investigation because the Bush Administration clearly did not want one. Why not?

Because it would show how utterly incompetent and ignorant they were?


8)NORAD gave three different timelines with regards to their response on the day of 9/11. Why?

As I understand it, there were genuine misunderstandings, I also believe there's lots of 'arse covering' going on too.


9)Kevin Delaney, the quality assurance manager for the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, destroyed a tape recorded by six Air Traffic Controllers on the morning of 9/11 “by breaking up the plastic housing and cutting the tape into small fragments, depositing the remnants in trash cans throughout the Center.” This and other documents were destroyed...many, many things were destroyed. I assume you've seen the list...

Have you read why he destroyed the tape? Honestly I don't want to sound offensive but you are just repeating points from conspiracy sites here without ever investigating them yourself.


I shall write back with more questions shortly.

Please go over your current questions and ask yourself how representative they are. Why would they write a whole manifesto assuming that a Pearl Harbour wouldn't happen when they were planning to make one happen? Why would the hijackers be mostly Saudi and not Iraqi? Why didn't they plant WMD in Iraq? If they can kill 3000 of their own countrymen they can certainly find some chemical weapons and discretely dispose of them.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
This is where the "debris" cloud supposedly blew out the building while looking exactly like the cockpit.

Never looked at the original image have you. Here's a hint: there's a hole.


It can be the zoom because the picture isn't zoomed in after that, it is a proven lie by the camera guy.

So cameras can't automatically zoom? Better tell my camera then (it autozooms when I switch modes)

The fact that you asked a question and then immediately dismissed the answer shows exactly your attitude here. You're pretending that you're considering what I am saying, but in reality you're dismissing it without question.


Why was it only rebroadcasted on cnn with a big banner obscuring half the picture and the nose out mistake?

Ace didn't prove that, he just proved that one shot was rebroadcast with a banner on it. Are banners on live events particularly unusual in your country as they are definitely normal news footage here.


The live broadcasts were obviously real time and the other "amateur" vids came up later. what is your point?

My point is that ace thinks the whole video was faked in a few hours but also thinks that some are real time modified. He uses whatever bizarre rationalisations are needed to fit in with the idea that it's a 'nose-out' and not just protruding debris. The other films prove that it is just debris, and that's why Ace calls them fake.


As far as I can see that is not true, and if it is it can be caused by a small heli tilt.

Look at yourself. Not only are you denying things that are plain to see, but you're inventing excuses for them just in case it is true. You're not looking at the evidence, you're looking at how to come to a particular conclusion.


It makes perfect sense. It is ridiculous to think to nose out is debris.
edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)

Enough said, you don't want to know what happened that day, you just want to repeat this idea that everything was fake all because something that looks sorta somewhat like a fuzzy blob protruded from the towers. Prove me wrong.
edit on 28/11/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
90
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join