It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

An open challenge to no planers

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Hi all.

This thread is a direct challenge to people who follow the line of thought that no planes hit the WTC on 9/11.

There are many videos available on the net that clearly show the second plane flying into the towers.

My challenge to no-planers is simple really. Show me an undoctored unedited video of the second tower exploding without a plane in the image. That doesnt mean I wanna see a still photo from the wrong angle claimed as evidence.

Let me clarify here that I do believe 2 planes flew into the WTC but that OBL wasnt wholly responsible for it.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Dear Conspiracy Theorist:

Howdy! Such video will be hard to come by. The twin towers were ‘hit’ from opposite sides for a reason. If independent camera operators had been filming that day, after the first ‘attack’ they would have been looking at the ‘gash’ in the burning North Tower. ‘Coincidentally’ and ‘conveniently’ the South Tower was ‘impacted’ from the reverse side. So only few would have seen and taped those explosions, err, plane ‘crash’.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Such video will be hard to come by


I would say impossible. As 2 planes did in fact strike the WTC on 9/11. This cannot be disproven IMHO, and is backed up by numerous videos and eyewitness accounts.

The least no-planers could do is produce a good fake video showing no plane to give the slightest credence to the story.

Even Serpo had fake evidence.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Chopper 4 shows no plane. There's a faint blur much too small to be UA175.



WB 11 shows something more distinct but still too small for UA 175. It looks about the size of a helicopter.




In addition there are many no plane eyewitnesses: see livevideo.com...

This video compares 3 second hit sequences:




posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy TheoristMy challenge to no-planers is simple really. Show me an undoctored unedited video of the second tower exploding without a plane in the image.

Why would the perps allow those videos out in public?



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Bsregistration. The videos uploaded into YouTube do not constitute evidence. These vids are to easily altered and lose quality due to the compression that takes place.


Besides. This is not what i asked for.



My challenge to no-planers is simple really. Show me an undoctored unedited video of the second tower exploding without a plane in the image



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown
Why would the perps allow those videos out in public?


To further divide the "truth movement".

Lets face it. This whole movement is a hodgepodge of theories ranging from the plausible to the insane. Throw in a few more insane theories and the whole movement gets tarred with the same brush. Make sense???



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy TheoristTo further divide the "truth movement".

Lets face it. This whole movement is a hodgepodge of theories ranging from the plausible to the insane. Throw in a few more insane theories and the whole movement gets tarred with the same brush. Make sense???

So which theories are "plausible" and which theories are "insane"?



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
This is funny you are actually asking us for video evidence undoctored? lol Most of them were doctored. You explain to me how in hell this thing came from 3 different angles and I will provide you with not one not 2 but 3 videos where the plane is not visible. By the way while you are at it, please also provide how an object like a plane goes through a steel building like the WTC. And also would you mind explaining the nosecone? OHH the missing wings? The change in shape? the morphing of the plane with the towers? Etc... ETc...Etc...
You post me a high Res undoctored video of the WTC crash...Good luck finding it because it does not exists.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsregistration
Chopper 4 shows no plane. There's a faint blur much too small to be UA175.



Quoted so people would know to what Iwas responding. Well I see a plane with wings in every single video. The Chopper 4 video is not the greatest of quaility due to compression and the unfortunate full pull back. But after carefully looking the plane can be seen entering the shot at the top of the frame between 3/4 and 5/6 across the top of the screen as a small fast black object. The altitude is slightly higher than the helicopter as is comes in lower and nearly equals the altitude the shadow of the plane (being above) transitions to silver/white in the thin cloud cover. At that point it is easily seen disappearing behind the north tower (unfortunate camera angle). By knowing the flight path you can review the video a few times and watch it the whole time.

No tricks, just crappy video quality. Aparently the cameraman wasn't advised of the so called script that the other reporters were ad-libbing poorly from. See, that is another thing. The whole "scripted" thing that people claim.

In both television and radio news the broadcaster practices what will be said and uses a teleprompter and reading pages to keep his/her place while making the report. The reporters sent out on remote are almost always called LIVE but are usually not. They practice what they are going to say a few times, set up the shot with the cameraman and record it and stick the unedited tape in the player to be transmitted to the station. The truely live shot will be a three person crew and have cables running to the truck or a wireless transmiter. Now that HDDV cameras are cheaper and starting to be used by news crews things are becoming more streamlined.

For about $15000-$20000, plus the cost of the car. A mobile live unit can set up and broadcast via a satellite broadband webcast virtually anywhere with quality equal to or exceeding the $350,000 mobile news trucks.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
With all the people taking photo's, all the personal films that day. *IF* what the no plane people were saying was true, we should see countless films and photos of no plane.

The military can't control every single personal video, or photo. Plus if this was the case the Russians or the Chinese would say something. It would be completely naeive to suppose that the Russians don't have their own documentation of that day, including film or photos.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Slightly off topic,

In my opinion and this is only my opinion and stems only from my common sense and perception on how such an event like 911 would actually unfold.

I don't think it's physically possible for a plane to pierce through a building and do a miracle stop right in the corner of the building just big enough for the whole plane to disappear into the infrastructure.

What is most likely to happen is, the plane crashes into the building and then partially stick inside the building(The cosmetic facade of the building) and most likely parts of the plane falls off the same side it crashed from.

The reason why i think it's highly possible there were no planes is because the laws of physics can't be bent but the perception of people can.

This to me means that: it's more likely that they deceived the whole world into thinking a certain thing that didn't actually happen then it is likely that the laws of physics were on hold on that day.

That's just my opinion as to why the possibility that no planes were used on the World trade center is very much plausible.



[edit on 6-6-2007 by selfless]



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
So a plane impacting with 1 kiloton of force is just going to hit the building and STOP?
You're talking MASSIVE forces involved. There's no way that those buildings were going to withstand the initial impact of those planes.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So a plane impacting with 1 kiloton of force is just going to hit the building and STOP?
You're talking MASSIVE forces involved. There's no way that those buildings were going to withstand the initial impact of those planes.


No, you just straight out misinterpreted what i said.

The plane would not just stop, it would CRASH into the building and do damage to the building and maybe even stick inside the building far enough for the plane to stay inside the building partially but I don't think it's gonna just go through the building and then stop in a spot where the plane disappears from view sight.

I think some parts of the planes would fall on the same side it penetrated the surface from.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
That makes no sense at all. You're talking about the energy of a small nuclear bomb at impact. There's no way they should have done what you think they should have. And even if they did, what about the explosion? The force of the explosion would have blown out the other side of the building as well. And inertia of the planes?



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Zaphod58, How are you coming up with a kiloton of force? Not to sound as if I'm doubting you. I'm just curious as to how you came to that conclusion.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I found a paper that someone a lot more knowledgeable than me came up with the impact force, and he had worked it out to roughly 1kt at impact. I'll see if I can find it again.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That makes no sense at all.


That's fine, you can think that if you want. I'm not telling you to think otherwise.

But I personally think that what happened on that day made no sense at all.

I think that a plane crashing into the world trade center would not stop right inside the infrastructure of the building the only place where it would disappear from view sight.

That to me, doesn't make sense at all.



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
selfless

Vesna Vulović survived a 33300 ft fall from a plane, not only did she survive the fall she also survived the explosion in mid air. It doesn't make physical sense, but it HAPPENED!

en.wikipedia.org...

Now regarding how the plane should have looked going into the building or what would exit, is moot. Things happen sometimes, and they happen in unusual ways. In my view there is nothing wrong with the way the plane with all the force it was travelling at went into the building.

But This Thread is not about that.

This is about, where are all the PHOTOs and FILMS of NO PLANE hitting the tower? Not just a compressed doctored film. But the OP wants un-edited films of nothing hitting the tower.

Or where are the number of PHOTOs to go along?

You see the military can't control every single video, photo etc. If what your saying was remotely true, then we should see many photo's of this happening.

But we don't. Witnesses in the towers themselves saw a plane. The fireman that day saw a plane. So many people were looking.

It is absolutely beyond the realm of LOGIC to assume the military would take such a risk. That they would do this with everyone watching.



[edit on 6-6-2007 by talisman]



posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

It is absolutely beyond the realm of LOGIC to assume the military would take such a risk. That they would do this with everyone watching.


There is nothing logical about how that day unfolded, that's all I'm gonna say about that.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join