9/11, Possibility Of No windows on the Plane.

So, let's sum-up the argument from the "no windows" side...

* A video containing an eye-witness from BROOKLYN saying he couldn't see 11" X 15" windows from a mile-and-a-half away on a streaking jet

* Claiming that UA 175 may have flown over Brooklyn (it didn't) allowing the video witness to be close enough to make the no-windows determinaton

* A few "I haven't seen"/"I have seen" personal anectdotes

* A "high def" YOUTUBE video, in mind-blowing 300 X 200 resolution, which is admittedly useless in the case

* Uncited "witnesses"

Feh.

Originally posted by selfless
I'v seen planes at low altitudes like the world trade center hight before and yes, I was able to see the windows.

Here's a high def video of the second plane hit.

www.youtube.com...

Sure, that doesn't mean there were no windows for sure but still I can't see them.

They could have been 3 foot high windows with screens in this video. Unfortunately the only thing that can be seen is the underbelly of the plane in this the closest and clearest video that I have seen on youtube.
Sorry Selfless, you know I straight up call it as I see it.

Originally posted by selfless

Whatever it was, it supposedly had no windows.

This also explains why there are some hijackers reported to be still alive. (No hijackings took place)

Could this have been a specially designed mock plane? A hologram? Whatever it was, it was not a passenger plane.

Let me demonstrate the faulty logic at play here with my example of seeing a car drive by me today but not seeing the driver of the car. I will use your logic as a step-by-step model.

I saw a car drive by me today but I didn't see the driver.

Whatever was controlling it, it had no driver.

This also explains why my next door neighbor was home cutting his grass. (He wasn't driving the car)

Could this have been a specially designed mock car? A hologram of a car? Whatever it was, it wasn't a normal passenger car.

selfless, can you seriously not see how there is no rational or logical process to your reasoning?

Really?

Well from video evidence it CLEARLY was a Boeing 767-200. CLEARLY. Whose 767 was it then? As far as I know the only Military 767's are brand new and a stretched varient of the baseline -200xx model.

Look at this picture. You are MUCH closer, MUCH higher resolution, and MUCH slower speed. But yet, it's still hard to see the windows. So you're telling me that you honestly think you're going to be able to see them from over a mile away, at a steep angle looking up at the plane, in shadow? No WAY.


external image

And the windows on that plane in the picture you posted (777-200) are MUCH bigger than the 767's too.

Here's a high def video of the second plane hit.

www.youtube.com...

High definition? High definition is, in my opinion, a video with a bitrate of atleast 1mb per second. That is LOW definition, TINY, TINY TINY TINY video.

What you're saying it totally, well, sorry to say ignorant. That video has a resolution of about 450x340. At biggest, the plane was about 80 pixels long, lets just say 100. The 767 is 160ft feet long with windows that are about, hmm I can't find how big they are. The 777 Windows are much bigger than the 767s but lets use those anyway. They are about, 19x10 inches tall and wide.

So a pixel is about 2 feet on the jet, the windows are less than a foot wide and the plane is angled in such a way that the angle would make the Windows less visible.

Fullscreening that video does absolutely NOTHING. All that does is stretches the video up.

To add, the plane was in a bank so the windows would be at a angle to the observer, making them appear even smaller. And two, that paintjob is exactly the same as the United Airline 767's.

I thought I was the only one to ever notice that there were no windows on those planes, well actually thats not true, some eyewitness's even said theres no way those planes were commercial planes, they looked more like cargo planes.

Cargo planes? Cargo planes full of explosives maybe?

I ask all of you, go look at the footage, not particularly this footage here, but 911 footage all together. If you can find footage that shows conclusively that yes there were windows on that plane, the possibility remains that there werent, especially when there were eyewitness's that said so.

And no Im sorry, this isnt faulty logic, its actually very logical, its looking at the possibilities that we see in the footage, and that challenge is still on, find footage that show windows without a doubt, and then you can say the theory is completely wrong. Until then, minor league debunking at best.


[edit on 9-6-2007 by LightWorker13]

Just because people can't SEE the tiny little windows at the distance they were viewing the planes from doesn't mean they weren't there. I'd say we did a pretty good job of showing why they couldn't be seen. Under certain conditions even when you're CLOSE to the plane you can't see them. Does that make the picture I posted earlier a disguised cargo plane painted to look like United?

Well theres a simple way to solve this...

Provide footage that shows windows. You see this footage here shows no windows. If you can find footage that does show windows, then riddle solved.

If, however, you fail to produce footage to support the fact that there were windows, well then, this footage takes precedence, because simply enough, you say there are windows yet cant prove it with footage; others say there were no windows, and have footage, in a court of Law the ladder theory would be accepted.

Have you paid attention to the thread? There's no way to show video that shows windows, BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 10"x15" piece of plastic. The videos were shot at over a MILE away in most cases. The windows aren't even ONE PIXEL in some of the videos. The point we're making is that EVEN CLOSE UP, HIGH RESOLUTION STILL PICTURES have trouble making out the windows. There's NO WAY that anyone could see windows on those planes that day.

And it would only be proven if I couldn't show WHY there wouldn't be windows visible in the video. I could bring experts in that could show all kinds of pictures and videos of planes out there with no windows and cast plenty of doubt on this theory. For that matter, are you saying that EVERY AIRPLANE VIDEO ON THE INTERNET is a cargo plane disguised? Because VERY FEW if ANY are going to show windows.

[edit on 6/9/2007 by Zaphod58]

To add, why do we need Witnesses claiming they SAW Windows on the plane? If you saw a United Airlines 767 hitting the towers would you say; "There definately was windows on that Boeing 767-200 owned by UNITED AIRLINES"? Heck, we don't really need to

some eyewitness's even said theres no way those planes were commercial planes, they looked more like cargo planes.

Can you please explain to me how they looked like Cargo planes. PLEASE?

Were they Cargo 767-200s painted in United Airline colours?

Provide footage that shows windows. You see this footage here shows no windows. If you can find footage that does show windows, then riddle solved.

So we need footage to prove something wrong ,but, we LET tiny 450x340 were the windows are to small to even show up on pixels to prove something? Oh gee. Logic.


Is it also logical to think a Boeing 767 magically disapeared, a cargo plane of idential type was painted in United Airline colours, flown into the trade centres then have Windows found in the wreckage?

Look closely...

www.911citizenscommission.us...

Tell me what you see in that footage, I want details.

Oh and by the way...

This is the type of plane those hijackers were supposed to have learned to fly in...




This is the type of plane that was hijacked...



Anybody see the difference there???

Here is a quote from the man at Sorbys flying school in Florida who trained one of the alleged hijackers "I mean it was like dumb and dumber, they were clueless! It was clear to me they werent going to make it as pilots." Rick Garza, Flight Instructor.

observer.guardian.co.uk...

911research.wtc7.net...

And these hijackers supposedly flew over the Pentagon first, came around making a 330 degree turn at 530 miles an hour, came back around, within inches from the ground, and struck the Pentagon, doing little to no real damage to that building, in fact, the plane hit at the exact spot that had just been renovated to withstand that that kind of impact.

I mean these pilots, described as dumb and dumber by their teachers, could pull of a superman type move, something experienced pilots probably couldnt do, I mean this whole story just defies all rational logic.

And hey, it was just a theory that it was a cargo plane. Sure as hell wasnt a commercial plane, I tell ya what, even eyewitness's said it was, it had no markings at all. Windows, thats debatable, markings is not, there were no markings at all.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by LightWorker13]

And dont forget the passports of the hijackers the State Department said they found, then was exposed as being a lie, and they admitted it was, and no one did anything about it, just quiet, go away, thats not a story...I mean it would have to be on a banner 10 feet tall above Time Square before the media would report it.

And remember the threat to the presidents plane? I mean the media was even saying "Air Force One could be next". Well just a question, why did they take him to the plane and fly the thing off then? Without, for a long time, fighter escort? The president was flying around all day, and the media eventually had to admit, there was no threat, it was just a lie.

These are just small examples of the propaganda used.

This whole no windows on the planes, that is debatable, but, once you examine the rest of the story, the rest of the details that mold the official story, you will see just how ludicrous it is.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by LightWorker13]

LightWorker13, most of what you posted is another issue entirely and yep, even I think something was up with 9/11. What I do not like is the 450x340 videos used as proof which just seems like a desperate attempt on proving something.

Except:

And hey, it was just a theory that it was a cargo plane. Sure as hell wasnt a commercial plane, I tell ya what, even eyewitness's said it was, it had no markings at all. Windows, thats debatable, markings is not, there were no markings at all.

I disagree, all the videos I've seen of 9/11 have paint jobs the same as the jets that hit the towers:
www.airliners.net...


But that's alittle off topic, and of course someone else will probably acuse me of being a paid debunker.

Originally posted by LightWorker13

And no Im sorry, this isnt faulty logic, its actually very logical, its looking at the possibilities that we see in the footage, and that challenge is still on, find footage that show windows without a doubt, and then you can say the theory is completely wrong. Until then, minor league debunking at best.


[edit on 9-6-2007 by LightWorker13]

This thread is another embarrassing example of why I stopped telling my friends check out ATS. Caustic Logic made a great point in another thread. When average people who value reason, science, logic, and common sense see incredibly stupid conspiracy theories, they have no choice but to gravitate towards the official story. The "no windows on the planes" falls into the category of incredibly stupid conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by nick7261
This thread is another embarrassing example of why I stopped telling my friends check out ATS. Caustic Logic made a great point in another thread. When average people who value reason, science, logic, and common sense see incredibly stupid conspiracy theories, they have no choice but to gravitate towards the official story. The "no windows on the planes" falls into the category of incredibly stupid conspiracy theory.

I agree, this is the type of thing that should be locked because the resolution of the videos is not high enough to see windows.

Its akin to looking at a low res satellite image and saying there are no people on earth because the 5m per pixel image of the ground cannot see anyone.

Zaphod, PisTonZOR, Nick7261 and others relax. LightWorker13 is using the old "prove there are starving children in Ethiopia" routine.

Lightworker it is up to YOU to prove that Boeing (or some unknown Govt organisation) produced a special model that had no windows and that the US Government, FAA, IATA and others then covered up its production, registration, existence and knowledge of it. It is up to YOU to prove that a low resolution video could miraculously show detail that it cannot.

This kind of infantile argument without proof can go on for ever until YOU prove reasonably your case. You have already been provided with a reasonable and proveable argument by Zaphod and others as to why a video camera or the mark#1 human eyeball cannot distinguish a 10X15 window at 2 miles+. If you have reasonable proof or a sustainable theory of your claim we would like to hear it. Just don't treat us like ignorant idiots who should bow down to your magnificent argument till you PROVE we are wrong.

Sorry for the steam venting everyone but I dont like to see my online friends/collaborators dissed on this subject unless they thoroughly deserve it.

PS. The truth be known I smell a Fetzer in the ranks.

LEE.

Originally posted by thebozeian


Sorry for the steam venting everyone but I dont like to see my online friends/collaborators dissed on this subject unless they thoroughly deserve it.

PS. The truth be known I smell a Fetzer in the ranks.

LEE.

This is more than about being dissed online. You have to put this in the context of the overall big picture. Mainstream media, including local talk show hosts, papers, etc., can't wait to quote this type of crap to make the entire CT movement look like morons at best, and complete nutcases at worst. They scan CT forums looking for the most ridiculous, asinine, and unsupportable theories so they can showcase these as an example of the "9/11 conspiracy nutjobs."

And what's really damaging about this is they tie idiotic theories like the "no windows in the planes" theory to legitimate questions, e.g., WTC7's implosion and no planes intercepting FL 77 for 30 minutes. Somebody will call in to talk about WTC7, and the response will be something like:

"Oh.... not another nut job 9/11 conspiracy theorist that thinks that fire can't melt steel!? Oh wait... I was just reading one of these idiotic conspiracy forums today and now these wack jobs are claiming that it must have been a hologram or a military drone that hit the world trade centers because somebody from across the river in Brooklyn couldn't see the windows on the airplane from 2 miles away flying at 500 mpg. These people are just complete morons. Don't waste my time calling in!" CLICK



[edit on 9-6-2007 by nick7261]

Yes I agree with your logic Nick. The truth be known the more I look into 9-11 the less convinced I am that there is a big conspiracy (other than by self serving conspiracy theorist nut jobs, WTC7 and all). Having said that I see no reason not to use rationed and reasoned debate coupled with solid deductive reasoning to make sure that the wool is not being pulled over our eyes.

Ignorance is bliss they say, and in the case of conspiracy theories never a word was more true. It cuts both ways.

LEE.

Originally posted by nick7261

selfless, can you seriously not see how there is no rational or logical process to your reasoning?

Actually no, all i see is how much you enjoy trying to attack me.

I said it's possible that there were no windows.

I gave a video that shows a witness saying what he saw. It doesn't mean that he is 100% correct, all I do is present the video.

No rational logic process? I am not saying that there is no windows for sure, I'm saying it's possible.

If you claim that it's impossible there were no windows, it's your logic that lacks rationally.