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

Originally posted by thebozeian
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.

Lee, at some point the CTers need to use a bit of self-restraint and personal responsibility as well. Before posting a theory to be debated, one might actually use a rational and reasoned "internal" debate and ask themselves, not the general public, if a particular "theory" is really inexplicable by any other means than a government conspiracy. Next, one might consider if this "theory" may be considered possible fodder for the mainstream public and media to use to denigrate and marginalize the entire CT community.

It reminds me of a friend of mine who tells his kids when they go out in public, "Don't do anything to embarrass your mother."

If there was a government conspiracy, the perps can rest easy at night knowing that the they no longer need to sell the official story. The CTers are doing it for them.

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
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.

Well the video is high very high quality at low resolution, you can clearly see that.

This is one of the best video qualities I have seen on youtube.

And by the way, I never claimed that you could see if there were windows or no windows on the video. I only posted a video because someone said he never seen a high def video of the plane.

Sure it's not cinema quality... but it's a very high quality footage of the plane crash which was requested.

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
What you're saying it totally, well, sorry to say ignorant.

No, you're not sorry at all in fact you seem to enjoy saying it.

And please tell me how it's ignorant for me to show a high quality video to someone who requested to see a high quality video?

That's not ignorance, that's just you trying to pick on me by taking things out of context.

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
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.

Again let me repeat, I never said that you would be able to see that there are windows or no windows on the video I showed after a request for someone to see a high def video.




[edit on 9-6-2007 by selfless]

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]

Great, common sense is a breath of fresh air...

Thank you for seeing what this is about with out making it personally associated with the poster.

You got it 100% right, this is about the possibility that there were either windows or no windows and trying to find some footage out there that confirms one or the other...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.

I think that it would be a big mistake to simply dismiss the search for such a video or photo just because it would be a hard thing to find.

Sure it's unlikely to find a video of the crash with good quality enough to show if there is windows or not but to find such a video or a picture of the event would confirm if either there are windows or no windows on the plane.

This is a very important detail of the event on that day that needs to not be ignored and shouldn't just give up on it so easily just because it would be a hard thing to find...

And if you have no intentions to help other then to keep saying there's no way to find such a video or photo, then please don't bother helping us at all...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.

I don't agree with that statement, I can find many pictures of planes in mid air where you can see the windows on the internet.

Sure they are high quality photo's but still, to say that very few planes are showing windows on the internet is one of the most false statement I ever heard.

And by the way, why on earth did you use the term ''cast doubt on this theory''??? This is not a theory.... it's trying to find footage or a photo that shows there were either windows or no windows....

Are you trying to disrupt this searching process by casting doubt? That's kinda showing an agenda here...

This is not a theory.... it's a research process......

[edit on 9-6-2007 by selfless]

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.

Nick... I don't know where to begin with what you have just said here...

i will try to be polite...

You say that no windows on the planes falls into the incredibly stupid conspiracy theory? Now I know you just have personal issues towards me.

First of all it's not a theory, it's a fact that the plane either had windows or not. It's only waiting to be proven which one of the two is correct.

You contribute nothing in this thread other then to insult our efforts to find if there were windows or not on the planes that crashed into the world trade center.

To claim that finding out if there were windows or not on the planes is stupid, is a statement that can't get any more wrong....

Originally posted by Flyer
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.

You are joking right? If you had watched the video you would see that the video was not about the footage but about the witness that said what he saw.

Think of it as an audio video about a witness that says what he witnessed.

Sure the witness could have been wrong, this is why we are trying to find out if he was or not...

Originally posted by selfless
And by the way, why on earth did you use the term ''cast doubt on this theory''??? This is not a theory.... it's trying to find footage or a photo that shows there were either windows or no windows....

Do you bother reading and comprehending threads in their entirety, or just one post at a time?

THE POINT I was making was that lightworker said he could prove in COURT that there were no windows on the plane based on the videos shown in the thread. *I* was saying that it wouldn't stand up in court if I brought someone into court to testify against his theory that this proved there were no windows. Because IN COURT this would be a THEORY, and this IS just a theory here too. Until you can prove CONCLUSIVELY that there were no windows on the plane then it is a THEORY.

Theory:

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

dictionary.reference.com...

Conjecture:

1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

dictionary.reference.com...

What we have here is THEORY and CONJECTURE until someone can prove CONCLUSIVELY that there were no windows on the plane. There is MORE evidence that there WERE windows on the plane than there is that there were NOT windows on the planes.

Please, show me a high quality picture, from at least 1000 feet below, and two miles away that CLEARLY shows windows on the plane. And then show me a VIDEO (which is what I said) that shows the same thing. I'd really LOVE to see one, since I have seen with my own eyes planes that were well UNDER 1 mile, and 500 feet that you couldn't see the windows on until they were almost in front of me.

Originally posted by selfless

You say that no windows on the planes falls into the incredibly stupid conspiracy theory? Now I know you just have personal issues towards me.

I am talking about the theory, not you.

First of all it's not a theory, it's a fact that the plane either had windows or not. It's only waiting to be proven which one of the two is correct.

A person who takes science classes in school quickly learns that it's folly to attempt to prove a negative. You can't *prove* there were no windows by looking at photos or videos. All you can *prove* is that you were not able to detect windows using your chosen tools of measurement.

That said, when you do see photos of windows in the wreckage, you suddenly have a data point of evidence showing windows. Compare this to the photos and videos that can't display the windows, and your evidence at hand proves there are windows.

You contribute nothing in this thread other then to insult our efforts to find if there were windows or not on the planes that crashed into the world trade center.

I didn't insult anybody. I said that the theory that there are no windows on the plane is a stupid theory. I think I contributed a lot to this thread by pointing out how the official story believers use moronic theories to drive people to the official story by default.

To claim that finding out if there were windows or not on the planes is stupid, is a statement that can't get any more wrong....

First, this thread wasn't about "finding out" if there were windows on the plane. It began with a conclusion you derived using some of the most incredibily flawed illogic I've ever seen here. Here is what you said:

"Whatever it was, it was not a passenger plane."

This is not a search for whether or not the plane had windows. This is an absurd conclusion that I ran by my 2nd grade child to see if she thought the premise made sense. Here's how the conversation went:

"Sweetie... you see that car at the bottom of the hill. Can you see if it has windows or not?"

"No Daddy.. it's too far away to see if it has windows..."

"So does that mean that the car DOESN'T have windows?!"

"(Laughing) No Daddy... don't be silly... it's too far away to see. If we walked down the hill closer we'd be able to see the windows!"


Is this really that complicated? It's probably not the most solid theory if it can be debunked by a 2nd grader.

Zaphod58,

Do you bother reading posts?

I said, how can you cast doubt on a theory if it's not a theory...

It's not a theory wetter the planes had windows or not, it's a fact.

Trying to find out which fact is true that either the plane had windows or not is a search and not a theory.

Your goal is nothing else then discouraging people from finding out the truth.

No, saying that the planes had no windows based on a few eyewitnesses is NOT fact. It's a THEORY. It's a FACT that based on the evidence the plane that was involved with the second impact WAS United flight 175 and it DID have windows. It's a THEORY that the plane was replaced with a windowless cargo plane loaded with explosives. See the difference there?

I'm not trying to keep anyone from finding anything out. I'm trying to show that there's a lot MORE evidence that it was UA175, and WHY there wouldn't be any windows seen in the video. If you can prove CONCLUSIVELY that you can see windows on a plane that's 1000 feet above you, 2 miles away, turned at the same angle, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong and this is possible. However, since I know you can't, I don't think I'll have to worry about making that admission.

Originally posted by selfless
You are joking right? If you had watched the video you would see that the video was not about the footage but about the witness that said what he saw.

Think of it as an audio video about a witness that says what he witnessed.

Sure the witness could have been wrong, this is why we are trying to find out if he was or not...

Its the same logic, the human eye wouldn't have been able to see the tiny windows, same with cameras or the satellite in my analogy.

I bet no one saw the pilot or anyone on board, going by your logic, that means there wasn't any crew or passengers.

When logic dictates something is true, its up to someone else to prove that isn't what happened.

Originally posted by nick7261
I am talking about the theory, not you.

Your statement was so flawed that I had to assume you had a personal grudge from previously.

Originally posted by nick7261
A person who takes science classes in school quickly learns that it's folly to attempt to prove a negative. You can't *prove* there were no windows by looking at photos or videos. All you can *prove* is that you were not able to detect windows using your chosen tools of measurement.

There is a paradox in your statement.

You can't prove there are no videos that would prove if there are windows or not on the planes if you haven't found the video that would prove there are windows or not. Does this mean that you automatically stop searching for it just because you assume there are none? So therefor, how can you claim that there are no videos that confirms this, if you haven't found the video yet?

Paradox....

Originally posted by nick7261
That said, when you do see photos of windows in the wreckage, you suddenly have a data point of evidence showing windows. Compare this to the photos and videos that can't display the windows, and your evidence at hand proves there are windows.

Before you can make this claim you have to prove the photo is not a doctorate work or a planted evidence photo...

It would be much better to find footage of the planes in mid air that shows windows or no windows instead of trusting a possible fake photo evidence.

Originally posted by nick7261

You contribute nothing in this thread other then to insult our efforts to find if there were windows or not on the planes that crashed into the world trade center.

I didn't insult anybody. I said that the theory that there are no windows on the plane is a stupid theory. I think I contributed a lot to this thread by pointing out how the official story believers use moronic theories to drive people to the official story by default.

To say that it's stupid to try to find video or photo evidence that demonstrates if there are windows or no windows on the planes is insulting to the whole human race.

And again this is not a theory..... it's a fact that the planes either had windows or not. Now we are trying to find which one is the truth.

You say that you contribute by pointing out how the official story believers use moronic theories to drive people to the official story by default. That in it self is very insulting to the people you just insulted. Although I am not a official story believer, I don't appreciate you calling them morons. So yes, i Do find that insulting to others...

Originally posted by nick7261

To claim that finding out if there were windows or not on the planes is stupid, is a statement that can't get any more wrong....

First, this thread wasn't about "finding out" if there were windows on the plane. It began with a conclusion you derived using some of the most incredibily flawed illogic I've ever seen here. Here is what you said:

"Whatever it was, it was not a passenger plane."

Ok, I didn't say it in bold letters...

While I personally believe that the plane was not a hijacked plane, I shouldn't have said my opinion like it was a fact. I apologize for that mistake on my part.

But I can tell you that my purpose and intentions of making this thread was to find out if there were windows or not on the planes.

The official story would say that there were windows so therefor I used the side of the coin that was against the official story just to give the impression that it's possible there were no windows to make people look for evidence that would prove or disprove this claim.


I admit it now and i write it here; Yes it's possible it was a passenger jet even though my opinion is that it was not.

Originally posted by nick7261
This is not a search for whether or not the plane had windows.

Yes, i assure you now that it is and was intended to be so.

Although I should have made it more clear in the opening thread as to what was the purpose of the thread, I made a more theater like opening post.

Originally posted by nick7261
This is an absurd conclusion that I ran by my 2nd grade child to see if she thought the premise made sense. Here's how the conversation went:

"Sweetie... you see that car at the bottom of the hill. Can you see if it has windows or not?"

"No Daddy.. it's too far away to see if it has windows..."

"So does that mean that the car DOESN'T have windows?!"

"(Laughing) No Daddy... don't be silly... it's too far away to see. If we walked down the hill closer we'd be able to see the windows!"


Is this really that complicated? It's probably not the most solid theory if it can be debunked by a 2nd grader.

How on earth is that not intended as an insulting or condescending arrogant statement?

I am telling you for the very last time Nick,

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WERE WINDOWS OR NOT ON THE PLANES AND I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THERE WERE OR NOT.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No, saying that the planes had no windows based on a few eyewitnesses is NOT fact. It's a THEORY. It's a FACT

Now I'm positive that you either don't read posts or you try to twist things around on purpose.

I said it's a FACT that the planes either had windows or not, I never said it's a fact that the planes had no windows...

Originally posted by Flyer

Its the same logic, the human eye wouldn't have been able to see the tiny windows, same with cameras or the satellite in my analogy.


While I think it was possible for some eye witnesses to see anomalies on the planes, It would have been difficult to identify the presence of windows on the planes based on logic and I am aware of this.

Originally posted by Flyer
I bet no one saw the pilot or anyone on board, going by your logic, that means there wasn't any crew or passengers.

No, based on my logic, if the witnesses say they saw planes with no windows, we shouldn't dismiss their voices just because we would assume that they didn't really see if there were windows or not.

Originally posted by Flyer
When logic dictates something is true, its up to someone else to prove that isn't what happened.

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to say there were no windows for sure.

And with all due respect, you can't prove to me what hasn't been confirmed by anyone yet.

Same goes for me to you.

I'm not twisting anything. No one can understand what you believe or are trying to prove. You keep saying how open minded you are, but according to what you've posted, since it's POSSIBLE, then the theory that 9/11 never happened and the WTC is still there but hidden by a hologram is a valid theory, because we can't prove it's not true.

We are talking about a theory that the plane had no windows. When you say something like "It's a fact that the plane either had or didn't have windows" when I say that it's a THEORY that the plane involved didn't have windows, then YES I'm going to take it as you saying that it's a FACT that it didn't have them.

That being said, I'm done replying to you. I can't keep up with all the theories involved with your threads. You won't accept anything as evidence as long as there's the REMOTEST possibility that it can be countered, so there's no point discussing things with you.

Have a nice day.

Looks like someone went through this thread and rated ALL my posts one star. Thanks. I really appreciate it.

How professional, once again, an attempt at completely discrediting someone for proving someone wrong.

And no, I did not do it to Selfless.

P.S: Before I get warned for a one liner, the edit function doesn't work.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'm not twisting anything. No one can understand what you believe or are trying to prove. You keep saying how open minded you are, but according to what you've posted, since it's POSSIBLE, then the theory that 9/11 never happened and the WTC is still there but hidden by a hologram is a valid theory, because we can't prove it's not true.

Well I must have said it like 10 times in this thread,

I am trying to find out if the planes either had windows or not, pure and simple.

Well I never said that 9/11 didn't happen that's just you making assumptions on me.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
We are talking about a theory that the plane had no windows. When you say something like "It's a fact that the plane either had or didn't have windows" when I say that it's a THEORY that the plane involved didn't have windows, then YES I'm going to take it as you saying that it's a FACT that it didn't have them.

I said it's a FACT that the planes either had windows or not because neither of those possibilities has been confirmed.

You say it's a THEORY that the planes had no windows.

What you say implies that the plane had windows and saying it had no windows is just a theory while in reality neither of these possibilities have been confirmed so therefor what you say is more biased then what I say and makes your whole argument saying that I am biased against your own self....

In other words, you contradicted your self in a major way.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That being said, I'm done replying to you. I can't keep up with all the theories involved with your threads. You won't accept anything as evidence as long as there's the REMOTEST possibility that it can be countered, so there's no point discussing things with you.
Have a nice day.

You never once offered me evidence that was not for the purpose of saying you are right above all. You never once showed to me how not biased you are. And yet you accuse me of not being open minded.

Well take care now.

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
How professional, once again, an attempt at completely discrediting someone for proving someone wrong.

You can't prove someone wrong if the person is trying to find out if the planes had windows or not.

There is no such thing as proving a person wrong if he's doing unconfirmed research into something.

Wait until I hopefully find footage of the planes with or with out windows and then if you don't agree with the conclusion, prove it wrong.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Looks like someone went through this thread and rated ALL my posts one star. Thanks. I really appreciate it.

Hello my 1 star brother :0

I would like to apologize to everyone for the way I did my Op.

I Don't want to say that the plane was not a passenger plane and wish I could edit my OP but i can't anymore.


FROM THIS POINT ON.

Please, let's make this thread about finding out if the planes had windows or no windows.

Neither of them has been confirmed so therefor won't be confirmed until one of them is proven.

Again I'm sorry and i assure you that, I am completely open to the possibility that the planes had windows or that the planes had no windows.

Let's all be equals and try to find which one is true with out bias.