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

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And they show the same things that are shown in the "pod" pictures. You can see everything they show in those pictures on the bottom of a "normal" 767, because they ARE normal 767s.

Until I see a picture that makes me agree with that statement, we can agree to disagree.

For me though, I'm not satisfied enough to say it's confirmed. (in my opinion)

Selfless

Click the link that Zaphod58 posted last. Go all the way to the bottom of the page and click the link that says questions questions.net. It may not change your mind, but there is a lot of information explaining the pods on the bottom of the plane and the fireball at the point of impact.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Selfless

Click the link that Zaphod58 posted last. Go all the way to the bottom of the page and click the link that says questions questions.net. It may not change your mind, but there is a lot of information explaining the pods on the bottom of the plane and the fireball at the point of impact.

I have not seen any pictures in there that would be consistent with the picture I posted. (In my opinion)

I'm just being honest here, I am still looking.

Originally posted by selfless

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.

So how are you going to know that a photo or video of a plane in mid air showing the windows was real or faked? This is seriously some of the most circular convoluted reasoning I've seen here. Sometimes I wonder if this whole topic isn't a big put on.

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.

Wow.... I was able to insult the whole human race before lunch time. Just think what I can do on a full stomach.

"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 stand by my story about my 2nd grader. If a theory can be debunked in 20 seconds by a 9-year old, it's not a solid theory. If you feel insulted by my story about my 2nd grader maybe what you're really feeling is a slap in the face by reality. A 9-year old child spontanously laughed at the premise that just because you can't see something from far away doesn't mean it's really not there.

People learn when they're children that you can't see small objects from far away, but when you move closer you can see them. Because you can't see them from far away doesn't mean they're not there.

Originally posted by nick7261
So how are you going to know that a photo or video of a plane in mid air showing the windows was real or faked? This is seriously some of the most circular convoluted reasoning I've seen here. Sometimes I wonder if this whole topic isn't a big put on.

I won't be able to confirm 100% for sure of course but a video is much harder to fake then a photograph.

Originally posted by nick7261
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.

Wow.... I was able to insult the whole human race before lunch time. Just think what I can do on a full stomach.

So imagine that someone finds evidence or footage that shows windows, then will you will think it was stupid to look for it?

Now that's some convoluted reasoning right there.

Originally posted by nick7261
"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!"

Even when you try to be insulting you just end up making false statements...

It's very much possible to see a window of a car from quite far away.

If we were to find a video that showed windows, we could say there were windows but to say that it's impossible there were no windows just because no footage can prove it YET is the most ignorant reasoning I have heard in a long time.

Originally posted by nick7261
Is this really that complicated? It's probably not the most solid theory if it can be debunked by a 2nd grader.

You debunked absolutely nothing...

There is no theory here, it's either the plane had windows or it had no windows, there is no absolute here until proven otherwise by either possibilities.

All you are doing is not being able to understand that there were 2 possibilities, one is that there were windows and the other is that there were no windows. When you can finally grasp that concept you will stop deluding your self into thinking you are debunking something.

Originally posted by nick7261
I stand by my story about my 2nd grader. If a theory can be debunked in 20 seconds by a 9-year old, it's not a solid theory.

Again, you did not even debunk anything because there is nothing possible to debunk....

I some times wonder if you say these things on purpose nick...

How can you debunk a theory if there is no theory to debunk? The fact that there are either windows or no windows is not a theory, it's a fact waiting to be proven.

I am on the fence on this one, windows or no windows. Don't know yet and perhaps I will never prove one or the other but I won't give up just because some person tells me irrelevant combination of insulting degrading words that doesn't prove anything...

Originally posted by nick7261
If you feel insulted by my story about my 2nd grader maybe what you're really feeling is a slap in the face by reality.

I'm feeling the slap of a troll.

Originally posted by nick7261
A 9-year old child spontanously laughed at the premise that just because you can't see something from far away doesn't mean it's really not there.

The child laughed because you explained it to him or her by twisting words.

Go ask the child this specific question:

Father: Hey son, because I can't find any clear footage of the planes that shows windows or no windows, should i assume that there are windows on it and this makes it impossible for it not to have windows on it?

Child: Ha ha ha ha ha!! no daddy, silly, you should not assume that it's impossible for the plane to not have windows just because the footage is not clear enough to see wetter there are windows or not.

Child: I hope you learn something from my knowledge daddy.

Father: Yes, I'm flabbergasted that I couldn't understand that concept, thank you my son, you have outgrown my intelligence already.

PS: don't take it as an insult, it's just an analogy of a child's reaction to your logical state of mind.




[edit on 9-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless
It's very much possible to see a window of a car from quite far away. Your point is completely irrelevant.

Actually, no. The story I described happened today. It was quite IMPOSSIBLE to see the windows on the car we were looking at. Why would you presume to tell me that it was possible to see the windows when it clearly wasn't? You weren't there. My daughter and I were too far away to see the windows. She figured out that if we moved closer we could see them.

You debunked absolutely nothing...

There is no theory here, it's either the plane had windows or it had no windows, there is no absolute here until proven otherwise by either possibilities.

Then why are you even spending one millisecond bringing up this topic? No kidding, the plane either had windows or no windows. Is this really that profound of a concept to start a thread over?

The plane was either made out of swiss cheese or aluminum. Bet nobody has proven it wasn't swiss cheese, so we better leave that possibility open, right?

Maybe all the posts on ATS (except yours) were generated by peopel thought controlled by government conspirators running the MK Ultra program. Nobody's able to prove they weren't, so we need to leave this possibility open too according to your illogic.

Maybe you're entire life is just a dream and you're going to wake up soon. Nobody can prove it isn't can they? Maybe we're all living on one small atom on the toe of a giant from a different universe. I bet you can't prove that we're not. I guess we need to leave that possibility open too.

This is why scientific method avoids theories that by necessity require the proof of a negative. Just because I can make up a theory that you can't prove false doesn't mean the theory has any validity.

Originally posted by nick7261

Actually, no. The story I described happened today. It was quite IMPOSSIBLE to see the windows on the car we were looking at. Why would you presume to tell me that it was possible to see the windows when it clearly wasn't? You weren't there. My daughter and I were too far away to see the windows. She figured out that if we moved closer we could see them.

Because once again you misinterpreted what I meant.

I said it's possible to see windows of a car from far away, I never said that it's impossible to not be able to see windows of a car from far away.

Originally posted by nick7261
Then why are you even spending one millisecond bringing up this topic? No kidding, the plane either had windows or no windows. Is this really that profound of a concept to start a thread over?

You greatly underestimate how important it would be to find out if there were windows or no windows on the plane...

Originally posted by nick7261
Maybe all the posts on ATS (except yours) were generated by peopel thought controlled by government conspirators running the MK Ultra program. Nobody's able to prove they weren't, so we need to leave this possibility open too according to your illogic.

Actually no... You are doing what we call, reaching for extremes.

It's getting really old to be told that just because I'm open minded to multiple theories that I will believe anything.

Don't confuse being open to the possibility of a theory to believing every theories out there as if they were true.

You make it out to be like I believe everything is true while in reality it's the complete opposite. Just because (I don't ignorantly claim that a theory is false just because it doesn't fit my perception or my opinion) that it means I believe all theories to be true.

Originally posted by nick7261
Maybe you're entire life is just a dream and you're going to wake up soon.

Maybe more then you think...

Originally posted by nick7261
This is why scientific method avoids theories that by necessity require the proof of a negative. Just because I can make up a theory that you can't prove false doesn't mean the theory has any validity.

Another false statement as far as I'm concerned...

The speculative theory arises from the evidence that we see.

We speculate a theory to match the existing evidence that suggests certain aspects of a reality.

We think it's possible that there were no windows on the plane because it's in the realm of an inside job explanation possibility.

We don't make up theories, we process the information and evidence and try to fit it into a reasoning that fits all the criteria and perception towards a certain event in reality.

When we will collectively find all the matching key elements that proves an absolute explanation on how 911 was done, all the people will accept that reality.


Now, let's be friends nick ok?


[edit on 9-6-2007 by selfless]

This thread has turned into one person fighting with himself .
Selfless will never see the truth because he is blinded by hate . There are several good pics and reasons why SOME didn't see windows , but he refuses to see or hear . That's his problem .

Originally posted by gen.disaray
This thread has turned into one person fighting with himself .
Selfless will never see the truth because he is blinded by hate

I am just replying to what nick says to me.

No different then anyone else who replies to someone talking to him.

gen.disaray...

I see the posts you do in threads, I can't even imagine how you can bring your self to say that I'm blinded by hate... look at your own posts.

Military 767 tanker without windows:
www.airforce-technology.com...
Actual photos of Flight 175 tail number N612UA:
www.airliners.net...
Photos of Flight 175 in the blue United Airlines livery taken in August 2001:
www.airliners.net... K%20%2F%20XYNK%29&ERDLTkt=HFN%20-%20Pnyvsbeavn&ktODMp=Nhthfg%202001&BP=1&WNEb25u=Wnzrf%20Evpuneq%20Pbivatgba&xsIERvdWdsY=A612HN&MgTUQtODMgKE=Guvf%20nv epensg%20%28nf%20syvtug%20175%29%20jnf%20qryvorengryl%20penfurq%20vagb%20gur%20Jbeyq%20Genqr%20Pragre%20ohvyqvat%202%20va%20Arj%20Lbex%20ba%20Frcgrzor e%2011%2C%202001%20nsgre%20orvat%20uvwnpxrq%20ol%20greebevfgf.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=30216&NEb25uZWxs=2001-09-15%2000%3A00%3A00&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=21873%2F 41&static=yes&width=1020&height=739&sok=JURER%20%20%28ert%20%3D%20%27A612HN%27%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=13&prev_id=0188369&next_i d=0188144&size=L
www.airliners.net...< br /> Compare with Scott Meyers photo montage of Flight 175:
killtown.911review.org...
Toggle the last image with the third one I listed. Is it the same? The fuselage in front of the wing looks slightly longer relative to the remainder in the Scott Meyers frames compared with the actual photo of Flight 175. More like a 767-300 than a 767-222.


[edit on 9-6-2007 by micpsi]

"quote"REPLY


Military 767 tanker without windows:
www.airforce-technology.com...

First of all the KC-767 did NOT exist back in 2001, the first one flew in May 21, 2005. Second of all, even if it did, the plane that hit the WTC did NOT have a refueling boom attached the the tail.

killtown.911review.org...
Toggle the last image with the third one I listed. Is it the same? The fuselage in front of the wing looks slightly longer relative to the remainder in the Scott Meyers frames compared with the actual photo of Flight 175. More like a 767-300 than a 767-222.

Any aviation fan will tell you the exact opposite.

Oh, and by the way. The KC-767 was based on the 767-200ER NOT the 767-300.

I have a question ... since there is a photo in this thread of the window section of the plane that survived an explosion, fire, a tall building collapse when most of the rest of the building didn't ... why wasn't there more plane debris from the Pentagon crash? That doesn't fit into logic for me.

imho, things don't necessarily disappear on video if the resolution cannot support it for pixel size, something like a row of windows should normally show up as a faint dark line down the side of the plane, since it is a consistent feature, and light would tend to spread out as it become 'fuzzy' for a camera, not bend into itself and disappear. But, I can also see the point of it not being seen on a really poor video at a distance.

To me, the point of the windows themselves is not a deal breaker on the possibility of the truth of conspiracy, and I will not doubt those who were there and claim they didn't see windows or did see them. I can understand if someone says a 'I saw a plane' windows are implied ... and I also know that a lot of witnesses signed a gag order so unless issued a subpoena, we will never hear their truth again.

I think the issues beyond the windows ... the cover ups, the prevention of us hearing the full 911 9/11 calls, even with the permission of the families, and so much more issues points me to believe there is a lot more to this than a bunch of loonies making something out of nothing. I have personally come to believe there were mocked up cargo planes, possibly flown by remote (as they do for crash testing), with extra stuff added. I have visited some sites and watched a lot of videos with an open mind, and cannot see it any other way. I also feel this will be something to come out in the future, as Pearl Harbor did ... maybe on a letter to be released by the ones involved once they pass away so they don't have to serve time for their crimes.

I will heed their words, and never forget. One day, when something can be done about it, even if it is just having the truth be known ... I will feel a bit of relief on the matter.


[edit: fixxed bbcode for video]

[edit on 10-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

www.liveleak.com...

For comparison.

Originally posted by PisTonZOR

"quote"REPLY


Military 767 tanker without windows:
www.airforce-technology.com...

First of all the KC-767 did NOT exist back in 2001, the first one flew in May 21, 2005. Second of all, even if it did, the plane that hit the WTC did NOT have a refueling boom attached the the tail.

You missed the point of my comment. I was not claiming that this plane might be Flight 175. It merely demonstrated that 767 tankers exist that don't have windows. Your point about the refueling boom is irrelevant.

killtown.911review.org...
Toggle the last image with the third one I listed. Is it the same? The fuselage in front of the wing looks slightly longer relative to the remainder in the Scott Meyers frames compared with the actual photo of Flight 175. More like a 767-300 than a 767-222.

Any aviation fan will tell you the exact opposite.

Well, he would be wrong. Here's the proof:
www.amics21.com...


Oh, and by the way. The KC-767 was based on the 767-200ER NOT the 767-300.

Who said it was based upon the 767-300? I didn't. Again, you missed my point.

It merely demonstrated that 767 tankers exist that don't have windows. Your point about the refueling boom is irrelevant.

Of course a tanker won't have windows. Freighter versions of the 767 exist and they don't have Windows.

Sorry I just didn't understand why would you mention the KC767?

Well, he would be wrong. Here's the proof:
www.amics21.com...

Huh? No I mean't that any aviation fan well EASILY tell you that the 9/11 planes were -200s not 300s.

Who said it was based upon the 767-300? I didn't. Again, you missed my point.

Sorry I thought you were suggesting a KC-767 hit the towers yet it was a 767-300 which doesn't make sence.


Sorry for any.... misunderstandings.

It is important for those that are investigating or researching the no-planes theory of 911 to consider what I have to say, because I firmly believe that what I have discovered lends credibility to a portion of the no-plane theory and as such begins to explain why the media video coverage from that fateful day causes problems with many that were eye witnesses to what happened the morning of the Twin Towers being struck by airliners.

Recently while viewing some on line videos at You Tube I was viewing a series of interviews of Andrew D. Basiago, Atty. At Law. I was specifically into video 9 of 16 when Mr. Basiago comments about how he and others had had been shown a video of 911 and the planes hitting the Towers. He commented that the video he and others watched was many years before 911 ever occurred.

He commented that the video had been taken from a future time line by use of the quantum technology that allows for viewing the future and as such the video he and others watched had been a recording of a future time line event which had been recorded by use of such secret technology years before 911 was to occur.

By showing the 911 event to Mr. Basiago and others prior to the 911 event itself is evidence that the plane striking the Twin Towers video tapes existed prior to 911. This is key to adding credibility to the possibility that the video footage of the planes hitting the towers was already in the hands of those that were aware that 911 was going to occur and on the day of the attack, and used the on hand video footage garnered from time travel technologies in the past and was used to add credibility to the cover story that was being sold whenever anyone watched the television and viewed coverage from the attack that morning.

This is when a light went off in my head. I said to myself that the reason so many eye witnesses have differing opinions and remarks about the two separate jet airliner striking the Twin Towers is due in part because the video feed of the planes hitting the towers was a recorded video taken years ago by those that knew 911 was going to occur.

The video footage shown of 911 of the planes hitting the Twin Towers was a recorded event recorded by those that used secret time travel technology to see the future and in seeing 911 elected to take some recordings for historical purposes and to help those in the present time line to become aware of a future event that would change the face of America forever.

I no way am I stating that all video coverage from that day is from some future time line or that planes did not actually hit the Twin Towers, but within all the coverage from that day, it appears that the footage of the two planes striking the towers is the video coverage that most remember the best and which causes eye witnesses to scratch their heads because they remember things on the ground differently.

The differences in what eye witnesses saw vs. what was broadcast by the media is explained by this use of a pre-recorded video that was already in possession and was used on the day of 911.

Anyone that has scrutinized the videos has been looking for CGI editing and manipulation of the video. Any anomalies found by such investigators are actually observing evidence of time line differences because although someone possessed a video of the planes hitting the towers prior to 911, and since it was recorded in the past of a future event, on the actual day of 911, minor differences existed in our time line compared to the time line of the video coverage being shown to the public as video coverage of that mornings event.

It is those small inconsistencies that are actually time line differences that of course cannot be explained away because to do so would require that one step outside of the normal box and view things with a completely different eye.

I hope this has been helpful, but I am certain anyone who views the video I was watching will hear and most likely come to the same conclusion that while it is a wild and fantastical theory, the fact that Mr. Basiago commented on viewing the video years before 911 is a clue that should not be ignored in considering the possibility that the video coverage shown to the world of specifically the planes striking the towers is in actuality, real 911 video coverage from the future taken when the event was still a future event while still back in the past.

It may have been a recorded video of the planes striking the towers, but it was from the future. It is a video that was used to help sell the illusion and now that I have grasped this small clue, I am convinced that it helps to explain why anomalies and irregularities exist that many eyewitnesses say differ from those that viewed the media coverage showing the planes striking the Twin Towers and can only remember what they saw based on video coverage alone.

Since each time anyone who saw the original video coverage reviews the video from that day, they are reinforcing what was aired by the media coverage from that day which is a complete misdirection from actual events on the ground. This explains why accounts of what was seen on the television vs. what was seen by eye witnesses differs so much that it gets confusing and frustrating. I hope I have offered some food for thought and I hope it gives thought to some areas that remain areas of concern.

Enjoy the link. www.youtube.com...

I encourage viewing all videos within the series, but the most important ones begin with video #5. At video #9 of 16 is where Mr. Basiago comments about the 911 video coverage he and others saw years before 911 ever occurred. I encourage viewing the whole series, but if you’re lazy, just view 9 of 16 to verify my finding. It will confirm what I just posted about a video tape from the future being used to show insiders the planes hitting the towers.

Lastly, since they can record the future and show it in the past then they can do much more that could deceive or confuse the public when it comes to radar tapes and other areas of importance from 911.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this posting.

reply to post by MaxBlack


The 911 disinformation smear tactics in effect.

Nice.

Note: None of the proposed theories were ever excepted by true investigators and researcher of 9/11. It has been proven that these theories came from supporters of the official story and debunkers. This a ploy to discredit researchers and to confuse lurkers into thinking that this is 'proof' of something. This is only proof of the coverup using smear tactics.