No Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

I believe planes were used, but I am not claiming that video footage was not altered.

There are many uknowns when dealing with buildings of this magnitude.

Here is a Pic from my personal collection

Originally posted by MagicalWisps

I believe planes were used, but I am not claiming that video footage was not altered.

Here is a Pic from my personal collection

Hi MagicalWisps I see you are new. Were you in NY on 9/11/01? If so can you tell me what you saw and heard that morning. I am 100% sure that the towers were NOT hit by a passenger airplane. What I can't figure out is how tptb got so many witnesses to say they saw a plane?

Here is a very telling video of what happened that day.

part 1


On the first video listen to what the mother-in-law says at the very beginning, "I heard the NOISE of a plane fly over and then like a BOMB had dropped and the building was exploding from the INSIDE OUT! LIKE THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION FROM THE INSIDE BLOWING THE BUILDING OUT!!"

Bri on the phone with Bob only states that she heard a BOOM, no plane noise. Bob on the phone says it sounded like a ROCKET.

Also for the people who still don't even think that explosives were in the towers, keep you eye on the entire length of the tower starting around 7:50, you can see explosions everywhere.

part 2 later

Originally posted by warisover
What I can't figure out is how tptb got so many witnesses to say they saw a plane?

Probably because there really were planes! That would be the most obvious answer.

I just don't think some are really understanding how much matter and mass that building had. These were taken a few days after 9/11, this was still when the urban search and rescue crews were on scene, so you get a small idea of all the rubble.

The holes made by the planes or as this topic suggest bombs... it would have taken a whole heck or a lot of explosive and fuel to cause the damage and the massive fireball out the back. And on multiple floors. Just speculation... on my part.






[edit on 2-5-2010 by MagicalWisps]

Bonez,

The videos are all Fake. Look at the gif in the link and you understand.

I tried to post the gif so you can see it in the post but it was not working.

I hope someone else can post it so people can see it.

This is what you get when you do stuff in the computer and the gif is from the Mike Hezarkhani video.

There is no camera involved in the Hez video, it was all made in a computer long before 9/11.

The CGI plane is standing still in the air and it is the background that moves, not very clever.


Best
D.Duck

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f03ccb66d229.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by warisover


That is, well....huh?

You show a video of the actual impact of United Airliens 175....I see it, over and over again (since YOU tend to repeat it)...

And YOUR point?

It is OBVIOUS, to most rational, thinking adults.

Please, again, show what "YOU" think is incorrect, in THAT video?

Originally posted by D.Duck
The videos are all Fake.

Yes, I know that everybody and everything is fake, blah blah blah. I'll extend the offer to you that I have extended to "warisover" and "orion". Anytime you feel that you have enough evidence and proof that the videos were fake and no planes hit the towers, U2U "semperfortis" and he will set up a debate in the debate forum. Just you and me.

So far, nobody has accepted. That tells me that you all have no real proof that the videos are fake or that no planes hit the towers.

Accept the debate, show real proof, or stop peddling disinformation. Thanks.

I see this thread pop up every once in awhile and I can't believe there's anyone out there that seriously thinks that there were no aircraft involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11.

Seriously, no organization could pull off a fraud of that scale.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by warisover

 

You show a video of the actual impact of United Airliens 175....I see it, over and over again (since YOU tend to repeat it)...

PROVE IT! Can you positively identify that as being flight 175?

And YOUR point? Please, again, show what "YOU" think is incorrect, in THAT video?

Several. First, as D.Duck has pointed out, you can clearly see that the plane is stationary and the buildings are moving. And more importantly, (if you know anything about physics) THERE IS NO RESISTANCE! Just like when a building falls at free fall speed you gotta kinda wonder how could that be done without the support columns being taken out all the way down.

Same goes for this SMOKING GUN clip. Watch the "plane" "flying" into the building, there is NO RESISTANCE, it's going the same speed through the building as it was going through the air, hmmmm. If that had been a real plane crashing into a building there would have been resistance, also a real plane would have crumpled upon impact. C,mon people put your thinking caps on it's really not that hard to figure out.

It is OBVIOUS, to most rational, thinking adults.

The problem with that statement is that most adults are not rational thinking. SAD

Sadly, that's not new and it won't be able to convince me, sorry.

:\

There are two other problems with the video that seem to have gone unnoticed and that prove BEYOND A DOUBT that it's fake.

First of all the plane is moving incredibly slowly. How could a plane even fly if it was going that slow?! LOL.

And second, there's a HUGE red line running down the picture, clearly a glitch left there by one of the CGI artists.

reply to post by warisover


This is absurd....IF you actually believe any of this, that you write in your posts...

PROVE IT! Can you positively identify that as being flight 175?

IT IS A Boeing 767, painted in United Airlines colors. There was ONLY ONE Boeing 767, painted in United Airlines colors, that went missing that day.

Radar tracking has identified the rogue airplane, even thought he transponder had been turned to the "STBY' setting (equivalent of 'off').

There is nothing in ANY of the videos, or photos, to suggest that that was NOT a Boeing 767, painted in United Airlines colors.

So, tell us....what conclusion can be drawn?


Now, this bit is extra-silly....

Several. First, as D.Duck has pointed out, you can clearly see that the plane is stationary and the buildings are moving.

Do you not comprehend HOW someone has taken the video manipulated it digitally? You are comparing examples of altered, after-the-fact videos, and ignoring the raw, originals.


But, then here....you fail in your comprehension of basic physics, sorry:

And more importantly, (if you know anything about physics) THERE IS NO RESISTANCE!

F = MA. Look it up. Doesn't require "rocket science", this is basic physics of motion, inertia, etc. Newtonian stuff. Doesn't even delve into quantum theory, doesn't have to.

If that had been a real plane crashing into a building there would have been resistance, also a real plane would have crumpled upon impact. C,mon people put your thinking caps on it's really not that hard to figure out.

Sigh....where DO these ideas come from? VIDEO GAMES??

Go to 'YouTube'....look up "F-4 crash into concrete wall" or some similar search terms.

Look at just about ANY video of bullets being fired into objects....look into the after-effects of hurrican damage, where telephone poles have pierced concrete walls....there are THOUSANDS of real-world examples, if you just "put your thinking caps on"....

Sheesh!

Originally posted by warisover
Same goes for this SMOKING GUN clip. Watch the "plane" "flying" into the building, there is NO RESISTANCE, it's going the same speed through the building as it was going through the air, hmmmm. If that had been a real plane crashing into a building there would have been resistance, also a real plane would have crumpled upon impact. C,mon people put your thinking caps on it's really not that hard to figure out.

Tell me...

How many 150 ton airliners have you witnessed ploughing into the side of a building at 350mph+ in order to make that particular judgement call?

As 9/11 is the rule, and not the exception to the rule - because up to that date no one had flown a commercial jet liner into the side of a building deliberately - I'm interested in how you decide to frame your answer.



[edit on 4/5/10 by neformore]

reply to post by warisover


I am curious. From the number of videos from different angles and still photos from many different angles...just HOW did the image of the airliner get onto all those cameras?

This theory here is one of the worst ones. Worse than the alien and bombs within theories. Okay so there are millions of people in New York on September the 11th, 2001. This explosion happens on the WTC and there plane increment hanging out of it, and there on PRIVATE HOME VIDEOS.

So your telling me that the US government somehow videoshopped every single cable network, tv set, and electronics goings into home in the world whom have the channel on that day? Also that all the people who saw the planes crash must have had their eyes reverted to just seeing things? There is also plenty of evidence about a plane crashing into the Pentagon and the field in PN. For the field in Pennsylvania part, there were freaking plane parts strewn about the place! And for the pentagon, uhhh the big plane on that building might make the difference there!

Originally posted by warisover
you can clearly see that the plane is stationary and the buildings are moving.

That's what happens when the camera is focused on and following the plane. Everything in the background moves while whatever the camera is focused on appears stationary. How convenient of disinfo artists to take .5 seconds of video to point that out.

Originally posted by warisover
And more importantly, (if you know anything about physics) THERE IS NO RESISTANCE!

Bolts and welds don't offer much resistance against a 300,000-pound object traveling circa 500mph. We've been over this exact point numerous times. To keep bringing it up, and especially in the same thread, equates to spamming and knowingly spreading purposeful disinformation (which is in violation of #1 of ATS's T&C's).

Originally posted by warisover
I am 100% sure that the towers were NOT hit by a passenger airplane.

I've asked you repeatedly but you continue to ignore my question - how do you explain the planes that are clearly visible on the amateur videos?

What I can't figure out is how tptb got so many witnesses to say they saw a plane?

Surely until you can answer that question you can't believe 100% in the 'no planes' theory? Really what you're saying is that 'I recognise there's a huge hole in my own theory, but I still 100% believe I am correct.' Do you see the contradiction in your logic?

Unless you can clearly and concisely explain how thousands of people saw planes on the day, all you're really doing is providing slightly depressing entertainment for people like me.

I think I'm beginning to understand how the no planers work, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong tho....

Step 1. - Start another 'no planes' thread.
Step 2. - Avoid direct replies to questions posed by other members, just repeat the original post with some words shuffled around. If in doubt, use a lot of CAPS, as this makes your point clearer, obviously.
Step 3. - Repost a repeatedly debunked video. Claim this is indisputable evidence.
Step 4. - When fellow ATSers point out it's already been debunked and actually clearly shows a plane, post another very similar video and claim this as evidence. Again, ignore criticism of the previous videos.
Step 5. - Repeat Steps 2 to 4 until you get bored, run out of videos or find it very difficult to avoid answering repeated, simple questions about your theory.
Step 6. - Repeat Step 1. Loop until the dis-info guys stop paying you, then go back to work in McDonalds and/or KFC.

I could be completely wrong tho, the OP or his friends could surprise me and answer the b*!@$y question.....

How do you explain all the amateur videos of planes hitting the trade centers? If they were all CGI'd, what mechanism would make that possible?

reply to post by eightfold


ok, here is how it was done, for all you slow learners.