NO PLANES : HOW THEY DID IT

[HERA]

No " I fink yor a nutter " replies, please.

From

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7638

" The helicopter that captured the only "live" shot of the second plane was equipped with a WESCAM system. This is the same technology that is able to superimpose a first down marker on a football field, while not appearing on a player who crosses it. Subsequent replays showing the plane could also have been "ready to go." As for the rest of the 16 or so total videos and the Naudet film, they had all kinds of time to create those.

.......

Think about it. All the helicopter had to do was stabilize, line up the shot, insert the plane/first down marker using a couple of test runs off air, and then detonate the explosion, timing it with the on air image. This would be pretty easy to time if the detonator were in the same helicopter as the camera. "

[Banish]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

This is the best yet, stop the image after 4 seconds (the wing vanishes) and after 12 seconds (plane has gone into building) you look at the screen and there is no evidence of anything



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_MnCPxwKoY&mode=related&search=

[Ally]

Wescam


And

[Stefan]

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous- look on the internet, the second plane was caught by so mnay different ameteur and proffesional cameras I don't see how anyone can deny that at least that plane was genuine.

[physicist]

I'm not sure what to believe and what not to believe about 9/11 but the "no planes theory" is the oddest part.

However, look at the animation I made using video I recorded from the BBC on 9-Sep-2001. I've slowed it down to 1 frame per second but it's actually 25 frames per second in real time, i.e. 40ms between each frame.

It takes about 10 frames from impact for the plane to disappear into the south tower from Frame 2 to Frame 11. This gives an averAge entry speed of 48m in 400ms i.e. 120m/s (about 270mph), somewhat lower than most estimates. It doesn't seem to slow down much as it enters.

Then not much happens for the next 13 frames (520ms). Since the tower is 64m across and a 48m plane entered across a corner, I would expect something to happen before then. Strange.

[suspecta]

Too many actual people on the ground said they saw the second plane hit. I think the no-planers are either professional disinformationers or just plain gullible.

Suspecta

[andrew1957]

Surely this whole no planes argument is pointless and devisive. At the end of the day it is irrelevant. Of the many smoking guns of 911 the fact that irrespective of whether the Twin Towers were hit by a plane or a missile they were ultimately brought by EXPLOSIVES. Just watch 911 Mysteries video.

Why get so hung up on this arguement rather than concentrating on the certainty that explosives brought down the towers and building7.

[HERA]

Click on the AND in Ally's post and youll get this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4IidmD8RMQ&mode=related&search=[/url

Disappearing wings and Boeings with Cruise front ends.

[Stefan]

Re. that video. Couldn't this just be put down to poor quality recording, I mean we're talking about a frame or two of flicker.

I'm open minded, but we have so many different video views I find it VERY hard to believe this.

Consider this- a good way of rubbishing "conspiracy theories" which are compelling and full of evidence (i.e. controlled demolition) is to worm theories which will be ridiculed into the spectrum from inside- so that those asking genuine questions which are backed up by numerous pieces of evidence are all tarnished by the chaff? Just a thought.

Why would it be neccesary? How difficult would it be for the US government to either
a) fund and train terrorist cells to carry out the attacks with real hijackings
b) fly a remote controlled dummy plane into the tower with computer precision.
Not too hard, I'd say- why go to the trouble of star trek esque holograms and such? Why bother?

If they were going to take down the building with explosives anyway, what conceivable reason is there for using a high tech hologram/cruise missile combo over a standard plane in the first place?

[dry kleaner]

Hello all no plane theorists
I just want to give a short hand answer to a complex issue which when I have more time plan to come back with a more detailed response. Video does not work in frames like film, the information is interlaced, i.e. to create what we perceive as a frame the image scans horizontal and vertical lines to create an image. So when you freeze a "frame" you are in a sense seeing half an image. Also the format of viewing is a highly compressed DVD which again on detail will lose more information from the original source footage.

I am planning a trip to Arri Media UK next week to chat with the video guys and finally get a decent answer that will explain this theory once and for all. I strongly feel that the effects we are discussing is a result of video recording characteristics and DVD compression. I maybe wrong so I plan to go and find out. If anything this is an agument for the pro film lobby in the film world who want to keep using film as opposed to video. You can buy video cameras today that shoot in frame mode however in 2001 that technology was not in use.

I'll keep you posted on what I find at Arri.

Peace and love

DK

[jomper]

I'd just like to ask - how easy would it be for anyone who would sow seeds of dissent in a movement like this to simply meddle with a bit of video, and then upload it to utube or whatever together with a few triumphant statements to the effect that they'd found evidence that the video had been meddled with?

Pretty easy I'd say. I know I could do it.

[graphicequaliser]

Has anyone noticed how, as the digital age has dawned, and the only cameras being used nowadays are all digital, governments are let off the hook because of "compression artefacts", whatever the video is showing? Or it's been "photoshopped". Bring back good old silver-based film techniques. Then the evidence would have been undeniable. But all anyone's got nowadays is compressed digital footage and stills, with visual "noise" being used to sidestep accusations.

Did nobody get any footage of these planes on actual film? If not, why not?

If you were in charge of public domain technology, wouldn't you try to make your life easier by making it a "mickey mouse" ergonomic money-spinner, with products that fail when pushed to useful limits?

[telecasterisation]

Yep, undeniable silver halide technology.

[ComfortablyNumb]

[graphicequaliser]

[quote="ComfortablyNumb"]

[dry kleaner]

[Ally]

I like your take on why there's no 'film' of the attack just digital versions, or so it seems. You should also try and find credits for the footage that does exist, there are hardly any except to dodgy folk like scott myers. He took one of only two or three stills that exist of '175'.

Don't all those who believe the WTC was rigged with explosives not think it too risky flying a plane full of fuel into it?

[dry kleaner]

[HERA]

[chek]

[MiniMauve]

[chek]

[Banish]

[Stefan]

What would make me consider the no planes theory:

If on evry single video of the second plane hitting the "disapearances" can be shown to correspond second for second.

If it is problems with the "hologram" rather than a problem with the video recording, the same disappearances will happen at the same time on every piece of film footage there is.

Has anyone demonstrated that they do?

[chek]

[Stefan]

Chek,
Could I be a pain in the arse and ask if you know what hour/minute that bit is at?

[Ally]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Ally - have looked at your link - incredible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It shows the whole fake plane going through the building and coming out and flying off the other side (see the link below at 1minute 15 seconds)

http://www.911tvfakery.net/

[chek]