| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
What about the videos showing the plane entering the building. (Fairbanks, Myers, CBC/Cheney). These events are impossible. Were these videos created to deceive? Perhaps, but why? And where was the plane debris below the crash site? And how did plane debris go through the building and land far beyond? Why plant all this evidence, unless the intent is to create a false impression of planes.
I don't know how the holes were created. They could be altered pictures.
You are correct that both videos could show planes and the first video, with borders, has obscured the plane.
This kind of manipulation could be designed to create a false impression of no planes, as you say, but it could also be designed to cover for no planes. As you say, marky54, "who's fooling who here? are they trying to fool me or you?" And gruts, as I read marky 54, he is saying that TVFakery videomakers might be drawing faulty conclusions from manipulated videos, not that they are manipulating videos themselves.
The crash physics are what convinced me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So why not tell us all about these 'impossible' crash physics that you seem to take for granted as your starting point?
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | You are correct that both videos could show planes and the first video, with borders, has obscured the plane.
|
be honest with yourself, both shots do show planes, there is no could about it. the first video with boarders relys on suggestion and then people not picking up the moving plane.
for example before even viewing it your told or it is suggested their is no plane, you watch it and do not notice the plane, "my god your right theres no plane!"
the boarders play the key role in it all for that particular video, but there is no could about it, it does show a plane in both that match the exact same flight path once you are aware of the role the boarder plays and know where to look.
| Quote: | | he is saying that TVFakery videomakers might be drawing faulty conclusions from manipulated videos |
yes that is mainly what i think it is, somebody(person/group/agency, who knows) is feeding people with information that is deceptive and wrong, once you get people believing the false information it is not hard to convince them ferther and mislead them more as you present more false information to feed their beilef system, at that point they will believe anything you tell them because it enforces their arguement or leads them to believe they are onto something.
however certain people in the NPT/tv fakery crowd are certainly the ones doing the misleading, as they continue to do it time after time on the same arguements even though their arguement has been proven to be misleading or wrong. they simply do not care as long as they have a fan base and fools to mislead they will contuinue to promote it.
i am certainly saying the majority in the npt/tv fakery crowd have been misled to believe certain information, however they are being guided by a few and misled on purpose so some within the ranks ARE doing the misleading or fabricating evidence to support the whole arguement of NPT/ TV fakery and i urge you to look at information more carefully and check things out for yourselves rather than just beliving what you are told or fed no matter who presents the information or where it comes from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seamless penetration of the planes is physically impossible. The aluminum is weaker than the steel. There's no way te plane would glide in to the building as shown in Fairbanks video.
After hearing Morgan Reynolds speak, I did some research and satisfied myself, here, by looking at the paper by Karim and Hoo Fat that purports to explain what happened, using two unrealistic assumptions: (1) no floors backing the columns; (2) fuselage assumed, not shown, to penetrate.
This is verbose and could use some editing, but I'm not an engineer anyway. This was just me satisfying myself that Reynolds is correct. The claim that the plane would glide into the building is every bit as absurd as the claim that the buildings "collapsed."
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2006/11/911-pound-gorilla-in-catos-ro om.html
You can read Karim and Hoo Fat's paper, here:
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/02/engineering-article-on-which- i-relied.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The aluminum is weaker than the steel. |
and what about a passenger jet traveling at around 500mph? what kind of aliminum and design do they use to give the jet strenght? or do they just recycle drinks cans and turn them into jumbo jets?
| Quote: | | The claim that the plane would glide into the building is every bit as absurd |
i agree, yet it is only npt'ers who claim it glided. the video clearly shows the plane did'nt glide at all, it powered into the towers and the impact was immense, i would'nt call that gliding.
| Quote: | | This was just me satisfying myself |
you mean feeding your belief system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
"what about a passenger jet traveling at around 500mph? "
Not sure what you mean. The aluminum is as strong at 500 mph as it is at rest, I presume.
I didn't say they were beer cans. But the idea that the fuselage would not lose in an impact with steel columns is absurd. I presume you are saying the fuselage has steel framing. If so, it is still a hollow aluminum tube between the frames, and there is no way it weould pierce the columns intact as claimed by NIST, Purdue, and Greg Jenkins. Karim Hoo Fatt got it in by assuming it in, and (I think) subtracting some energy from their equation to account for that assumption.
When I say "gliding into" I mean entering with no apparent resistance, deformation, or deceleration. Perhaps "sliding into" or "slipping into" was better. I could think of various metaphors to describe the penetration videos, one of which would be a bit vulgar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
"you mean feeding your belief system."
A typical snide remark. Is this the best I can hope for from you all? Perhaps I'm wasting my time here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
"both shots do show planes, there is no could about it."
No, one shot shows a very blurry image that could be something else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
"yes that is mainly what i think it is, somebody(person/group/agency, who knows) is feeding people with information that is deceptive and wrong, once you get people believing the false information it is not hard to convince them ferther and mislead them more as you present more false information to feed their beilef system, at that point they will believe anything you tell them because it enforces their arguement or leads them to believe they are onto something."
This could as easily be a great statement of why everyone believes that planes hit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ningen wrote: | "what about a passenger jet traveling at around 500mph? "
Not sure what you mean. The aluminum is as strong at 500 mph as it is at rest, I presume.
I didn't say they were beer cans. But the idea that the fuselage would not lose in an impact with steel columns is absurd. I presume you are saying the fuselage has steel framing. If so, it is still a hollow aluminum tube between the frames, and there is no way it weould pierce the columns intact as claimed by NIST, Purdue, and Greg Jenkins. Karim Hoo Fatt got it in by assuming it in, and (I think) subtracting some energy from their equation to account for that assumption.
When I say "gliding into" I mean entering with no apparent resistance, deformation, or deceleration. Perhaps "sliding into" or "slipping into" was better. I could think of various metaphors to describe the penetration videos, one of which would be a bit vulgar. |
speed/weight plays a main factor regardless of the material, as does the design of both objects that collide, its not as simple as rock paper scissors, the impact happened in milliseconds any damage you expecting to see is going off inside the tower or on the blind side of the plane, we only ever see the part of the plane yet to sustain damage on the outside of the towers.
how quickly do you expect a building to slow down a huge jet travelling at 500mph? instantly? even a car with brakes will not slow down instantly, and the faster they travel the more brake distance they need, overall i'd say the buildings did a good job of stopping the plane in its tracks.
people go on like the plane hit a cliff or something, they like to go on about how hollow the plane was but never how hollow the towers were.
| Quote: | | This could as easily be a great statement of why everyone believes that planes hit. |
the only difference is people who believe planes hit do not have to fabricate evidence to make their case.
| Quote: | | No, one shot shows a very blurry image that could be something else. |
no both shots show the same thing, one shot is poorer qaulity than the other, if the second shot shows a plane then it is very simply the same thing in the first shot which is identical barring quality.
you really do need poor qaulity videos to fool people don't you, but when someone turns up with the same shot in better quality to reveal the truth you still claim both shots show something different inorder to cling to no planes madness.
| Quote: | | A typical snide remark. Is this the best I can hope for from you all? Perhaps I'm wasting my time here |
that depends what your looking for, if you think people here(well most) just swallow any information given without questioning and providing counter evidence where errors have been noticed then maybe you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"you really do need poor qaulity videos to fool people don't you, but when someone turns up with the same shot in better quality to reveal the truth you still claim both shots show something different inorder to cling to no planes madness."
I'm not trying to fool anyone. It's not my video. The argument is that the second video was broadcast later, and an image of a plane inserted.
Madness is believing that a plane slipped into the buildings as shown. This has nothing to do with whether those videos are real.
The buildings were not "hollow." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ningen wrote: | "you really do need poor qaulity videos to fool people don't you, but when someone turns up with the same shot in better quality to reveal the truth you still claim both shots show something different inorder to cling to no planes madness."
I'm not trying to fool anyone. It's not my video. The argument is that the second video was broadcast later, and an image of a plane inserted.
Madness is believing that a plane slipped into the buildings as shown. This has nothing to do with whether those videos are real.
The buildings were not "hollow." |
what ever you say of cause must be true! don't worry i will not question you anymore, ill leave to believe your misguided judgements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've yet to see much of a question. Just faulty assertions and false aspersions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ningen wrote: | | I've yet to see much of a question. Just faulty assertions and false aspersions. |
the irony.
im yet to see any evidence for npt that is'nt just faulty assertions and false or delibrate fabrication.
maybe you could provide me with your methods of how you can tell a video or photo is fake, i did ask but no suprise you've been unable to do so as you just parrott other peoples information and then call it research.
im very intrested how YOU confirm which photos are fake and which are not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
