The most famous shot of the 'knife into butter' shot of the South Tower hit is all you ever need to know that something is very wrong with the 'real planes' theory. The explosions after the tail fin goes in... Very wrong
That's all that you need to perceive
Do you realise it takes time for an explosion to propagate? And that this 'explosion' was caused by vapourised airliner fuel which itself was in motion even as it dispersed and was ignited, and was therefore being carried inwards?
How long did it take for the fuel tanks to enter the building?
How long did it take for the tanks to rupture, the fuel to vapourise, ignite and the fireball become visible?
Your understanding of physics is shocking. _________________ Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
The most famous shot of the 'knife into butter' shot of the South Tower hit is all you ever need to know that something is very wrong with the 'real planes' theory. The explosions after the tail fin goes in... Very wrong
That's all that you need to perceive
Do you realise it takes time for an explosion to propagate? And that this 'explosion' was caused by vapourised airliner fuel which itself was in motion even as it dispersed and was ignited, and was therefore being carried inwards?
How long did it take for the fuel tanks to enter the building?
How long did it take for the tanks to rupture, the fuel to vapourise, ignite and the fireball become visible?
Your understanding of physics is shocking.
Actually the physical mash up happens instantly and that should be on the record. Something collides at great speed with something and the destructive interaction starts immediately. the data record shouldn't show a delayed effect
What should have happened was an immediate resistance _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Actually the physical mash up happens instantly and that should be on the record. Something collides at great speed with something and the destructive interaction starts immediately. the data record shouldn't show a delayed effect
What should have happened was an immediate resistance
1. If the motive force (the plane) is greater than the resistive force (the building's maximum reaction) the the net force is inwards. Thus the vast bulk of the smashed plane and building move inwards. Some will fly around, as the result is somewhat chaotic, but most goes in. This is what we expect and this is what we see. No mystery.
2. You haven't addressed my point about the time it takes for the tanks (located roughly half way along the plane, and not even available to rupture till the remains of the plane are part way in) to rupture, the fuel to aerosolise, then ignite, then expand outwards to the point where the fireball is visible. We expect this to be delayed and we expect the fireball to be moving in the original direction of the plane, and this is what we see. No mystery.
Someone here mentioned that you know about physics. You don't. You're doing a good job of making unsubstantiated assertions and hand-waving though. _________________ Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
Oh dear. Did I just notice that paul wright is a moderator here? A no-planer as a moderator ????
I thought this forum rejected no-planers outright? _________________ Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
Oh dear. Did I just notice that paul wright is a moderator here? A no-planer as a moderator ????
I thought this forum rejected no-planers outright?
I wouldn't view myself as a no-planer. I've got no fervent position to push
I think it's interesting that framing and background shift and change in the available videos, but that doesn't mean I necessarily accept the whole 'Clues'
story by any means
Quote:
1. If the motive force (the plane) is greater than the resistive force (the building's maximum reaction) the the net force is inwards. Thus the vast bulk of the smashed plane and building move inwards. Some will fly around, as the result is somewhat chaotic, but most goes in. This is what we expect and this is what we see. No mystery.
That's not we see though is it. There is no inward force. Nothing at all happens, other than the forward part of the plane disappearing, until almost the tail fins are in.
Quote:
2. You haven't addressed my point about the time it takes for the tanks (located roughly half way along the plane, and not even available to rupture till the remains of the plane are part way in) to rupture, the fuel to aerosolise, then ignite, then expand outwards to the point where the fireball is visible. We expect this to be delayed and we expect the fireball to be moving in the original direction of the plane, and this is what we see. No mystery.
What you seem to be saying is that there is no visible point of interaction between the plane and the building until the fuel tanks rupture. I would say on the contrary, that there must be an immediate interaction, some inward force as you would have it,and by newtonian rights, some resistant force, but as far as I can see there is none
Quote:
Someone here mentioned that you know about physics. You don't. You're doing a good job of making unsubstantiated assertions and hand-waving though.
Actually the physical mash up happens instantly and that should be on the record. Something collides at great speed with something and the destructive interaction starts immediately. the data record shouldn't show a delayed effect
What should have happened was an immediate resistance
Paul, I agree.
There are so many places to hang one's hat on, and rest one's case in this sordid affair. This is about as good as any.
One 'problem' with the video of the plane entering the building, is that the general public had virtually no prior experience seeing such an event.
If someone was to throw an egg against a concrete wall, what would a child, a teenager or an adult predict would happen to the egg and to the wall? Most would be able to figure that one out, correctly.
If someone was to throw an egg against a window, what would a child, a teenager or an adult predict would happen to the egg and to the window?
Here we may have a bit more divergence in answers, but still on the whole, most answers would be sensible.
A movie was made in the 70's/80's (I saw a clip of it online a few months ago) with a scene of a jet plane crashing into a downtown high-rise building.
This movie was seen by millions of people.
The plane hit the building, immediately started to break apart, and fall to the ground. There was damage to the building of course, but the plane broke to pieces, outside of the building.
What is of note here is the following.
Yes this was just a 'movie', however screenwriters try to write scripts in as realistic a way as possible for action/thriller movies such as these.
Their 'best guess' as to the result of the crash was described above.
The audience (millions of people) did not walk out of the film in disgust after watching this scene, saying "That is absolutely ridiculous!
Any child knows that the plane would slice into the building like butter, with no external breakage whatsoever. For heaven's sake! "
I like to rest my hat on something more specific; the wings.
Anyone who has flown in a jet plane and looked out at the wings has seen a message written on them to warn workers. It basically tells the workers not to step beyond this point.
Why? Because the wings are fairly fragile components of an aircraft.
Even workers, stepping on them near their tips, could potentially cause some damage to them.
Now contrast the forces exerted on the wings with a plane flying 300 mph+ into a building. Slightly more than some men stepping on them, wouldn't you say?
But here is the icing on the cake.
The plane purportedly banked and hit the building on an angle.
According to the 'cutout' hole, the wings sliced through the wall on several floors! Each floor, being fresh (not hit) and offering its own full resistance.
Now that is something to think about! Whether you are an adult, teenager or child.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:31 am Post subject:
No, not for me, but all you anti-No Planers (I've long maintained a No-passenger-carrying-scheduled Boeing myself).
Here is proof, as good as the 'no descent through maximum resistance at freefall speed' physics evidence of the Twins & Building 7.
Watch Part 6 of '9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera'; clear as a bell EVIDENCE that no large plane (or any plane at all, I believe) hit the South Tower. It also shows info about the 'nose' coming out the other side, as being a blip in a faked 'helicopter footage':
Principally, NO WAKE VORTEX!!!!! IMPOSSIBLE, UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE, if a plane had just gone through that airspace!!!
That was part 6 of 8; all 8 parts are worth watching (main problem I have is he gives a bit too much time to 'Dr.' Judy Wood, though thankfully he discounts the 'Hutchison Effect'. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:42 am Post subject:
If you watch carefully, and stop the video at 03.03, you will clearly see NO HOLE where the 'Boeing' is supposed to have just entered.
I don't know why I haven't had any follow up to my previous post; could it be that all the 'Planers' have got cold feet, or arthritis in their typing fingers?
In this same part 6 is the 'NO WAKE VORTEX' evidence:
No 'Wake Vortex' = no plane; just as 'No hole at 03.03 of the video = no plane'.
Come on, lads & lasses, either put up a defense of your position, or concede defeat! _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:03 am Post subject:
In the video they say a plane should have shattered into many pieces outside of the tower. They then go on to make the point about a circular hole in the pentagon and show an example of a baseball smashing through a a piece of glass and not leaving a completely circular hole. I know they are describing 2 different situations but i did note that the baseball did go through the glass window and the base ball did not shatter into little pieces upon hitting the window. Not one piece of the baseball was found outside of the glass!
This proves that projectiles can break through stationary objects without smashing into little pieces. !
Push a hard boiled egg through an egg slice and what do you get-- all the slices of egg on one side of the slicer.
The idea the plane MUST have been like the road runner hitting the cliff and sliding down is not the only scenario. _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:05 am Post subject:
The likening of a baseball going through a window, and an aluminium plane, including wing-tips, melting effortlessly through steel columns a yard apart outside the building is, like you say, 'two different things'.
But the main things which I pointed out in my posts were (1) NO WAKE VORTEX, which like buildings falling through the path of greatest resistance at near free-fall speed, is utterly, physically impossible, and (2) If you check (and it takes a number of tries to get it spot-on) around the 03.03 minute into the part six video, you will find (if you're persistant) you can stop the plane with part of the wing in the building and part of the wing out, and the building where the plane supposedly entered has miraculously healed itself: there is no hole! Also, with some more trial and error, you can get the 'plane' to have just entered the building, and presto! again, no hole (only for a fraction of a second, but still physically impossible). _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:20 pm Post subject:
With my plane hat on---No expert but on the "no wake vortex" thing the examples shown in the video are vortexes created in drifting smoke.If the planes exploded within or close to the building then i would expect there to be huge pressure waves that could overule the wake vortex.
Its not just a "light" aluminium plane hitting steel it also hits glass . The engineers who designed it said it was designed to puncture if hit by a plane but that the grid system of columns and beams would act like a net/gauze and maintain stability around any puncture of the external envelope. If it was a plane that hit then it did what it was designed to do.
The visible damage to the face of the building is indicative that it was hit by a wide object rather than say a missile or an internal explosion . On the famous picture with the woman standing in the opening the left area of damage shows the external aluminium cladding blown off but the steel columns behind intact. This would also suggest that at least a portion of wing tip didnt pass into the building.
With my "no plane" hat on which doesnt sit comfortably I would concede the bit about lots of things like plane seats, wings, tail bodies and luggage, wreckage etc not being found.or visible in photos. -although there are some photos of part of what looks like plane windows in a section of fuselage. _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:01 pm Post subject:
fish5133 wrote:
With my plane hat on---No expert but on the "no wake vortex" thing the examples shown in the video are vortexes created in drifting smoke.If the planes exploded within or close to the building then i would expect there to be huge pressure waves that could overule the wake vortex.
Its not just a "light" aluminium plane hitting steel it also hits glass . The engineers who designed it said it was designed to puncture if hit by a plane but that the grid system of columns and beams would act like a net/gauze and maintain stability around any puncture of the external envelope. If it was a plane that hit then it did what it was designed to do.
The visible damage to the face of the building is indicative that it was hit by a wide object rather than say a missile or an internal explosion . On the famous picture with the woman standing in the opening the left area of damage shows the external aluminium cladding blown off but the steel columns behind intact. This would also suggest that at least a portion of wing tip didnt pass into the building.
With my "no plane" hat on which doesnt sit comfortably I would concede the bit about lots of things like plane seats, wings, tail bodies and luggage, wreckage etc not being found.or visible in photos. -although there are some photos of part of what looks like plane windows in a section of fuselage.
And the 'healing' wall where the plane has entered? _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:02 am Post subject:
Healing wall at 3:03? Am i looking at same clip? The frame at 3:03 is with the plane partly out of shot. Bottom left of the right hand clip?
There are 2 pieces of footage from different cameras both showing a plane --which means both cameras would have to fake it and as one doesnt appear to be a news corporation footage that would mean double the conspiracy.
The only bit of "healing" i see is at the point the footage of the plane is reversed coming back out of the building. _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Not Only does it appear at 03.03, but also at 02.55, 03.00, 03.02 and other spots.
You have to watch it full-screen, and keep playing around to stop it in the correct positions to see it.
I don't know how to do a 'screen shot' capture, or I could send it to you as a 'still' picture, but I assure you the wall of the building 'heals' (because the picture is a fake; the explosion that makes the aircraft shaped hole occurs after the plane magically melts into the building).
It really does escape me how anyone can look at the 'plane' melting into the building (in slow motion), without any sort of breaking up, and believe it is a real plane. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
I think Ace Baker has made a very entertaining movie with "9/11-The Great American Psy-Opera". It seems to be loaded up under Colin Alexander's YouTube account and referenced from this blog.
If you think planes crashed into the twin towers, see chapter 6 "What Planes?" and chapter 7 "The Key". Carefully considered, real plane crashes are impossible, and the evidence for video compositing is irrefutable.
If you think the towers were brought down by thermite and/or directed energy weapons, please see Chapter 4 "Phenomena". The evidence for nuclear reactions is overwhelming.
If you think there was a gravity collapse, or are inclined to believe any part of the ridiculous official story, please see chapter 2 "The Official Story vs. The Truth Movement".
If you're interested in the psychological aspects of false flag terror, please see chapter 8 "The Psy-Opera".
If you think the leaders of the "truth" movement are seeking the truth, please wait for chapter 9 "The Controlled Opposition".
If you want to know what actually occurred on 9/11, please wait for chapter 10 "Conclusion".
Reacting to comments regarding nukes, Ace Baker added
Quote:
Dimitri Khalezov is surely another disinfo agent. In the most general sense, he is correct about nukes being used on the WTC. However, he ignores most of the crucial evidence for nuclear reactions (see Psy-Opera, esp. Ch 4 "Phenomena"), while advancing the idea that the reactions took place in the basements, which is ridiculous.
...
Khalezov's 500 page book does not contain the word "tritium". I suggest that this is because Khalezov is a fraud. Can you suggest another explanation?
...
There is no possible way that a chaotic shock wave from underneath could be controlled in such a way as to cause the building to explode outward in a perfect sequence from top to bottom, as observed.
There is no way the perpetrators would ever risk the possibility that the "collapse" would begin anywhere besides the "airplane damage".
The explosions appear to come from the core of the building, it makes sense that they would be placed from top to bottom in the core.
Khalezov does not attempt to explain why the devices would not be in the core, except to assert that micro nukes don't exist.
The fact of the top-down demolition is so visually obvious that reasonable people will dismiss Khalezov's theory as absurd. The goal, of course, is to get people to dismiss nuclear demolition theory per se. It's the same disinfo strategy used by Lear on no-planes, Jones on conventional demolition, etc.
I'd be more than happy to have a conversation with Khalezov, if you would like to arrange it.
...
[Adding in Dec 30th, 2012]
...
I have given a rigorous proof of video compositing. While video technology is legal and knowable to the general public, nuclear weapons technology is not. Nuclear demolition stands about as proven as it can be. Khalezov never even attempts to explain why he thinks the reaction took place underground. It is simply obvious that the towers were exploded from the top down, in sequence. How could an underground reaction be prevented from destroying the bottom of the tower first?
Indeed, Ace Baker makes some excellent points. He demolishes the UA175 crash into the South Tower both using logical reasoning, explaining how it could be done and successfully put the photographers "on the spot". He seemed to talk up Judy Woods, (maybe because he had a good song written about her!) and talk down Prof Steven Jones. I think he suspects that they are both part of a "controlled" opposition.
It will be interesting to see his Parts 9 and 10.
I think this is interesting documentary, very watchable and raises some important issues (and a great sound track!).
Issues raised by Ace Baker:
- Newton's First Law - why does the building swallow the aircraft whole with no wreckage rebounding from the collision?
- Why are there no vortex effects from the aircraft?
- Multiple video issues - the best one being the image stabilization inconsistency - nicely described.
- The B-Thing prank by performance artists Gelatin* in 2000 on 91st floor in 2000 seems to be designed to provide reference measurements for the 9/11 attacks. http://artoftheprank.com/2007/08/02/the-b-thing-by-gelitin/ (most the Gelatin material can still be extracted from wayback machine).
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:58 pm Post subject:
@ scienceplease2: glad to have you on board the debate. 'Fish' is the only other responder (I am aware this is an old set of videos; Ace Baker's stuff was briefly mentioned in earlier posts on this thread, but I have only recently come across the stuff).
Re his 'nuke' theory, I have no position, other than that I certainly don't support it, and if I did, I would plump for it in the basements.
Re his 'dissing' of Steven Jones, I totally accept Steven Jones' nanothermite controled demolition evidence, but disagree with Jones's 'plane theory'; video-fakery is not his specialty, and he has no more right to be taken seriously than any other viewer of the viideo (and I suspect he did not see 'Ace Baker's' finished product); I suspect, like most main-stream 'Truthers', he was deathly afraid of getting the Movement tagged as 'no-planers', which many regard as a 'kiss of death'.
Again, I suspect that is the reason he gave so much time to 'Dr' Judy Woods (although she probably does have a Doctorate, her presentation is about as unscientific baloney as you are likely to come across; also, I have seen elsewhere that 'Ace Baker' does not give her 'Beamery' any credibility, and even in the video has no time whatsoever for the 'Hutchison Effect').
There aren't many 'Truthers' who believe a Boeing (or indeed any normal aircraft) hit the Pentagon; there aren't many 'Truthers' who believe a Boeing crashed in a field in Shanksville; so apart from the 'TV evidence', why on earth should they believe a couple of Boeings hit the Towers?
The only 'evidence' is the 'TV footage' (and a handful of 'witnesses'); if they are not willing to dissect that 'evidence' with the assistance of a video expert, so be it.
As I tried to point out to 'Fish', not only is the slowed-down footage laughable (the plane 'melts' into the building), it is also apparent by very carefully stopping the video at strategic points (needs plenty of tries, as we're only dealing with a few frames) it is apparent that after the wing partially 'enters' the building, the building magically 'heals' - no hole! And it is also possible immediately after whole 'plane' has entered, to again see no hole (albeit for a very short time span).
To reiterate: re 'no planes', Steven Jones has no more credibility than the man on the moon; re 'Ace Baker', he has no more credibility re nukes than the man on the moon; and re 'no plane', I have no more credibility than the man on the moon, other than my eyesight, which isn't too bad. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
I respond to any logical arguments. And Ace Baker comes over as surprisingly credible. Apparently his name is mud in many circles because of advocating No Planes, his association with Woods, his "fake suicide" and that he is a musician! (I'll try not to hold that against him!).
Backing his videos - which are very entertaining and well worth the watch, IMHO, is some sound research which he recorded himself here:
Which is as good as anything else I've seen from the truth movement except for Harrit's nanothermite paper. Yes, Baker prefers a mini-nuke solution to the tower destruction but... watch his videos - he does make a reasonable attempt at explaining his thoughts.
Regarding his fake suicide... he explains himself here...
Including a note of how wikipedia is referring to a hacked version of his blog. He has been subjected to some pretty intense hate campaigns.
In the comments section, he also leaves his telephone number!
For a truther that is explaining his logic including, various failures of his own, I think he deserves some credit. At the very least his work should be treated seriously and examined; critically, as needed. The main thing I want to establish now are real witnesses to the plane crashes. (We know how flaky there are at the Pentagon). How many, how reliable are the witnesses to first and second crashes?
Aside:
I remember David Shayler saying in a public meeting, before he went nuts, that there may not be any planes at all, and I thought he meant there were holograms (and hence thought he'd gone nuts even before he actually cracked up)
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:54 am Post subject:
@scienceplease 2 Thanks for info, I'll check it out.
David Shayler definitely did consider holograms a possibility for the 'planes'.
Though I don't agree, I am sure that holograms can and have been created, in particular 'shape-shifting lizrds'; Cathy O'Brien tells in one of her books that while under Mind Control, she saw George HW Bush use it, and boast that this was an important weapon to use against the people, as they have an age-old horror of reptilian, snake-like forms.
It was part of their drive for a NWO.
David Icke seems to be pushing it like crazy; I did think he really believed it, but now I suspect he is intentional 'disinfo' (I am aware a lot of what he speaks about is very useful and true). _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
I don't want to go to shape-shifting lizards. Icke has been "got at" - he's been subjected to drug or mind control treatment or something. Even he expounds many aspects of alternative news and views, his credibility is zero in my book.
Ditto with Shayler - a victim of drug induction/mind control. Certainly very sad.
Probably also with Charlie Sheen - although that could have just been self-inflicted.
Ace Baker refers out to Gerard Holmgren, who died in 2010. Fast onset cancer. (We know that CIA have been involved in untraceable assassination methods so we really an Actuary to figure out whether truth seekers are being selected by assassination squads. Where is "Actuaries and Insurance Agents for 9/11 Truth"? You would have thought with the number of cancers and deaths from First Responders that they'd want to know the truth and true health hazards from GZ exposure.)
and includes the PDF that Ace Baker refers to... "Why They Didn't Use Planes" which is worth reproducing here (with my own emphasis)
Quote:
Why they didn't use planes!
Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes"? It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless. Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.
Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk. You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.
At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.
1) Actually use planes.
2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.
Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong? Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it. Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there." Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan. This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology.
This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.
This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face. What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths. In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.
So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning. Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested in the real world - and it works.
The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events. Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves. So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.
Now to the other problem. Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. [SP2: Not too sure who Rosalee is]. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets. Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.
Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets. This immediately splits into two sub-choices
1) Pilot them with suicide pilots
2) Remote control them.
The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.
Remote control.
Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more - sub-choices.
1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard.
2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.
Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with. Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks. Whatever the calculated likelihood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes. Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario. And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem.
What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen. And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers.
This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.
1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.
2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media, innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes. These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors.
Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target. And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure. In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action.
All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.
As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.
In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.
The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.
This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.
Interesting footage of crash testing large airliner. The outer wing tip is sheared off by a telegraph pole whilst the stronger section of wing cuts through the pole.
Still photos of the damage to both tower facades seems to suggest a wide impact with columns having been sheared Is all that faked?.
I think i see what your trying to say about "healing" hole on right wing. But the pictures are so grainy and at that height i wouldnt be that confident about what i am seeing. Certainly the "melting" of the plane into the building is more apparent but isnt that how they were designed?
What is as much a conundrum to me is the realtionship between the 2 events of initial impact (or not) and the later collapse.
The logistics of hijacking a plane and flying it into a building seems easier than rigging all 3 towers with explosives timed to go off in sequence.
gotta give my brain a rest! _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Interesting footage of crash testing large airliner. The outer wing tip is sheared off by a telegraph pole whilst the stronger section of wing cuts through the pole.
Still photos of the damage to both tower facades seems to suggest a wide impact with columns having been sheared Is all that faked?.
I think i see what your trying to say about "healing" hole on right wing. But the pictures are so grainy and at that height i wouldnt be that confident about what i am seeing. Certainly the "melting" of the plane into the building is more apparent but isnt that how they were designed?
What is as much a conundrum to me is the realtionship between the 2 events of initial impact (or not) and the later collapse.
The logistics of hijacking a plane and flying it into a building seems easier than rigging all 3 towers with explosives timed to go off in sequence.
gotta give my brain a rest!
Here is an excellent picture of the outer structure of the Towers; there where 244 of these around each Tower, 62 on each face (as they shared the corner beams). These were strong steel beams, not flimsy lightpoles, and the 'plane' had to cut through over 40 of them (they were about a metre apart):
As you say, the picture (on video) is grainy, but the 'plane' shows up clearly enough; why not the big black hole, darker than the building sides? Because the hole was bigger than the actual aircraft, though crafted to be in a roughly 'plane' shape (by explosives).
Regarding it being 'easier' to fly a plane into the Towers rather than rig them for demolition, that indicates you are not happy with over 1,700 Architects & Engineers who say the planes could not come down because of planes and fires, and also all the evidence brought forward for unreacted nanothermite/nanothermate found in the dust, and also tiny iron spheroids caused by molten steel being found in all the tested dust samples, classical evidence of thermite use. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Also, you can see the wall where part of the tail should still be!! _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Last edited by outsider on Sun Mar 31, 2013 3:16 am; edited 1 time in total
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5zvCdD9D1A _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:22 am Post subject:
Here is evidence from another angle that Fl 175 did not hit the South Tower:
According to ACARS messages, United Fl. 175 was still in the air 20 minutes after it had supposedly crashed into South Tower of WTC:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LON G-AFTER-CRASH.html _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
A lot of evidence here, the following is just some of it:
'Not many plane crash victims
A frequently asked and presently unanswerable question is: what happened to the passengers and crew of the four passenger jets that were supposed to have crashed? While very little information about their deaths has surfaced there is evidence that there were fewer victims than has been reported.
NY based researcher Vincent Sammartino claims that the government seems to have faked the number of plane victims and also faked the number who claimed victim compensation.[25] According to Sammartino, of the 266[26] official names of passengers and crew who were supposed to have died in the four passenger jets, only 52 names have appeared on the Social Security Death Index (SSDI), a privately owned website not affiliated with the Social Security Administration. According to Sammartino, of the 52 listed as dead in the SSDI, which has an accuracy rate of about 83%, only 11 of the family members have claimed victim compensation (not counting 9/11 plane crash widow, Ellen Mariani, who has pointedly refused compensation).
Sammartino writes that his research was spurred in part because of a radio interview he heard with Ms. Mariani and her lawyer in which they spoke of their inability to locate other family members of the purported plane passengers.
(Remember Northwoods???)
If Sammartino’s figures are closer to reality than official reports, the discrepancies also go some way to advancing the NPT. If no planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and if Holmgren is right that Flights 11 and 77 did not fly that day (and Flights 93 and 175 did not crash that day), then it might have been easier for the terrorists to have diverted and perhaps disposed of merely 50-60 victims rather than many more bodies.
Thus the NPT helps us to advance, as Holmgren suggests, a combination missile, and preplanned explosives theory to explain the explosions and fires at the Twin Towers and the Pentagon and the lack of any big passenger plane evidence at those sites. It also helps to explain why relatively few "plane crash" victims have come forward. Evidence also indicates that that no big passenger plane (or any other plane) crashed in Shanksville, PA. The episode may have been cooked up simply for purposes of distraction.
Occam’s Razor
As an independent researcher with little at stake in any particular theory, it has been relatively easy for me to follow the NPT evidence where it leads. I have joined the No Planes group because it seems to me most in conformity with Occam’s Razor, the least complex theory that accounts for the available data.
Over and above scores of non-passenger plane related 9/11 anomalies, the NPT seems to provide a common sense explanation for many of the unanswered questions and inconsistencies. For example, the NPT explains:
why government BTS records show that two of the four planes never took off that day and two others were not decommissioned until four years later.
why the government has refused (or been unable) to present "a single airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration," and why there is no confirmed debris of any of the alleged four planes, so that all of them have disappeared without a trace;
why the passenger lists are phony; why no Arabic names are on any of the passenger lists; and why there are remarkably few alleged plane victims’ families requesting compensation
why several of the purported hijackers have turned up alive and why the government apparently felt it necessary to produce such unpersuasive evidence as hijacker passports, training manuals, etc.
why in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the government claimed that there were terror cells operating in at least 40 states but hasn’t produced even one untainted terror cell in the last five years.
why there is no reliable video of the Pentagon and the NYC Twin Tower attacks. In the case of the Pentagon video released by the government first as photo stills and then as video, no plane is in evidence; nor would it be possible for a big passenger jet to come in at ground level at high speed.
why there was no air cover in NYC or in Washington, D.C. until after the Pentagon attack at 9:37. If there were no hijacked planes there would have been no need for interceptions.
why there are no credible witnesses to ANY of the alleged four planes.
why the authorities destroyed the tapes of the flight controllers’ recollections of the events of that day. Those tapes might contain evidence that flights 11 and 77 did not take off that day and that 175 and 93 did not crash.
why ALL the cell phone calls were fabricated including the iconic "Let’s Roll," call as well as the Ted Olson-Barbara Olson exchange.[27]..' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
This is the clincher: stop the first video, No. 1, 'Broken News' at 03.31 in (quite easy, as the 'still' is on the screen a little while) and you will clearly see that the 'plane' shown hitting the South Tower is a fake; it is quite clear that the 'right wing' has mostly gone into the building, yet the 'wing tip' is outside, and NO HOLE where the rest of the wing supposedly crashed through! And take a decko at the 'invisible', 'disappeared' parts of the tail!
COME ON, FOLKS, WHAT DO YOU WANT, SIGNED CONFESSIONS FROM THE PERPS? _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
COME ON, FOLKS, WHAT DO YOU WANT, SIGNED CONFESSIONS FROM THE PERPS?
I'm there, Outsider. Ace (don't-shoot-the-messenger) Baker has a reasoned argument and excellent videos... which is hostilely received - sounds like 9/11 Truth within 9/11 Truth.
His arguments are presented for inspection at his own wiki. http://911composites.wiki-site.com/
It is not just a few ghost images. In fact the "ghost plane" wing disappearance and the Chopper 5 "nose" are the least compelling of the arguments...
In summary his argument is:
The Nine Extraordinary Compositonal Features of the live shots (easy to manipulate in real time even in 2001).
Chopper 5 footage
No Plane in the Wide Shot
The Miracle Zoom
Pinocchio’s Nose
Fade to Black
The Missing Shadow
Unstable Motion - this critical to determine whether the image was added or not.
The ghostplane
Magically Healing Columns
The Over-Under Puffball
Missing in Action Compelling evidence of switches from image real-time compositing to live action.
No Broadcast-Quality Video
The Naudet Edit
The Ghostplane Edit
The Park Foreman Edit
No Sound in Fairbanks
Hezarkhani Won’t Talk
Cartoon Physics
Newton Rolls in His Grave - the expectation that some mass would bounce off the impact.
Comparison to Sandia F4 Test - it is easy to animate the plane disappearing into WTC2.
The Force Paradox - air resistance would stop the airliner flying at the speed observed
No Wake Vortex - compelling evidence that the explosion clouds not affected by aircraft vortex. Detonation Flashes as Sync Pops - compelling evidence
There are also compelling logistical reasons for faking the planes:
- accuracy of impact (fake planes don't miss)
- risk control (able to rehearse)
- psychology (easy to deceive people and make people believe the TV)
- easier to control the aftermath
- fake blips on radar (already proven)
- financial (much, much, much cheaper than crashing a plane - one Boeing 757 is $80million. Easy to bribe 160 people with $500k each)
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:16 am Post subject:
Glad your still on board! 'Ghost' plane still has my major push, but a lot of the other stuff is obviously also plain and useful.
Wake Vortex I have already mentioned.
I don't know if you or any other poster reading this thread can make a 'screen shot' of a particular incident (aprox 03.31 of part one of 'Ace's' videos.
If you or they can, please 'pm' me, 'cos by hook (not the 'Captain', or the MI5 agent - yep, that's all a load of codswallop) or by crook (which I used to be - set one to catch 'beaucoup'!), I intend to get a pic of the 'plane' half in, half out, with unbroken South Tower wall between the body of the 'plane' and the right wing-tip, supposedly 'penetrated' by the 'plane, showing no sign of penetration at all (and a remarkable 'disappeared' 2/3 of the tail!!).
Some T/shirts and placards will follow, and too bad for the 'politically correct' folks who are too timid to go with it, fearing it may 'damage the Truth Movement' (not unlike Noam Chomsky & other so-called 'Left' luminaries & functionaries, who profess to fear that 9/11 Truth will damge (or even destroy!) the 'Left Wing'). _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Last edited by outsider on Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
