| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| scar wrote: | I already posted that on page 7 and it got ignored then so dont hold your breath James:
|
Sorry scar, don't know how I managed to miss your post. You're right though, I shouldn't hold my breath, people can be very selective about what they want to look at. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | Minimauve said
how would private video footage taken by people with camcorders get faked?
You are so naive - any genuine amateur videos would have been confiscated by the FBI (remember the Sheraton Hotel by the Pentagon)
The only amateur footage you would see would be bogus - or do you not think they would be devious enough to do such a thing?
Wise up |
What, they're going to carry out door-to-door searches for camcorders in the thousands of apartments, baclonies and roofs that would have had a view towards the WTC? Ridiculous. Or do they control the internet so completely that they pull and replace any vidoes that happen to get posted? As someone else points out, it's not at all a matter of deviousnous but logistical capacity to carry it out. Christ, even if they had the capacity to carry it out, the very operation would create as many questions and suspicions as you propose it is meant to hide. I can't believe we are even discussing this tripe!
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bufordt06
Minor Poster
Joined: 27 Aug 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry scar, I missed it too, I have read through this thread but come across that article when looking for no plane theories on google.
Yep people are very selective and these people will argue black is white.
_________________
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No need to apologise fellas, it is interesting that it was ignored. I wasnt gonna post this from soon after, but sod it:
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: |
Seems to me we are between phase 1 and 2 for the no planes theory |
And have been for years.
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | A lot of the for theories put forward are incorporating far too much rocket science which will put most people off - what is needed is an easy to understand "loose change type presentation"
This subject aint going to go away - get used to it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Its not the 'rocket science' or rather claims based on technology that cannot be proven to exist (holograms), its that many push spurious claims as fact then refuse to examine critiques of said 'facts'. A debunkers debunking would be far better.
Ive lost count of the times someone has posted a link to something as 'absolute proof' of no planes and when ya look at it its just a different angle in each shot or pixelated blurs with seemingly erroneus conclusions. Some who see that for the first time will conclude the no7X7 believers to be disinfo, others will cling to it in order to avoid 9/11. Its like if i posted a ufo clip and said this is 100% proof the aliens knocked the towers down, i would discredit myself with my arrogance when its shown to be a bird... And for those narrow-minded enough to think i represent everyone in this movement it could then be argued i discredit us all... lethargic devils desperate to cling to any reason not to face up to 9/11 and all that it implies. hello JimB! hello winkers corner! 
I agree with you that a coherant presentation needs to be put together which seperates the wheat from all the chaff. Im hoping nicos recent one will be linked to here.
There are comparisons to be made between this issue and other issues we are all passionate about and i certainly dont consider myself a gatekeeper on this. The idea to stick to the best evidence applies here as well and thats a major problem in ever reaching stage 3. Many pushing spurious claims as fact and refusing to examine how they could be quite wrong. The faux-elitist no-planer attitude doesnt really help but im sure we all understand very well how infuriating being called a 'nutter' is? No-planers get this ALL the time...from people who get called nutters by everyone else... layers of division. I think the elitism is a response to it, perhaps not.
Most here are essentially on the same side...
That the official story is a lie and over 200,000 people have been murdered as a consequence. '1984' is fast becoming a reality off the back of this lie. Exposing it and other falseflags is our best maybe our only hope.
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | I have no doubt that the security services were strategically placed to moniter Joe Public in at and around WTC with orders to confiscate any home made videos that would contradict the official story. |
No doubt?
I guess you didnt check out the links i provided for you so i will quote a bit of one here for you, amidst all the chaos do you really think every possible angle could be covered, without raising suspicion? I havent seen any reports of this mass confiscation. The Sheraton Hotel is stationary btw (and was reported on):
"The over arching weakness of the media overlay argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one good image posted to the web would have threatened the exposure of the operation. New York is a media capital of the world, with both national networks, local network and independent TV stations, and international media bureaus, and many independent video companies like the kinds I've worked for, and professional photographers. Professionals would have been rushing out to document whatever they could, through professional pride or the hope for making a buck off it. Evan Fairbanks and war photographer James Nachtway are some examples. And then there are also cameras in the possession of ordinary citizens and the thousands of New York's ever-present tourists. The following 3D relief diagram from "One Nation" shows how many vantage points were available to capture the approach of flight 175:
The plane would have been clearly visible over most of the southern tip of Manhattan, from the streets in a wide area of shorter buildings just south of the towers, the majority of the southern and eastern facing windows of the buildings south of the towers ( such as this photo from hereisnewyork.org), the rooftops of those buildings, the Manhattan and Jersey shorelines along the Hudson, any boats on the water and Ellis Island, where camera toting tourists visit the Statue of Liberty. Moreover, since the plane, hitting at floors 77-85, was above most of the tall buildings on the East side, the plane was visible from higher vantage points all over midtown and Brooklyn.
What we have of images of flight 175 from 9/11 is exactly what we would expect: a great variety of still and moving images from a variety of angles from near and far and from mainstream media down to amateurs. There are absolutely no images of missiles or small planes. So, were these photographers and videographers all agents? There has been no research into their backgrounds. If they weren't, then what was the chain of custody of the tape before being aired? Was the allegedly modified footage the original or a duplicate of the original (as one would expect) supplied by the videographer? Who now has the original? If the photographer has the original, then are we to believe he or she does not care that their image showed something different than was on TV? None of these questions are answered. The default explanation, and the only answer possible, is the bug-eyed assertion that somehow the perps of 9/11 controlled all the cameras in NY on 9/11.
Perhaps, like the movie "Minority Report", they had pre-cogs who intuited exactly where each and every person videotaping the plane would be standing.
In reality, the perpetrators would have found out about each image only after the image appeared on the web or in the media. And then it would have been too late to alter the image. The media overlay theory, in the case of flight 175, is utterly absurd."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html
Check that picture out. Ignore the damage rating numbers, look at the number of vantage points. The only counter i can see to this is - 'there were no planes, therefore people wouldnt of filmed them'. Yet people would be filming as one tower had already been hit. I dont think the media overlay argument can explain this. The holographic argument can try. "created with classified, unacknowledged technology."... proving that might be difficult. Whereas - building 7? etc etc etc etc etc etc which is why many say this is all a distraction for those who are more concerned with their ego than with the 100th monkey
Peace and Love. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I started to reply to TRUTH's responses but reading the link scar and James C provided, I realized what a gigantic waste of time it would be. The article they posted is an excellent read and brings the "no-planes" theory idiocy to conclusion! I find the Commentary section particularly apt for the present discussions on this board.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
optimus79
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This no planes nonsense really gets on my thrupneys. The case for the 9/11 truth movement is strong enough with the basic questions that have been put forward from the likes of David Ray Griffin, and the research of Steven E Jones. This whole idea of no planes really just damages the whole issue and will alienate a lot of people who are looking in to this subject.
I started reading up on this about 6 months ago, and i brought an open mind to the whole thing. I had always maintained a morbid fascination on the events of 9/11 and last year while in NY, ground zero was my first port of call. I also visted the 9/11 museum, and met the guy who was the official Ground Zero photographer.
Anyway, going back to the no planes theory, I remember vividly a conversation I had with a New Yorker I met whilst in Seville a couple of years back, we spoke about 9/11 and she told me about how once the first plane had gone in, her college class went to the roof of the building to see what was going on from around 20 odd blocks away. There she stood with her friends and watched the second plane smash in to building. She hates Bush, she also belives the government were somehow involved, yet the look on her face when she described watching the plane hit the 2nd tower was unforgetable, she actually had to stop talking about it, because it still upset her that she had witnessed this particular event.
I really believe that for the 9/11 truth movemnet to go anywhere, its needs to drop the crazy sci fi far flung theories and keep to what is essentially an already powerful case.
Sometimes it seems like there are many 9/11 truthers who are in competition to over do each other in the claim stakes, its really not helpfull. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You just dont get it do you?
On the basis that there are no planes - then Joe public would have videos with no planes on it.
On what basis would they be presented to the mass media
"Oh look at this my video hasn't got a plane on it. They would be ridiculed and told their camera skills weren't up to scratch and their reactions were too slow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In response to James's point.
The article does not say it is not possible it says
"The over arching weakness of the media overlay argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one good image posted to the web would have threatened the exposure of the operation"
Well the fact is they did ensure control over all the images.
If you dispute this then please post some genuine amateur footage
Come on - I challenge you to do this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
optimus79
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | In response to James's point.
The article does not say it is not possible it says
"The over arching weakness of the media overlay argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one good image posted to the web would have threatened the exposure of the operation"
Well the fact is they did ensure control over all the images.
If you dispute this then please post some genuine amateur footage
Come on - I challenge you to do this. |
Do you not see that your argument suffers from a galring weakness? All you are talking about is the video images taken of the event, given the number of eyes that were trained on the towers after the first impact do you not feel it is quite ridiculous to suggest that noone would have seen the 2nd impact. Just think about the number of people watching what was going on, and yet this whole "no planes" debate is based on a few speccy techies trying to take apart video evidence.
If there really was no plane that hit the second tower then there would be a huge public outcry. They may have done a good job in fooling the masses over the Pentagon and flight 93, but to suggest it was not a plane that hit the 2nd tower is laughable.
Be reasonable here, keep it simple and focus on the reality. Its funny, because this theory probably seems as plausible to most 9/11 truthers as the basic unanswered questions and resulting theories do to those who buy the offical story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MINIMAUVE SAID
I started to reply to TRUTH's responses but reading the link scar and James C provided, I realized what a gigantic waste of time it would be. The article they posted is an excellent read and brings the "no-planes" theory idiocy to conclusion! I find the Commentary section particularly apt for the present discussions on this board.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.
That's great Minimauve, I'm delighted you think it is a gigantic waste of time.
Can I take it that this will be the last we hear from you about this subject, you don't appear to have anything constructive to say either way.
Anyway please don't bother to reply as you think it is a waste of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scar wrote: | I already posted that on page 7 and it got ignored then so dont hold your breath James:
|
This was linked on a site which also says the flight 93 landing at cleveland Airport (as discussed in a segment in Loose change) is a hoax. It also says the cellphones calls probably worked (which I don't agree with due to a combination of several technical problems they would experience during flight)
I skimmed through this article, but though it does make some very good points, I think the guy had a pre-concieved idea of the conclusion. My reason for saying this is because of selecting a few lines from the article (emphaisis mine):
| Quote: | it shouldn't be surprising that some would also make the bizarre claim that no 767s hit the World Trade Center, despite voluminous video and photographic evidence to the contrary.
"Perhaps, like the movie "Minority Report", they had pre-cogs who intuited exactly where each and every person videotaping the plane would be standing."
"The media overlay theory, in the case of flight 175, is utterly absurd."
"Both claims are easily dismissed. "
"However, the NIST computer models testing the dispersal of kinetic energy on impact showed that every part of the airplane except for wing sections with empty fuel tanks would penetrate the outer wall of the WTC."
|
So, we trust NIST with this analysis, but not with WTC 7? I guess the bad guys in NIST only worked on WTC 7 and to debunk controlled demolition ay? OK - I'll go with that.
| Quote: | "One might assume that Morgan Reynolds' foray into no-plane territory is simply a poorly considered blunder. "
"Jon Carlson and others have claimed that the second plane to hit the WTC was in fact a 737. This claim is easily debunked"
"This is typical of the wildly erroneous and often hilarious analyses of visual evidence that we've seen so far."
"To suggest that the perps of 9/11, with the resources at their disposal, would have taken the risk of using an airplane other than a 767 is totally absurd."
"When I told friends who were open to 9/11 skepticism that I was working on some articles critical of these no-plane theories, they looked at me askance, as if to say "why are you even wasting your time on that?" Overall their reaction was appropriate. Frankly, I've been embarrassed to admit to ordinary folks that I've been working on these articles and have begrudged every moment of time I spend on it. These theories never were and never will be broadly accepted among the 9/11 skeptic community, let alone the broader public, even with the attention of high profile figures like Morgan Reynolds. But that doesn't mean that they are not a threat, especially to a particular minority segment of the 9/11 skeptics community." |
Well, you get the drift. It's actually a good article, but the "absurd" count is far higher than necessary if the evidence he discusses is so strong.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
If people think that live video fakery is an absurd idea, they might at least consider the true nature of the JFK Zapruder film, released approximately 1 year after Kennedy was shot.
I have posted this link before. Please note: the film was severly doctored rather than completely hoaxed.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/index_old_c ontent.html
I think it illustrates the trouble these people go to get away with "the perfect crime" (and yes, 43 years after Kennedy's assassination, I believe Clay Shaw/Bertrand was the only person charged). That's how well they stitched it up.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
The best lies are the those that require the least amount of subterfuge. Of course NIST isn't entirely incorrect. If it was, it would be too obvious. We are just begging to be discredited if we go down the path of assuming ALL government statements are false. Salter's point about deliberate errors left by the conspirator's to lead investigators down false paths and "Trojan Horse" conspiracists leading the whole movement down these or even more fantastical path's is a very real danger. Don't ignore it. The truth movement should not be basing it's conclusion on anything but evidence. If you can't prove it, don't peddle it.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Greetings MM,
Compulsive, ain't it...?
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another thing the pro planes committee have failed to explain is the speed of the alleged planes.
The speed of the "alleged planes" has been calculated at a minimum of 500 mph.
Commercial Jet planes flying at that speed at very low heights are very difficult to control (there is an abundance of evidence posted by Ally to prove this).
So why would the perps have a plane flown by remote control or otherwise risk the mission going tits up by flying the plane at a speed that was excessive?
Of course - if the planes were not real they could fly them at any speed they liked |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm still waiting to see some genuine amateur footage of the second WTC crash |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
And I'm still waiting for you pro planers to explain how the left wing of the alleged plane "in the photo Ally posted" had visually penetrated the WTC yet the exterior of the building was undamaged.
Are you still working on this one guys? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Peggy Carter/911blogger: Test Crash Airplane Pulverized
picked up at:
Test Crash Airplane Pulverized
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2499
Sun, 09/03/2006
"...This video proves that in a high speed crash between a plane and a wall much of the material should bounce off on the outside.
You don't see, in this example, some of the material turning to dust while some of it survives intact. You don't see the plane penetrate the wall even slightly, as the "plane" appeared to do completely in the videos of the 9/11 South Tower event..."
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=802 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: |
This was linked on a site which also says the flight 93 landing at cleveland Airport (as discussed in a segment in Loose change) is a hoax. It also says the cellphones calls probably worked (which I don't agree with due to a combination of several technical problems they would experience during flight) |
Do you agree media overlay is a logistical impossibility?
The cellphones 'probably worked'? That doesnt sound too sure. I dont agree with that either. Do ya have a link?
Had a quick look for a salter debunking and just found this so far:
http://www.gallerize.com/rise_of_the_disinformation_machine_v7.htm
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/salter5.html
I feel myself slipping into the drama-fueled world of the 'elite' 
Have you more links? I wanna see this guys argument torn to shreds as that makes for interesting debate. So far ive found mostly ad hominems.
This is quite interesting:
http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/adhominem.html
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | I skimmed through this article, but though it does make some very good points, I think the guy had a pre-concieved idea of the conclusion. My reason for saying this is because of selecting a few lines from the article |
Agreed. From the first words he is trying to disprove the claims...
He does a good job of it. (must be a shill)
Many have pre-conceived ideas about their conclusions. 9/11 Ommission report anyone? The media overlay crew are no different. The unwillingness to consider Salter as shown in this thread is interesting... A debunkers debunking would have been far better. I would have thought proponents of the media overlay would have explored the angles more.
Nowt like blind faith.
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | So, we trust NIST with this analysis, but not with WTC 7? I guess the bad guys in NIST only worked on WTC 7 and to debunk controlled demolition ay? OK - I'll go with that. |
I wont. He does have some analysis of it. fk knows
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/175speed.html
If their analysis married with his why would he dispute it?
hmmm...he... <must> ...be... a... shill.
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Well, you get the drift. It's actually a good article, but the "absurd" count is far higher than necessary if the evidence he discusses is so strong. |
Agreed, its 'rather' bullying but the arguments still stand imo.
I cannot comment on the hologram really and noone can be 100% on that can they? Ive seen some very strange clips, the most strange was the plane disappearing behind the green spire which i cant find now so perhaps its been discredited, thats not cgi if its real. One could easily mask the spire, but not with a hologram.
Im fairly convinced the media overlay argument IS absurd, but im open to a debunking of Salters argument of course, Ive read various arguments of how media overlay would work but ive not seen an explanation of the major problem outlined by salter and others. Just saying 'Well the fact is they did ensure control over all the images" doesnt cut it for me.
Did you flick through the commentary?
Im surprised debunkers like PM havent torn no planes to shreds but perhaps they are waiting for it to become more widely accepted. Or perhaps its the truth 
Does noone know if nicos latest presentation is kicking around yet?
================================================
EDIT: Ive found out why that green spire clip isnt around now...
From Loose Change forum (very likely to be the same one, it was the only clip ive ever seen so blatent as this)
"1) Video can be tampered with. I remember a video going around where the Webfairy claimed in one of the videos the entire plane literally blinked off and then on again. This had been tampered with by removing a frame or two, so it goes to show people are prepared to tamper."
================================================
Last edited by scar on Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: | Peggy Carter/911blogger: Test Crash Airplane Pulverized
picked up at:
Test Crash Airplane Pulverized
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2499
Sun, 09/03/2006
"...This video proves that in a high speed crash between a plane and a wall much of the material should bounce off on the outside.
You don't see, in this example, some of the material turning to dust while some of it survives intact. You don't see the plane penetrate the wall even slightly, as the "plane" appeared to do completely in the videos of the 9/11 South Tower event..."
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=802 |
Cheers Ally, thats quite interesting. The comments also, very interesting. My first thought upon seeing the clip was similar to that expressed in the last comment:
Torq
"I have the same problem with this video as with another crash video referenced on other threads.
It shows a jetplane colliding with a solid concrete barrier, evidently MANY feet thick--not with a series of spaced, relatively thin, steel columns.
The jet does pulverize, but it does also appear to eat into the concrete too.
What does this actually prove or disprove for the scenario at hand? (And I'm very open to the TV Fakery hypothesis--if only because it's so outrageous it's interesting as a thought experiment.)
Most of this debate, when it's not outright name-calling, seems to consist of people just making assertions and ignoring conflicting facts and arguments, on both sides.
Isn't there any physics simulation software out there that can be used to model the situation? The specs on the tower and the qualities of the steel are obviously available; I'm sure enough info on how 757's are built must be available somewhere too. There aren't too many complicated factors here. Velocity, mass, angle, density of materials, . . . It shouldn't be that hard to model for a mechanical engineer.
Anyone to the rescue?"
Ally, have you seen the clip ive mentioned a few times before - the plane that flickers and disappears behind the green spire? Also is nicos presentation available yet?
Oooh and have ya sent that evidence off? 
================================================
EDIT: Ive found out why that green spire clip isnt around now...
From Loose Change forum (very likely to be the same one, it was the only clip ive ever seen so blatent as this)
"1) Video can be tampered with. I remember a video going around where the Webfairy claimed in one of the videos the entire plane literally blinked off and then on again. This had been tampered with by removing a frame or two, so it goes to show people are prepared to tamper."
================================================
Last edited by scar on Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:38 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| scar wrote: | | Ally wrote: | Peggy Carter/911blogger: Test Crash Airplane Pulverized
picked up at:
Test Crash Airplane Pulverized
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2499
Sun, 09/03/2006
"...This video proves that in a high speed crash between a plane and a wall much of the material should bounce off on the outside.
You don't see, in this example, some of the material turning to dust while some of it survives intact. You don't see the plane penetrate the wall even slightly, as the "plane" appeared to do completely in the videos of the 9/11 South Tower event..."
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=802 |
Cheers Ally, thats quite interesting. The comments also, very interesting. My first thought upon seeing the clip was similar to that expressed in the last comment:
Torq
"I have the same problem with this video as with another crash video referenced on other threads.
It shows a jetplane colliding with a solid concrete barrier, evidently MANY feet thick--not with a series of spaced, relatively thin, steel columns.
The jet does pulverize, but it does also appear to eat into the concrete too.
What does this actually prove or disprove for the scenario at hand? (And I'm very open to the TV Fakery hypothesis--if only because it's so outrageous it's interesting as a thought experiment.)
Most of this debate, when it's not outright name-calling, seems to consist of people just making assertions and ignoring conflicting facts and arguments, on both sides.
Isn't there any physics simulation software out there that can be used to model the situation? The specs on the tower and the qualities of the steel are obviously available; I'm sure enough info on how 757's are built must be available somewhere too. There aren't too many complicated factors here. Velocity, mass, angle, density of materials, . . . It shouldn't be that hard to model for a mechanical engineer.
Anyone to the rescue?"
Ally, have you seen the clip ive mentioned a few times before - the plane that flickers and disappears behind the green spire? It was a couple of years ago i think. Also is nicos presentation available yet?
Oooh and have ya sent that evidence off? |
This video is no proof at all for no-plane theory. The scale and construction of the materials are wrong. We do not even know how fast this plane is going.
Thick solid reinforced concrete behaves very differently to thin steel constructed out of small sections. This video shows a wall which is proportionally much greater to the facade of the towers, by a factor of about 30+!!!!!. It looks to me that the concrete wall is about one fifth the length of the jet. The facade of the twin towers (being only 14 inches thick) was about one one hundred and seventieth the length of the aircraft. The sense of scale is therefore completely wrong.
A solid reinforced concrete wall is a complete substance with no joins. The reinforcement is steel and the concrete is just one lump of solid matter with massive weight and density. The facade of the twin towers was constructed of seperate pieces of steel being only millimetres thick made into hollow columns 14 inches wide and held together with rivets. Being hollow, this reduced the density of the facade greatly and therefore offered little lateral resistance against point loads (as opposed to distributed loads like the wind). The joins between the pieces of steel (connected using rivets) were also the weakest parts of the structure and would likely have been broken apart quite easily. The construction in this example is also completely different
In short, to make any comparison with this video is total non-sense. It's like trying to prove that a boy riding a bike will not be able to destroy a tower made of meccano by showing what happens when another boy rides into a brick wall. The scenarios in each example are utterly different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steel>aluminium |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
James's argument about the exterior of the WTC being very thin and easily penetrated would only stand up if the plane flew perfectly horizontaly and went in on 1 floor only and did not hit the concrete floors
Because the plane went in at an angle the wings would have met resistance from more than one of the concrete floors, this would greatly increase the resistance of the exterior building to the plane and prevent the whole plane from penetrating - the wings should have bounced off |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: | | steel>aluminium |
Ally, your understanding of materials and their employement in structure and construction using different shapes and scales is almost pre-school.
Steel>aluminium......ok what steel and what alumnium? What sizes and shape are these? Are they constructed in certain ways? Is the alumumnium extruded to give it higher strength? What is the grade of steel?
Are you honestly suggesting that a steel bar which is 1cm thick is stronger than a piece of aluminium 170cm thick? Get Real!
Look at this article comparing steel and alumnium use for making boat hulls. It quite clearly says that if the aluminium hull is built with density close to steel then it will be as strong if not stronger than steel.
http://www.kastenmarine.com/alumVSsteel.htm
| Quote: | | An aluminum hull structure, built to the same standards, weighs roughly 35% to 45% less than the same hull in steel. As a result, if high strength is of the highest priority, the alloy boat can be built to the same structural weight as the steel vessel, and then be considerably stronger. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| scar wrote: | | Do you agree media overlay is a logistical impossibility? |
Nope - I remember at least 10 years ago seeing US Sports commentators drawing over the playing field displayed on the screen to describe what was going on. The media, at the top level, are no different from the corrupt politicians managing everything. On this one occasion, they COULD arrange to inject a CGI or Sprite live into the video feed. As one clip says, the reporter on the scene saw an explosion but no plane - the studio corrected him - unless this recording itself is disinformation, it's most peculiar. But this part is obviously the most difficult to prove after the event - as it is not associated with physical evidence and must be decided through the testimony of whistleblowers - if they truly did it.
| Quote: | | The cellphones 'probably worked'? That doesnt sound too sure. I dont agree with that either. Do ya have a link? |
http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/flight93/flight93.html
Maybe my description was slightly inaccurate, but again the above leaflet is a "limited hangout" in some areas about Flt 93 - e.g. cellphones.
| Quote: | | Im fairly convinced the media overlay argument IS absurd, but im open to a debunking of Salters argument of course, Ive read various arguments of how media overlay would work but ive not seen an explanation of the major problem outlined by salter and others. |
I need to study this part of the argument more closely as I haven't studied his arguments. I am suspicious of whomever introduced the hologram theory and it is often waved around as a method ridiculing the other evidence. I don't go in for the hologram theory - I don't see any evidence for it, or any advantage in doing it.
| Quote: | | Did you flick through the commentary? |
Only a bit.
| Quote: | | Im surprised debunkers like PM havent torn no planes to shreds but perhaps they are waiting for it to become more widely accepted. Or perhaps its the truth |
If they try to, it will be time to take the evidence even more seriously...!
Couldn't answer your other points.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | James's argument about the exterior of the WTC being very thin and easily penetrated would only stand up if the plane flew perfectly horizontaly and went in on 1 floor only and did not hit the concrete floors
Because the plane went in at an angle the wings would have met resistance from more than one of the concrete floors, this would greatly increase the resistance of the exterior building to the plane and prevent the whole plane from penetrating - the wings should have bounced off |
How many times do I have to tell you. The floors were not structurally constructed of concrete. They were made of large spans of steel trusses which are only strong in compression and very weak laterally (The aircraft hit laterally). The concrete on each floor was only there to make a firm base to walk on being only 5 inches thick and similar to icing on a cake.
Last edited by James C on Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes James but when more than one floor is involved the resistance goes up exponentially |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | Yes James but when more than one floor is involved the resistance goes up exponentially |
You know that for a fact do you, that an exponential rise in resistance will take place? Where's your proof?
Of course the overall resistance of each tower was effective in reducing the kinetic energy of each plane otherwise they would have passed straight through.
However, this argument is about the possibility of the penetration of the facade by an object weighing 150 tonnes being flown at 400 mph. For that there is no question it could have happened. The architects even designed the towers for such an event. Listen here to Aaron Swirski talking about how the facade would have behaved after a plane impact.
http://www.jpradio.com/Archive/2001/09/11/asx/010911swi.asx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| he says it would be like a pencil peircing mosquito netting so how come the wings managed to slice through the reinforced concrete and steel without being sheared off? According to the official acount of the Pentagon hit the wings of F77 'folded back' on impact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
optimus79
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: | | he says it would be like a pencil peircing mosquito netting so how come the wings managed to slice through the reinforced concrete and steel without being sheared off? According to the official acount of the Pentagon hit the wings of F77 'folded back' on impact. |
I dont believe the two cases are comparable (and not for the obvious reason that a plane never hit the Pentagon) However, the structure of the Twin Towers in comparison to a newly strengthened Pentagon would cause very different results.
Its a reall shame that Bill Gates aint on board the truth movement, someone could persuade him to dig his hand down the back of the sofa and pay for an exact replica of the twin towers to be built out in the desert and then fly planes in to them.
And if they did collapse and we're all wasting our time, at least it would be a lot of fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
