| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DarrenUK
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 12
Location: England
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Looks like a plane to me... maybe not a passenger airliner but a Military (alot stronger) plane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
The point is this guy dont look up until the explosion above him. Not with the oncoming roar of a low-flying jet, not with the scrunching of jet against concrete and steel, not until the explosions occur
It might be only seconds, but the reaction time seems to centre on the explosion and nothing before
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Uh... what is this supposed to show to us?
_________________
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: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dh wrote: | The point is this guy dont look up until the explosion above him. Not with the oncoming roar of a low-flying jet, not with the scrunching of jet against concrete and steel, not until the explosions occur
It might be only seconds, but the reaction time seems to centre on the explosion and nothing before |
But the sound of the plane could have been reverberating off many different buildings, its quite possible that the sound of the incoming plane was smothered by various buildings. Bit like when a helicopter will be silent and yet when it moves slightly becomes much louder as the sound bounces of a different building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fixuplooksharp
Moderate Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
no plane people say that planes cannot just melt into buildings. right. where do i start. im no professor but isnt aluminium a very maleable metal, is it not possile that the outer stucture could have just bent with the impact? it does not look very thick and also it would take a second for the fuel compartments to ignite as when the plane enters the building, the plane carves itself a hole to petentrate thorugh and the fuel compartments would only ignite once they have hit the inner structure of the wtc.
it think this debunks, at least to popular mechanics standards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| i see your point in the footage, the plane enters then emerges out the other side then disappears, or explodes, so it could of been just an explotion and the plane was just for visuals making it seem like the explosion was from a plane hitting, but how do you explain the plane shaped holes? this is why this is hard to stand up true or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | i see your point in the footage, the plane enters then emerges out the other side then disappears, or explodes, so it could of been just an explotion and the plane was just for visuals making it seem like the explosion was from a plane hitting, but how do you explain the plane shaped holes? this is why this is hard to stand up true or not. |
That is easy, just put affix explosions in a plane type shape. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | i see your point in the footage, the plane enters then emerges out the other side then disappears, or explodes, so it could of been just an explotion and the plane was just for visuals making it seem like the explosion was from a plane hitting, but how do you explain the plane shaped holes? this is why this is hard to stand up true or not. |
That is easy, just put affix explosions in a plane type shape. |
across the windows to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| if explosives were used they would of needed to be out of site, ie inbetween floor,elevator shafts ect etc. anywhere else where the plane impacted would be in plain view i'd think |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: | There is a small problem with this shot of the footage, the very first portion of the film is is at a slightly slower speed, this gives the illusion that the guy takes a lot longer to respond than he did.
Also, the building behind him would have covered the sound right up to the point of impact
And finally, Sound travels at a much less speed than light, infact at sea level it is approx. 340.29 m/s. If we know each floor was approx 4 meters (NIST) and the plane struck between the 78th and 84th floors (lets take an average of the 81st floor, then 4 meters x 81 floors = 324 meters... also he was not directly below the crash (x2 = root of y2 + z2) assuming he was about 150 meters away from the building, then the plane strike would have been approximately 357 meters away... therefore, the sound would have reached him approximately 357m / 340.29 m/s = 1.049 seconds after the plane crashed (If we take light over this distance as pretty much instantaneous). If you also add a little time for the guy's brain to comprehend what just happened, I see no problem with his reaction. |
Excuse My language but this is complete BOLLOC KS!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | Bongo Brian wrote: | There is a small problem with this shot of the footage, the very first portion of the film is is at a slightly slower speed, this gives the illusion that the guy takes a lot longer to respond than he did.
Also, the building behind him would have covered the sound right up to the point of impact
And finally, Sound travels at a much less speed than light, infact at sea level it is approx. 340.29 m/s. If we know each floor was approx 4 meters (NIST) and the plane struck between the 78th and 84th floors (lets take an average of the 81st floor, then 4 meters x 81 floors = 324 meters... also he was not directly below the crash (x2 = root of y2 + z2) assuming he was about 150 meters away from the building, then the plane strike would have been approximately 357 meters away... therefore, the sound would have reached him approximately 357m / 340.29 m/s = 1.049 seconds after the plane crashed (If we take light over this distance as pretty much instantaneous). If you also add a little time for the guy's brain to comprehend what just happened, I see no problem with his reaction. |
Excuse My language but this is complete BOLLOC KS!!!!! |
That is what I thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | Bongo Brian wrote: | There is a small problem with this shot of the footage, the very first portion of the film is is at a slightly slower speed, this gives the illusion that the guy takes a lot longer to respond than he did.
Also, the building behind him would have covered the sound right up to the point of impact
And finally, Sound travels at a much less speed than light, infact at sea level it is approx. 340.29 m/s. If we know each floor was approx 4 meters (NIST) and the plane struck between the 78th and 84th floors (lets take an average of the 81st floor, then 4 meters x 81 floors = 324 meters... also he was not directly below the crash (x2 = root of y2 + z2) assuming he was about 150 meters away from the building, then the plane strike would have been approximately 357 meters away... therefore, the sound would have reached him approximately 357m / 340.29 m/s = 1.049 seconds after the plane crashed (If we take light over this distance as pretty much instantaneous). If you also add a little time for the guy's brain to comprehend what just happened, I see no problem with his reaction. |
Excuse My language but this is complete BOLLOC KS!!!!! |
That is what I thought. |
And more to the point - the fact that somebody would present such a complex mathematical equation to prove it was a plane shows that they have something to hide.
The reason the guy did not see or hear the plane is because there was no plane - just an explosion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:50 am Post subject: Re: It was holograms after all. |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMT4REHBvFk&NR |
Please watch the clip again
45 SECONDS INTO THE CLIP FREEZE THE SCREEN AND TELL ME WHAT YOU SEE THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH A HUGE JET HITTING A SKYSCRAPER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DarrenUK
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 12
Location: England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Minor Poster
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 31
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Here's an interesting one of the second plane - there could be a really good reason, ie: nonsense picture quality, too far away, object too small and obscured by smoke etc, but I don't see a plane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Minor Poster
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 31
Location: London
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jim303
New Poster
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:13 pm Post subject: Star Trek ain't real, you know - Hologram? - pah! |
|
|
| This is a fake conspiracy red herring to try and discredit the real conspiracy theories and to throw people off the real evidence which is so blatantly obvious, that fake conspiracy stuff like this is having to be made up. I find it hilarious that who ever thought up the whole 9-11 attrocity thinks that people are thick enough to go along with the whole sharade because in reality, they're the ones who are so deluded in their arrogance, they're the ones lacking in grey matter as anyone with broadband and a brain can plainly see. Every time I see Donald Rumsfeld, I can't help thinking "yep, there it is, that glazed power crazed deluded look written all over his face". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Minor Poster
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 31
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: Star Trek ain't real, you know - Hologram? - pah! |
|
|
This is a fake conspiracy red herring to try and discredit the real conspiracy theories and to throw people off the real evidence which is so blatantly obvious, that fake conspiracy stuff like this is having to be made up.
A very good point, but have you considered that extreme lengths may have been pursued? For example, maybe it really wasn't easier to just fly planes in to the building or as Adolf Hitler said, the greater the crime committed by the state, the less likeley the public will be to believe it? Not his exact words, but to that effect anyway.
On the other hand, I do agree, there is much better evidence that makes it far more beleivable than Holograms etc and the most important thing to remeber is that this campaign isn't about convincing people whether it was an inside job or not. I don't care if you beleive that or not frankly. What we do know for a fact is that much of the governments story doesn't stand up under scrutiny and 9/11 was too important event for us to let that go, whatever we think happened. But the only way we'll get to the bottom of this is with a full, independent public inquiry that isn't afraid to suspect those who benefited most. That's what the campaign is about. Less speculation, more pressure for an inquiry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: | My first reply to THETRUTHWILLSETU3...
| Quote: | | And more to the point - the fact that somebody would present such a complex mathematical equation to prove it was a plane shows that they have something to hide. |
Ahem... 'complex?'... you think that the equation is complex? I think it was first year Physics (what, 12/13 years old) when I was taught that...
Speed = Distance/Time... It was at the very least part of Standard Grade Physics (Called Ordinary Grade when I was a pupil). Is it the priciple that light travels at a much faster speed than sound that you find to be 'B0LL0CKS'? It seems to me that, If you are reverting to insults to make up for your lack of scientific judgement, then you have already helped to disprove your initial 'no plane' theory.
Also my response to prole art threat,
I suggest you sit down with THETRUTHWILLSETU3 and do a little reading on basic physics... here is a site to get you started...
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/sound/u11l2c.html
Happy studies campers! |
That is only your explanation for the delay in the man looking up - and that relies on your unproved theory that he could not hear the plane approaching - I agree with you - he could not hear something that was not there
So if you are so bright - answer the rest of my questions |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The trouble with people like you Bongo is that although you may well be up on physics and the like - you are selective in the questions you choose to answer - and are distinctly lacking in COMMON SENSE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimB
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | That is only your explanation for the delay in the man looking up - and that relies on your unproved theory that he could not hear the plane approaching - I agree with you - he could not hear something that was not there |
Unproved? Sound travels slower than light. Fact. It can be demonstrated with the simplest of experiments. How the hell does this provide evidence for holograms? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JimB wrote: | | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | That is only your explanation for the delay in the man looking up - and that relies on your unproved theory that he could not hear the plane approaching - I agree with you - he could not hear something that was not there |
Unproved? Sound travels slower than light. Fact. It can be demonstrated with the simplest of experiments. How the hell does this provide evidence for holograms? |
Well Jim
Play the clip again
Freeze it at 45 seconds - you will see that the plane has completely entered the building -NO EXPLOSION, NO BITS DROPPING OFF
AND NO DAMAGE TO THE SIDE THE PLANE WENT IN
ONLY A GHOST PLANE COULD DO THIS
Move the clip on and you see an explosion coming out the other side of the building - the explosion should have been at the entry point when the wings which store the fuel hit the building
So answer these points if you can |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JimB wrote: | | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | That is only your explanation for the delay in the man looking up - and that relies on your unproved theory that he could not hear the plane approaching - I agree with you - he could not hear something that was not there |
Unproved? Sound travels slower than light. Fact. It can be demonstrated with the simplest of experiments. How the hell does this provide evidence for holograms? |
Exactly, and also if it were something cloaked in a hologram it would still have to be arranged to make a noise like a big jet to be realistic, so the argument fails. If it was only a hologram how could the sound effect be arranged?
Another reason the man does not look up immediately might be the reason why he was being filmed in the first place, which is unknown. He might well be concentrating on the filming and trying to avoid being distracted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why don't you answer the questions Bushwacker? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why don't you answer the questions Jim? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jim303
New Poster
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject: Re: Star Trek ain't real, you know - Hologram? - pah! |
|
|
| Scott wrote: | | the most important thing to remeber is that this campaign isn't about convincing people whether it was an inside job or not..........................the only way we'll get to the bottom of this is with a full, independent public inquiry that isn't afraid to suspect those who benefited most. That's what the campaign is about. Less speculation, more pressure for an inquiry. |
Right you are, thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimB
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: |
NO EXPLOSION |
I assume you mean no immediate explosion. So we can conclude the fuel doesn't ignite immediately.
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | NO BITS DROPPING OFF |
Dropping off? It slams into the tower at high speed. Debris is ejected from each side of the tower visible in the clip.
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | AND NO DAMAGE TO THE SIDE THE PLANE WENT IN |
So where does the cloud of smoke/dust/debris emerge from? A ghost hole? It couldn't be that the hole isn't apparent because of the poor quality of the video clip, could it?
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | ONLY A GHOST PLANE COULD DO THIS
Move the clip on and you see an explosion coming out the other side of the building |
Like the debris, the explosion emerges from each side of the tower visible in the clip.
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | - the explosion should have been at the entry point when the wings which store the fuel hit the building
|
Really? What makes you so sure?
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | Why don't you answer the questions Jim? |
Answered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
