Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:55 pm Post subject:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
Snowy
Please explain why EXPLOSIVES could NOT have made the plane shape holes?
The onus is on you to prove your theory, you haven't. Re the explosives though, they would have had to be quite well planted and the metal would have twisted outward. But no doubt the US military have devoloped some explosives that act like a vacuum. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: Evidence
Certainly I will.
View here the DENTING made by the impact.
Also view the beams bent INWARDS
Now if you still think explosives can cause DENTS on the OUTSIDE of the building I submit to you tha the NPT has passed into the realms of fairy tales.
No doubt you`ll have a cunning retort like "where did you ge the picture" or the usual "ok so if the wing didnt go through at the ends where is it".
Oh and by the way the "beams" that are bent out, they arent beams.
All the WTC was covered with thin aluminium sheet cladding for visual reasons. It is this cladding thats peeled off the beams; its quite clear as if you follow the lines of the covers you see they meet the beams.
So the evidence of beams bending is NOT open to discussion, they are bent INWARDS case closed.
Denting2.JPG
Description:
Filesize:
206.58 KB
Viewed:
331 Time(s)
Denting3sm.JPG
Description:
Filesize:
37.24 KB
Viewed:
322 Time(s)
Denting4sm.JPG
Description:
Filesize:
75.47 KB
Viewed:
332 Time(s)
Beams In 1sm.JPG
Description:
Filesize:
111.3 KB
Viewed:
331 Time(s)
_________________ The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject: Oh dear god
TWSU3,
The aluminium cladding is bonded to the face of the steel beams, if the steel beam bends inwards the cover "pings" off. The heavy steel beams underneath ARE ALL BENT INWARDS.
I notice you avoid the denting also.
Who are you TWSU3?????? _________________ The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
If the planes missed, they could fly a pattern to get another angle of attack... which was possible since the only two scrambled fighter jets were out in the Atlantic!
Snowy, I can't dispute something hit the WTC, I just don't think it was a Boeing hijacked by Arab lunatics but I do think the networks broadcast an entirely fraudulent version of what did hit. That's my position. _________________
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: Re: Oh dear god
Snowygrouch wrote:
TWSU3,
The aluminium cladding is bonded to the face of the steel beams, if the steel beam bends inwards the cover "pings" off. The heavy steel beams underneath ARE ALL BENT INWARDS.
I notice you avoid the denting also.
Who are you TWSU3??????
That is nor pinging off they are clearly bent OUTWARDS
This is basic physics and chemistry again. It needs explaining - I didn't agree with any of the explanations on the other thread - esp. as they were laced with derrogatory remarks.
If these Big Boeings really did hit (and I assumed they did until about 3 months ago), there should be NO ANOMALIES in the evidence (even if we do have witnesses who swear they saw a plane).
Another piece of compelling evidence is actually in one of Steve Jones papers. In this photo:
1) It is assumed by some that when the planes hit, they were shredded or vaporised depening on who's analysis you go with.
2) If either of those analyses is correct, then why on earth is that piece of fuselage:
a) not shredded
b) not noticably burned
c) not more buried under the WTC rubble?
d) How and why is this different from risable "kevlar passport" scenario?
This is physical evidence - which has been used and referenced in Steve Jones' rebuttals to Morgan and Judy's analyses. These anomalies need to be explained - without resorting to expletives and insults.
Video comparison post from other thread:
flamesong wrote:
You make it sound like aircraft fuel spontaneously explodes on contact with air! This is nonsense!
I disagree - as that's not what I was saying. I feel my simple analysis is valid. The plane was supposedly travelling fast and "vaporised" on impact (according to some people). This amount of heat from the impact, in my view, would ignite the fuel in the wings and fuselage rather quicker than seen on the video (see below).
Can I prove this? No. Is it the single most important piece of evidence? No.
Did you actually load and watch the video?
This is quite morbid, and only partly a valid comparison (let the insults fly if you wish - water off duck's back to me...) because of it being a different plane and somewhat different circumstances.
If you watch this a couple of times, you will see the fire starts when the plane's left wing tip hits the ground, then the rest of the planes explodes as it hits.
The fire starts after the plane has gone in to the building.
So people can squabble about holograms and shills if they wish. I try to look at the evidence myself and come to an informed opinion.
Do I count the above as proof? No. Am I an authority on plane crashes? No. Is it easy for us to re-run a plane crashing into a building to check this idea out? Of course not (as if I need to say it).
It's fine for people to ridicule or slag me off - I am quite used to it - but I am always suspicious when people do this, rather than, for example, finding a video or description which shows a plane behaving like the WTC impact one.[/img] _________________ Andrew
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject: Beams
TWSU3,
I think we've established that if I say BLUE youre going to scream GREEN until your lungs burst.
So if thats what you want to take from it, good for you.
I think I`ll leave it to everyone else to take what they want from it. _________________ The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
The problem with what you say about the photograph is that you have not provided many details about the photograph itself.
What date was the photo taken.
I would say it was some time after 11/09/2001 by which point debis was already being removed and piled up elsewhere on the site. You say that the fuselage is "not more buried under the WTC rubble"
1. There is clearly a crane on the site right next to the standing portion of one of the towers. If this was on 11/09/2001, there would be a lot of debis from the fallen tower. A crane requires that it is situated on solid, flat ground, therefore I suggest that material had already been removed from around the base of the tower remains by the time this photograph was taken.
2. It is faily clear to see that some structal work/securing had already been carried out by looking that the two black buildings in the background which have various parts covered in red plastic sheets. This is clearer when looking at the lower-left building which is behind the majority of the crane secion in the photo.
3. There is another red and white crane visible to the right of the image.
4. The smoke from the smoldering rubble is not visible. On the day, there was a lot of smoke and dust.
EDIT:
In additon, you say the fuselage section is not shredded... the section itself isn't, but it is a piece from a larger whole. In other words, it is a shred of the fuselage.
The problem with what you say about the photograph is that you have not provided many details about the photograph itself.What date was the photo taken.
Quite true. However, we can each research these things for ourselves - as none of us are paid researchers are doing this "for its own sake".
The photo was taken on 25th of October 2001, according to the link in Judy Wood's article:
Sadly, Steve Jones references the photo here, without even this detail.
I will try to find more details - perhaps someone will beat me to it. But, in the meantime, let us ask an interesting question:
Is the photo a fake? Is the video fake? Why would someone fake a picture like this? If it is a fake, how come Steve Jones references it in his article above?
Quote:
I would say it was some time after 11/09/2001 by which point debis was already being removed and piled up elsewhere on the site. You say that the fuselage is "not more buried under the WTC rubble"
1. There is clearly a crane on the site right next to the standing portion of one of the towers. If this was on 11/09/2001, there would be a lot of debis from the fallen tower. A crane requires that it is situated on solid, flat ground, therefore I suggest that material had already been removed from around the base of the tower remains by the time this photograph was taken.
That is probably correct, I would agree.
Quote:
2. It is faily clear to see that some structal work/securing had already been carried out by looking that the two black buildings in the background which have various parts covered in red plastic sheets. This is clearer when looking at the lower-left building which is behind the majority of the crane secion in the photo.
A good observation...
Quote:
3. There is another red and white crane visible to the right of the image.
4. The smoke from the smoldering rubble is not visible. On the day, there was a lot of smoke and dust.
EDIT:
Quote:
In additon, you say the fuselage section is not shredded... the section itself isn't, but it is a piece from a larger whole. In other words, it is a shred of the fuselage.
Hmmm - well - I can see what you're saying, but it really boils down to "Shredded by how much". And, why isn't it burnt? It looks suspiciously like the shanksville wreckage to me.... call me paranoid...[/quote] _________________ Andrew
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject:
The only peice which is clearly from a Plane in that photo is the "window" segment... so shredded into a peice seven or eight feet long is still fairly shredded. The shredding would obviously occur as the plane impacted and split around the lattice work of the internal steel strucutre. Being as I'm not a gravity denier, I dont need to ascribe to nonesense like "vapourisation" so segments like that are pretty much what I would expect _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
I'm sure that most poelpe who believe the official reports to be false agree that there were small amounts of fire after the initial impact.
Hypothetically, if a piece of material is exposed to high temperatures for only a small amount of time, it is possible that there may only be slight amount of burning of the material. On this aircraft, the metal would not burn.
Soot could cover it. Further research may reveal that aircraft paint is somewhat resistant to fire.
Take a look at this image:
It clearly shows variations of singed paint from an aircraft fire.
"Is the photo a fake? Is the video fake? Why would someone fake a picture like this?"
This remnant is now being here debated as a 'pivotal' piece of evidence. And rightly so. Should we find that this shred belongs to one of the attack aircraft then game over for the 'noboeings', or 'nobos', as they are known..
As for the photo.
We can immediately see that the 'evidence' is afforded much less attention there and then than right here, and now. True, there is a custodian apparently keeping a watchful eye on this and the other nearby pieces, or shreds, of metallic evidence. I naturally presume that the other pieces, being also carefully laid out to await collection, will also have been preserved for the official reports.
Well would'nt you?
As for the provenance of the shreds, they do seem to be all of a same-ish hue and tint, do they not. A faded, sun dried battered blue one and all. Therefore they must surely be part of the same original plane - or perhaps something similar. Maybe it's only a coating of blue-ish toxic dust. Only time will tell.
Why would someone fake a picture like this?
My goodness! A born-again cynic might say that at this juncture, toss a couple of bones into the kennels and watch the truthers squabble. Seems to be doing the trick to a degree.
As for me, it is some months since it occured to me that the broadcast images of the day were ever so slightly suspect. I can mentally quite easily cope with the indisputable visual evidence of massive explosive energies unleashed on the 2 towers. I know what an explosion is, albeit only by proxy. That moving images can or could or may have been manipulated before transmission, or seeding, is a concept that belongs in a sc-fi novel - so far as I'm concerned. I remain, of course, aware that powerful rendering software exists - but it is beyond my ken. So my position is one of suspicion, ever so slightly deepening, let me add.
cheers Al.
Last edited by alwun on Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:32 am; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject:
John White wrote:
Veronica, here's a genuine question that I wonder if you can help me with:
It seems to me common sense that if "no planes: video fakery" is correct, then it is not some images that have to be faked, but every single peice of footage shot from any angle by anyone: there cannot be any genuine footage anywhere if "a fake in the image" holds water
How can no planes theory succesfully debunk every single image that exists? Do you state that there are no genuine images anywhere?
If not, the only alternative is "an image of a fake": ergo genuine footage of a hologram plane
Or//
That real Planes hit the towers
I am naturally wary of this scenario becuase it also seems to me that, just as "No Planes" theorists can look at anomalous footage and say "Hey look! this peice of footage shows trickery!", by the exact same methods genuine footage could be doctored to make it appear fake: if not all images can be shown to be fake, then this must be the more likely explanation, surely?
Can anyone else help with my Q to Victoria? _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:55 pm Post subject: Re: A message from Ally...
flamesong wrote:
Ally wrote:
love, ally
I can only assume that you haven't got any valid evidence to support your theories, then?
Ah - I see where you're coming from.
Flipping this on it's head, then, the fact that you got a message from Ally like PROVES Big Boeings hit the WTC?
I am not sure how evidence like this would be suitable for a scientific paper on the subject.
This is why I try to stay focused on evidence - such as anomalous fireballs and anomalous bits of wreckage rather than the trading of insults. The latter have no direct link to the events of 9/11. _________________ Andrew
I am not sure John - I think she posted a link to some Killtown's collection of video and photo evidence. I am really tired just now.
But the case doesn't hinge on this alone - we have at least 3 videos that I have seen which show a plane loaded with fuel exploding, more or less, when it is INSIDE the building. Like the pancake collapse of the WTC, the official story, to me at this point now, breaks the laws of physics.
If "my" basic analysis is correct here (some people have been saying it for YEARS), then I can only assume there are many fake videos and photos.
I think Morgan Reynolds is right - we are now seeing "Cover up 3" breaking down. (Cover Up 2 being the demolition of the WTC) _________________ Andrew
It clearly shows variations of singed paint from an aircraft fire.
Hmmm - I don't agree that this is a sufficiently close comparison. This plane clearly did not crash, travelling at nearly full speed (according to official reports) into a building.
It may have crashed off a runway, or perhaps into a body of water. Do you have more details of the crash?
Even if you don't, you can clearly see the structural integrity of the plane is far higher than what we saw as a result of the videos of WTC impact (s) - which is what we were all discussing? N'est ce pas ? _________________ Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:42 am Post subject:
Quote:
I am not sure John - I think she posted a link to some Killtown's collection of video and photo evidence. I am really tired just now.
But the case doesn't hinge on this alone - we have at least 3 videos that I have seen which show a plane loaded with fuel exploding, more or less, when it is INSIDE the building. Like the pancake collapse of the WTC, the official story, to me at this point now, breaks the laws of physics.
If "my" basic analysis is correct here (some people have been saying it for YEARS), then I can only assume there are many fake videos and photos.
I think Morgan Reynolds is right - we are now seeing "Cover up 3" breaking down. (Cover Up 2 being the demolition of the WTC)
Well its a poser all right:
With the fireball Q, obviously the plane is not going to explode the moment it touches the towers: I therefore wouldnt expect a fireball untill after it had entered the building: with the fireball also spreading around the interior building: and how long is that delay likely to be? A significant proportion of a second? Longer?
It's really "what should a plane hitting the WTC look like?" and that's where we either accept the footage or use our imagination/comparison with other events to build a scenario illustrating what it should look like if we wish to refute the record of the images we have
I do pay attention to the "no planes" information, and I'm also aware some people saw the impact this way from dot: I'm not yet convinced that this is how it should be seen (and TBH am not significantly moved to do so), but don't have a problem with civil discussion of the matter _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
I agree with your civilised debate thingies but...
John White wrote:
Well its a poser all right:
With the fireball Q, obviously the plane is not going to explode the moment it touches the towers:
I don't think this IS obvious that it won't explode - define "moment" - 10ms, 100ms? 1 second? This is exactly why I posted the B52 video. The wings of the plane are made of thin metal. They hit the building at high speed. 1 frame of the video is either 1/12th or 1/25 of a second - the fuel should ignite by then. Metal! Impact! Sparks! Fuel! Air! Boom!! I'm not meaning to be sarcastic, but perhaps you can see my point...
[/quote] _________________ Andrew
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:03 am Post subject:
But, by that time the momentum of the plane has carried it further forward, taking the fuel into the building as it explodes...
I don't know the answer Andrew, and I dont come at things from a science background, I run everything through my "common sense" filter and keep learning to expand my understanding of what common sense is. What I do do is weigh the different arguments and "feel" which one seems to have the greater consistancy. Its not perfect, but equally its what the majority of people do, and if I can grasp it, then I can explain it to them
My all photos must be fake/or images of a hologram observation is one that I will keep asking every now and again, becuase thats what my common sense filter is telling me has to be shown before I would move position from being a "Planer"... no matter what the other anomalies... which themselves also need to be shown not to be DISINFO style fakes
(And that position is a combination of common sense and the fact that I've got a free flowing mind capable of being quite sneaky in my own way) _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:10 am Post subject:
It appears to me forr this thread that the no 7x7 theories are based on suspicion and spurious video evidence that can been explained by frame rates and interlacing. I can't buy it I'm afraid, if any decent evidence emerges I'll be happy to chnage my mind but until then I'll stick to the facts. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
On the basis that Jetfuel is stored in the wings - and that the wings would not penetrate the building - there should have been a fireball upon impact.
There was no fireball on impact - it came out the other side of the building
- it was a fireworks show with preplanted explosives or a high tech beam weapon to make it look like a plane impact
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:45 am Post subject:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
On the basis that Jetfuel is stored in the wings - and that the wings would not penetrate the building - there should have been a fireball upon impact.
There was no fireball on impact - it came out the other side of the building
- it was a fireworks show with preplanted explosives or a high tech beam weapon to make it look like a plane impact
FFS, how did they get the metal to point inwards then, we've gone through this. Now if your explanation is a 'high tech beam weapon' then I'm afraid you really need help. If you can't explain a theory and have to resort to science fiction then you have no credibility left. _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 489 Location: Manchester
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:49 am Post subject:
how many other 7x7s have you seen fly into skycrapers with a similar surface to the wtc, at the same speed?
how do you explain all the eye witnesses and amateur camera footage?
if the planes were faked in some way (and i would bet a lot of money that they weren't) how will any of you EVER EVER PROVE IT? it doesn't matter, stop talking about it before the truth movement completely buries itself up its own arse.
this thread should be deleted. if you want to talk about holograms and fakery go to the david icke forums or something _________________ "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
this thread should be deleted. if you want to talk about holograms and fakery go to the david icke forums or something
Sorry TG, but this would be a breach of freedom of speech principles. You are not obliged to contribute to the thread it you disagree with the thrust of it.
The evidence and pattern and discussion of it are the same as the original discussion, for example, about the CD of the WTC. _________________ Andrew
FFS, how did they get the metal to point inwards then, we've gone through this. Now if your explanation is a 'high tech beam weapon' then I'm afraid you really need help. If you can't explain a theory and have to resort to science fiction then you have no credibility left.
AndyB - let's try and separate the evidence - the use of a beam weapon or not does not affect the "fireball delay issue". This is clear to me - and probably fairly measurable.
As for Beam Weapons, I am afraid they aren't science fiction. They WERE developed as part of the SDI programme in the 80's. Publicly we were told, however, they were useless. However, you might want to hear about their possible use in Iraq. You might also avail yourself of the basic discussions of evidence presented in Prof Judy Wood and Prof Morgan Reynolds article here.
Did lower manhattan flood on 9/11 or didn't it? It didn't. Why, when the collapse of the towers should have damaged the "Bathtub" in which they were constructed. Basic facts and evidence that needs to be explained. Read the article and see what you make of it (it's a draft version). Watch the 24 minute video at the end.
From research I have been doing in the last 3 years, there seems to be good evidence that a fair number of things that people thing are "Science Fiction" aren't. Like 9/11 Truth and NBB, you have to try and look at LOTS of evidence and see if there is a pattern. _________________ Andrew
On the basis that Jetfuel is stored in the wings - and that the wings would not penetrate the building - there should have been a fireball upon impact.
There was no fireball on impact - it came out the other side of the building
- it was a fireworks show with preplanted explosives or a high tech beam weapon to make it look like a plane impact
Kerosene has to be heated up before it will ignite!!!
The flash point is 110F. Also, you must take into account the velocity of the aircraft. The aircraft, and therefore the fuel inside the aircraft has inertia. It is reasonable to assume that the igniting fuel is travelling forward through the building in the direction of the aircrafts trajectory. This is why there is far more burning fuel at the exit point rather than the entry point.
Take a look at the Challenger distater video to see an example of this.
Your theory requires that you explain how the cool metal from the building would ignite the fuel in the wing tanks? There would have to be an ignition source.
The heat and sparks from the friction of the collision would surely be the ignition source. And who is to say that would happen at the very instant of impact?
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
