It's far easier to say "We reject this evidence as inadmissable for reason x y or z" rather than making an incorrect statement implying there is no other evidence than low resolution video.
Can't you just rephrase your statements to make them more accurate?
Delayed Fireball....
Inflated Tyre under scaffolding...
Anomalous witness statements
Conflicting video clips
Projectile "emitted" on 2nd impact.
Seemingly unburned piece of plane wreckage found on top of WTC building, not covered with other debris.
Oh dear. Do we have to post links to these thing AGAIN?
You are free to of course REJECT this as valid evidence, but it IS EVIDENCE there are problems with the stories of planes hitting WTC 1 & 2 and if you reject YOU should give a reason for doing so if you want to have a genuine and productive debate.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 6:12 pm Post subject:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Oh dear....
Such a shame....
It's far easier to say "We reject this evidence as inadmissable for reason x y or z" rather than making an incorrect statement implying there is no other evidence than low resolution video.
Can't you just rephrase your statements to make them more accurate?
Delayed Fireball....
Inflated Tyre under scaffolding...
Anomalous witness statements
Conflicting video clips
Projectile "emitted" on 2nd impact.
Seemingly unburned piece of plane wreckage found on top of WTC building, not covered with other debris.
Oh dear. Do we have to post links to these thing AGAIN?
You are free to of course REJECT this as valid evidence, but it IS EVIDENCE there are problems with the stories of planes hitting WTC 1 & 2 and if you reject YOU should give a reason for doing so if you want to have a genuine and productive debate.
S'up 2 you.....
Yes but Andrew, most of that list is stronger circumstantial evidence FOR a Plane than the abscence of one
Low Res Video certainly counts as...low Res video, and its evidential value is as... Low Res video. Its video images with low resolution, and what can be wrong with defining its nature accurately?
Looking at your list from the top:
Quote:
Delayed Fireball....
Do you have an accurate measurment of how long it was delayed? microseconds? around a second? have we shown that a delayed fireball is NOT what we would expect to see? My sense of probability tells me that is exactly what I expect to see, and entirely consistant with other footage of planes exploding when crashing etc etc...effect follows cause, after all
Quote:
Inflated Tyre under scaffolding...
Counter evidence to the value of low res video IE: not being able to accurately capture detail?. Evidence supproting a delayed fireball, with wreckage being ejected before the fireball engulfed it, being part of what might be expected to be seen in a crash. It bounced/rolled? can we conclusively model the physics to show it shouldnt be there? Of course not
Quote:
Anomalous witness statements
Completely normal. Nothing ever happens with multiple witnesses that does NOT have anomalous statements. I could write several paragraphs about the nature of perception and the human mind, but we can take it as read, as I am sure you know
Quote:
Conflicting video clips
Fallious has exposed one video used to support "no Planes" as a sexed up fake, without sensible counter argument. Can we be conclusive as to where the conflict lies? Which is easier, faking every known image, or altering images to appear fake, perhaps on a home PC, to push a hoopy theory on 'tinternet and generate lots of hits for a website... most of which where previously pushing "missile pods" which are completely in conflict with a theory that there were No Planes. Who needs a missile on a Plane that isnt there? I believe its perfectly reasonable to maintain a healthy observational distance rather than giving these site unquestioning credibility. Once bitten, twice shy
Quote:
Projectile "emitted" on 2nd impact.
Its an engine! Its shown on the video, its shown on the ground, and its completely consitent with credible computer modeling of the plane shredding around the infrastructure based on angle of impact and spped of approach, which has never been countered to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps somone backing "no Planes" research at ST9/11 should? Or we could just use Low res video to perpetually call it a "nose" with fingers in our ears. Which option best asks the tough questions?
Quote:
Seemingly unburned piece of plane wreckage found on top of WTC building, not covered with other debris.
True enough: but there are also enough visual indicators in that image to show it is taken after the clean up was well under way, and we do not know that the wreckage is in its original position. That doesnt prove its been dragged in under a tarp and put in position to fake evidence for planes though, unless we are adopting a faith based approach to truthseeking, its certainly credible that its been dragged out of the wreckage and placed where photographed as part of the clean-up. And why should it be burned when the fusealage of the plane was shredding as it pushed into the building? What is their to burn in jet fuel heat anyway? The paint? After all, we do know conclusively that jet Fuel fires didnt bring the buildings down
And of course, thats another issue with "no Planes" theory: the hundreds of gallons of Jet fuel needing to be pre placed in the building to create the fireball. We can be damn certain the fire happened, and wasnt holographic!
Quote:
You are free to of course REJECT this as valid evidence, but it IS EVIDENCE there are problems with the stories of planes hitting WTC 1 & 2 and if you reject YOU should give a reason for doing so if you want to have a genuine and productive debate.
Done. _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
SOME rebuttals. You seem to have more time than I do.
John White wrote:
Quote:
Delayed Fireball....
Do you have anaccurate measurment of how long it was delayed? microseconds? around a second? have we shown that a delayed fireball is NOT what we would expect to see? My sense of probability tells me that is exactly what I expect to see, and entirely consistant with other footage of planes exploding when crashing etc etc...effect follows cause, after all
I don't have an exact measurement. In the previous comparison I posted, we can see an immediate combustion as the wing tip either scrapes the ground or a cable. Since when does Kerosene "wait to explode" when supposedly crashing metal into metal at 400 mph?
Quote:
Quote:
Inflated Tyre under scaffolding...
Counter evidence to the value of low res video IE: not being able to accurately capture detail?. Evidence supproting a delayed fireball, with wreckage being ejected before the fireball engulfed it, being part of what might be expected to be seen in a crash. It bounced/rolled? can we conclusively model the physics to show it shouldnt be there? Of course not
So, you bought the "passport on the pavement" story? How is this piece of evidence different from that? How much less combustible than paper is rubber tyre? i.e. how mcuh better a chance did an inflated tyre have of surviving the face on catastrophic impact?
Quote:
Quote:
Anomalous witness statements
Completely normal.
Agreed - but not to the extent that we saw reported on TV (i.e. people in studio "correcting" reporter at the scene.
Quote:
Quote:
Conflicting video clips
Fallious has exposed one video used to support "no Planes" as a sexed up fake, without sensible counter argument. Can we be conclusive as to where the conflict lies?
Fallious is another anonymous poster who will reveal nothing of his background and takes strong exception when asked to "give a little". Most people would say "sorry, I don't wish to".
Why should any videos be faked? If the plane stories were valid, then why fake stuff? You think people did that to generate web hits? DId you look at the Zapruder film analysis? You think that's unrelated? Fair enough, have it your own way....
Quote:
Which is easier, faking every known image, or altering images to appear fake, perhaps on a home PC, to push a hoopy theory on 'tinternet and generate lots of hits for a website... most of which where previously pushing "missile pods" which are completely in conflict with a theory that there were No Planes.
This a weak argument. And you are bringing in pods to try and distract from the points I made - I didn't mention them as a point of evidence in this line of discussion. So why bring them in?
If they can completely destroy 3 huge buildings, I think faking a few hundred images isn't really that hard.
Quote:
Quote:
Projectile "emitted" on 2nd impact.
Its an engine! Its shown on the video, its shown on the ground, and its completely consitent with credible computer modeling of the plane shredding around the infrastructure based on angle of impact and spped of approach, which has never been countered to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps somone backing "no Planes" research at ST9/11 should?
Of course! Can you tell me who did the modelling? Wasn't NIST was it? (I genuinely don't know. Presumably whoever did this modelling got the WTC collapse models wrong, but the plane collision models right, right?
So the engine penetrated all the way through the building and left a puff of black smoke just like a uranium penetrator! Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood resigned from ST911 over the refusal to publish this research on ST911. They are both professors whom I have corresponded with and their research includes more evidence and an analysis of it than I have posted here.
Quote:
Or we could just use Low res video to perpetually call it a "nose" with fingers in our ears. Which option best asks the tough questions?
I am not concerned with the resolution of the video as the points I made are not influenced by its resolution. I didn't mention the "nose" either.
Quote:
Quote:
Seemingly unburned piece of plane wreckage found on top of WTC building, not covered with other debris.
True enough: but there are also enough visual indicators in that image to show it is taken after the clean up was well under way, and we do not know that the wreckage is in its original position.
Position doesn't matter. How did it survive the conflagration? Looks extremely similar to the planted wreckage at the pentagon and Shanksville if you ask me...
Quote:
And of course, thats another issue with "no Planes" theory: the hundreds of gallons of Jet fuel needing to be pre placed in the building to create the fireball. We can be damn certain the fire happened, and wasnt holographic!
This was a point of evidence I never mentioned in the above - I didn't dispute the fireball in the building happening - just the time at which it happened, relative to the impact - I said it was delayed. It also explodes out of the building, when it should really explode out of the plane - where the fuel was. (Oh sorry, I forgot - we had to wait for the plane to be fully inside the building before the fireball exploded out).
You make an assumption in your rebuttal that hundreds of gallons of fuel were needed. It probably would have been a lot more But it may not have been kerosene. If you accept demolition charges were placed, how much harder would it have bene to plant "pyrotechnic explosives" or containers of fuel? Not much effort I would say. They new that no evidence from the scene was going to be available for analysis anyway.
Firing 4 missiles that day would've been far easier than involving planes and trying to control NORAD into standing down. Hijackers were not even required, which might also explain why so many turned up alive. It might explain why 2 of the flights listed were not due to fly that day anyway.
So, if you look at the complete picture, it seems to fit a whole lot better if you ask me. _________________ Andrew
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
SOME rebuttals. You seem to have more time than I do.
Well Andrew, its suprising how quickly a reply can be put together with a bit of focus. And I wouldnt expect a single post on any topic to cover the entire of a subject matter
Quote:
John White wrote:
Quote:
Delayed Fireball....
Do you have anaccurate measurment of how long it was delayed? microseconds? around a second? have we shown that a delayed fireball is NOT what we would expect to see? My sense of probability tells me that is exactly what I expect to see, and entirely consistant with other footage of planes exploding when crashing etc etc...effect follows cause, after all
I don't have an exact measurement. In the previous comparison I posted, we can see an immediate combustion as the wing tip either scrapes the ground or a cable. Since when does Kerosene "wait to explode" when supposedly crashing metal into metal at 400 mph?
Since when does every crash behave identically? coming up with a time duration for this delayed fireball effect would seem a rudementary step in building a case for it though: however, your postulating this delay is a special effects error, not a physical effect, so its really just an argument for sloppy CGI
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Inflated Tyre under scaffolding...
Counter evidence to the value of low res video IE: not being able to accurately capture detail?. Evidence supproting a delayed fireball, with wreckage being ejected before the fireball engulfed it, being part of what might be expected to be seen in a crash. It bounced/rolled? can we conclusively model the physics to show it shouldnt be there? Of course not
So, you bought the "passport on the pavement" story? How is this piece of evidence different from that? How much less combustible than paper is rubber tyre? i.e. how mcuh better a chance did an inflated tyre have of surviving the face on catastrophic impact?
"considerably" less combustable would seem a fair statment: paper burns easily, rubber requires more concetrated heat. And infering I credulously accept a peice of evidence that would be simplicity itself to plant (which I dont) bears little relation to theorising about the survivability of an airplane tyre. But the point is, it suggests a Plane hit the tower stronger than it suggests Plane parts were scattered around New York right under the nose of a massive emergency repsonse
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anomalous witness statements
Completely normal.
Agreed - but not to the extent that we saw reported on TV (i.e. people in studio "correcting" reporter at the scene.
yes, but this indicates the cover story that the impacts brought the towers down being played by media placemen more than it suggests a cover story for the non-existance of Planes
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Conflicting video clips
Fallious has exposed one video used to support "no Planes" as a sexed up fake, without sensible counter argument. Can we be conclusive as to where the conflict lies?
Fallious is another anonymous poster who will reveal nothing of his background and takes strong exception when asked to "give a little". Most people would say "sorry, I don't wish to".
Andrew, the vast majority of posters on this or any other forum prefer to keep their legal identities hidden, its their privacy and their right to do so. If none of their posts are relevant, why not simply delete them from the database? You and I chose not to, bully for us: but refusing to address the credibility of Fallious's analysis because he choses not to reveal his name to you is playing the man and not the ball, so perhaps we should get past that and address the evidence itself. Is his analysis flawed, YES or NO?
Quote:
Why should any videos be faked?
Well, you seem to find it credible that a whole lot of images get faked
Quote:
If the plane stories were valid, then why fake stuff?
You have more imagination than that surely? Ego? Attention seeking? active misinformation? Should we consider all evidence genuine becuase its posted on a 9/11 Truth website? Seems like folly to me
Quote:
You think people did that to generate web hits?
Web hits are an obvious consequance. Hard to be certain they were the intention, but its obviously not impossible
Quote:
Did you look at the Zapruder film analysis? You think that's unrelated? Fair enough, have it your own way....
Which one, Fetzer's "Zapruder film fake" analysis or Bill Copper's "watch the driver" analysis? And what has the kennedy assasination got to do with 9/11? OK, its another famous coverup and I dearly wish that 9/11, unlike Kennedy's murder, can be sucsessfully exposed, but in this context it seems a diversion. If your asking me if I find it more credible to fake a single cine film released years after the event than fake every image of planes live on 9/11, then yes, I do find that more credible, and something of a no-brainer
Quote:
Quote:
Which is easier, faking every known image, or altering images to appear fake, perhaps on a home PC, to push a hoopy theory on 'tinternet and generate lots of hits for a website... most of which where previously pushing "missile pods" which are completely in conflict with a theory that there were No Planes.
This a weak argument. And you are bringing in pods to try and distract from the points I made - I didn't mention them as a point of evidence in this line of discussion. So why bring them in?
Is it? You havnt refuted that it would be easier, or that it could be done with home PC technology. If you choose not to look at the track record of a source of information when assesing evidance that's your business, but we can't re-write 9/11 truth history, so the facts rather speak for themselves
Quote:
If they can completely destroy 3 huge buildings, I think faking a few hundred images isn't really that hard.
Well, with that kind of thinking, nothing is impossible, but equally, nothing is true. It's not just about faking the images though is it Andrew? "No Planes" depends on a great deal of physical events as well, being carried out right in the middle of a major response, and a far more complex plan, contrary to the common sense of the "SNAFU" principle
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Projectile "emitted" on 2nd impact.
Its an engine! Its shown on the video, its shown on the ground, and its completely consitent with credible computer modeling of the plane shredding around the infrastructure based on angle of impact and spped of approach, which has never been countered to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps somone backing "no Planes" research at ST9/11 should?
Of course! Can you tell me who did the modelling? Wasn't NIST was it? (I genuinely don't know. Presumably whoever did this modelling got the WTC collapse models wrong, but the plane collision models right, right?
Andrew, NIST can't manufacture ALL of the facts, a cover up depends on 99% hard truth with a 1% spin on the end. Why should the analysis of the plane impact be anything else but on the level?: the coverup needs the Plane: the fix is in producing a model that assigns the plane impact responsibility for the buildings coming down. Angle of approach, speed, and modelling thereof are rather solid factors
Quote:
So the engine penetrated all the way through the building and left a puff of black smoke just like a uranium penetrator! Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood resigned from ST911 over the refusal to publish this research on ST911. They are both professors whom I have corresponded with and their research includes more evidence and an analysis of it than I have posted here.
Well we have an article section I'm sure would be happy to host it for them. Interior core and large office space surrounding, RH engine passes through office space and out the other side, seems fairly straightforward to me
Quote:
Quote:
Or we could just use Low res video to perpetually call it a "nose" with fingers in our ears. Which option best asks the tough questions?
I am not concerned with the resolution of the video as the points I made are not influenced by its resolution. I didn't mention the "nose" either.
No you didnt: but "nose" is commonly what "no Planers" claim it to be, as more evidence of sloppy CGI. And the quality of the images on which this conclusion is reached don't concern you. Well thats fine. Clearer in the minds eye perhaps?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Seemingly unburned piece of plane wreckage found on top of WTC building, not covered with other debris.
True enough: but there are also enough visual indicators in that image to show it is taken after the clean up was well under way, and we do not know that the wreckage is in its original position.
Position doesn't matter. How did it survive the conflagration? Looks extremely similar to the planted wreckage at the pentagon and Shanksville if you ask me...
"Looking similar" does not equal "same as". It may be planted, or it may be genuine, and neither of us know, but its not in itself strong evidance that every image of planes at the WTC are fakes
Quote:
Quote:
And of course, thats another issue with "no Planes" theory: the hundreds of gallons of Jet fuel needing to be pre placed in the building to create the fireball. We can be damn certain the fire happened, and wasnt holographic!
This was a point of evidence I never mentioned in the above - I didn't dispute the fireball in the building happening - just the time at which it happened, relative to the impact - I said it was delayed. It also explodes out of the building, when it should really explode out of the plane - where the fuel was. (Oh sorry, I forgot - we had to wait for the plane to be fully inside the building before the fireball exploded out).
You make an assumption in your rebuttal that hundreds of gallons of fuel were needed. It probably would have been a lot more But it may not have been kerosene. If you accept demolition charges were placed, how much harder would it have bene to plant "pyrotechnic explosives" or containers of fuel? Not much effort I would say. They new that no evidence from the scene was going to be available for analysis anyway.
Its clearly a large quantity of combusting fuel Andrew, if the difficulties of having "probably a lot more than" hundreds of gallons of fuel sitting in a building prior to the "show" going off dont concern you, then at least consider how such a supposition massively adds to the practicalities of pulling off the plot: to my mind, the more complex and difficult the plan, the less likely to succed or be attempted. I can just imagine the reaction of "them" in the secret meeting room when being briefed on the proposed plan by their covert underlings: "hey well we can fake a massive explosion with hundred of gallons of fuel placed waiting to go up whilst controling every single peice of footage from both "impacts", no probs, or we can remote control a plane to crash into them by fiddling with a bit of software, which plan shall we go for boss?"
Quote:
Firing 4 missiles that day would've been far easier than involving planes and trying to control NORAD into standing down.
but NORAD WAS stood down Andrew and we know of drills involving @17 "hijacked aircraft whilst the fighter wings were diverted everywhere but where they needed to be, and your considering that some kind of smokescreen? And Why is remotely controlling a Plane harder than firing a missile?
Quote:
Hijackers were not even required which might also explain why so many turned up alive. It might explain why 2 of the flights listed were not due to fly that day anyway.
I'd say may not have been required, but fair enough. Donest prove there were no Planes though: it only proves that some of the men named wernt credibly on them
Quote:
So, if you look at the complete picture, it seems to fit a whole lot better if you ask me.
and fits a whole lot worse if you ask me
Wow, weve had a debate! Wasnt that thrilling? _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Last edited by John White on Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:39 pm Post subject:
I am seeing so many questionable ideas flying about, I'd like to propose a moderated evidence-based (as far as possible) debate on NPT in the hope that contentious items surrounding the issue can be properly examined without it turning into an ad hominem slander fest.
SOME rebuttals. You seem to have more time than I do.
Well Andrew, its suprising how quickly a reply can be put together with a bit of focus. And I wouldnt expect a single post on any topic to cover the entire of a subject matter
Quote:
John White wrote:
Quote:
Delayed Fireball....
Do you have anaccurate measurment of how long it was delayed? microseconds? around a second? have we shown that a delayed fireball is NOT what we would expect to see? My sense of probability tells me that is exactly what I expect to see, and entirely consistant with other footage of planes exploding when crashing etc etc...effect follows cause, after all
I don't have an exact measurement. In the previous comparison I posted, we can see an immediate combustion as the wing tip either scrapes the ground or a cable. Since when does Kerosene "wait to explode" when supposedly crashing metal into metal at 400 mph?
Since when does every crash behave identically? coming up with a time duration for this delayed fireball effect would seem a rudementary step in building a case for it though: however, your postulating this delay is a special effects error, not a physical effect, so its really just an argument for sloppy CGI
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Inflated Tyre under scaffolding...
Counter evidence to the value of low res video IE: not being able to accurately capture detail?. Evidence supproting a delayed fireball, with wreckage being ejected before the fireball engulfed it, being part of what might be expected to be seen in a crash. It bounced/rolled? can we conclusively model the physics to show it shouldnt be there? Of course not
So, you bought the "passport on the pavement" story? How is this piece of evidence different from that? How much less combustible than paper is rubber tyre? i.e. how mcuh better a chance did an inflated tyre have of surviving the face on catastrophic impact?
"considerably" less combustable would seem a fair statment: paper burns easily, rubber requires more concetrated heat. And infering I credulously accept a peice of evidence that would be simplicity itself to plant (which I dont) bears little relation to theorising about the survivability of an airplane tyre. But the point is, it suggests a Plane hit the tower stronger than it suggests Plane parts were scattered around New York right under the nose of a massive emergency repsonse
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anomalous witness statements
Completely normal.
Agreed - but not to the extent that we saw reported on TV (i.e. people in studio "correcting" reporter at the scene.
yes, but this indicates the cover story that the impacts brought the towers down being played by media placemen more than it suggests a cover story for the non-existance of Planes
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Conflicting video clips
Fallious has exposed one video used to support "no Planes" as a sexed up fake, without sensible counter argument. Can we be conclusive as to where the conflict lies?
Fallious is another anonymous poster who will reveal nothing of his background and takes strong exception when asked to "give a little". Most people would say "sorry, I don't wish to".
Andrew, the vast majority of posters on this or any other forum prefer to keep their legal identities hidden, its their privacy and their right to do so. If none of their posts are relevant, why not simply delete them from the database? You and I chose not to, bully for us: but refusing to address the credibility of Fallious's analysis because he choses not to reveal his name to you is playing the man and not the ball, so perhaps we should get past that and address the evidence itself. Is his analysis flawed, YES or NO?
Quote:
Why should any videos be faked?
Well, you seem to find it credible that a whole lot of images get faked
Quote:
If the plane stories were valid, then why fake stuff?
You have more imagination than that surely? Ego? Attention seeking? active misinformation? Should we consider all evidence genuine becuase its posted on a 9/11 Truth website? Seems like folly to me
Quote:
You think people did that to generate web hits?
Web hits are an obvious consequance. Hard to be certain they were the intention, but its obviously not impossible
Quote:
Did you look at the Zapruder film analysis? You think that's unrelated? Fair enough, have it your own way....
Which one, Fetzer's "Zapruder film fake" analysis or Bill Copper's "watch the driver" analysis? And what has the kennedy assasination got to do with 9/11? OK, its another famous coverup and I dearly wish that 9/11, unlike Kennedy's murder, can be sucsessfully exposed, but in this context it seems a diversion. If your asking me if I find it more credible to fake a single cine film released years after the event than fake every image of planes live on 9/11, then yes, I do find that more credible, and something of a no-brainer
Quote:
Quote:
Which is easier, faking every known image, or altering images to appear fake, perhaps on a home PC, to push a hoopy theory on 'tinternet and generate lots of hits for a website... most of which where previously pushing "missile pods" which are completely in conflict with a theory that there were No Planes.
This a weak argument. And you are bringing in pods to try and distract from the points I made - I didn't mention them as a point of evidence in this line of discussion. So why bring them in?
Is it? You havnt refuted that it would be easier, or that it could be done with home PC technology. If you choose not to look at the track record of a source of information when assesing evidance that's your business, but we can't re-write 9/11 truth history, so the facts rather speak for themselves
Quote:
If they can completely destroy 3 huge buildings, I think faking a few hundred images isn't really that hard.
Well, with that kind of thinking, nothing is impossible, but equally, nothing is true. It's not just about faking the images though is it Andrew? "No Planes" depends on a great deal of physical events as well, being carried out right in the middle of a major response, and a far more complex plan, contrary to the common sense of the "SNAFU" principle
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Projectile "emitted" on 2nd impact.
Its an engine! Its shown on the video, its shown on the ground, and its completely consitent with credible computer modeling of the plane shredding around the infrastructure based on angle of impact and spped of approach, which has never been countered to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps somone backing "no Planes" research at ST9/11 should?
Of course! Can you tell me who did the modelling? Wasn't NIST was it? (I genuinely don't know. Presumably whoever did this modelling got the WTC collapse models wrong, but the plane collision models right, right?
Andrew, NIST can't manufacture ALL of the facts, a cover up depends on 99% hard truth with a 1% spin on the end. Why should the analysis of the plane impact be anything else but on the level?: the coverup needs the Plane: the fix is in producing a model that assigns the plane impact responsibility for the buildings coming down. Angle of approach, speed, and modelling thereof are rather solid factors
Quote:
So the engine penetrated all the way through the building and left a puff of black smoke just like a uranium penetrator! Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood resigned from ST911 over the refusal to publish this research on ST911. They are both professors whom I have corresponded with and their research includes more evidence and an analysis of it than I have posted here.
Well we have an article section I'm sure would be happy to host it for them. Interior core and large office space surrounding, RH engine passes through office space and out the other side, seems fairly straightforward to me
Quote:
Quote:
Or we could just use Low res video to perpetually call it a "nose" with fingers in our ears. Which option best asks the tough questions?
I am not concerned with the resolution of the video as the points I made are not influenced by its resolution. I didn't mention the "nose" either.
No you didnt: but "nose" is commonly what "no Planers" claim it to be, as more evidence of sloppy CGI. And the quality of the images on which this conclusion is reached don't concern you. Well thats fine. Clearer in the minds eye perhaps?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Seemingly unburned piece of plane wreckage found on top of WTC building, not covered with other debris.
True enough: but there are also enough visual indicators in that image to show it is taken after the clean up was well under way, and we do not know that the wreckage is in its original position.
Position doesn't matter. How did it survive the conflagration? Looks extremely similar to the planted wreckage at the pentagon and Shanksville if you ask me...
"Looking similar" does not equal "same as". It may be planted, or it may be genuine, and neither of us know, but its not in itself strong evidance that every image of planes at the WTC are fakes
Quote:
Quote:
And of course, thats another issue with "no Planes" theory: the hundreds of gallons of Jet fuel needing to be pre placed in the building to create the fireball. We can be damn certain the fire happened, and wasnt holographic!
This was a point of evidence I never mentioned in the above - I didn't dispute the fireball in the building happening - just the time at which it happened, relative to the impact - I said it was delayed. It also explodes out of the building, when it should really explode out of the plane - where the fuel was. (Oh sorry, I forgot - we had to wait for the plane to be fully inside the building before the fireball exploded out).
You make an assumption in your rebuttal that hundreds of gallons of fuel were needed. It probably would have been a lot more But it may not have been kerosene. If you accept demolition charges were placed, how much harder would it have bene to plant "pyrotechnic explosives" or containers of fuel? Not much effort I would say. They new that no evidence from the scene was going to be available for analysis anyway.
Its clearly a large quantity of combusting fuel Andrew, if the difficulties of having "probably a lot more than" hundreds of gallons of fuel sitting in a building prior to the "show" going off dont concern you, then at least consider how such a supposition massively adds to the practicalities of pulling off the plot: to my mind, the more complex and difficult the plan, the less likely to succed or be attempted. I can just imagine the reaction of "them" in the secret meeting room when being briefed on the proposed plan by their covert underlings: "hey well we can fake a massive explosion with hundred of gallons of fuel placed waiting to go up whilst controling every single peice of footage from both "impacts", no probs, or we can remote control a plane to crash into them by fiddling with a bit of software, which plan shall we go for boss?"
Quote:
Firing 4 missiles that day would've been far easier than involving planes and trying to control NORAD into standing down.
but NORAD WAS stood down Andrew and we know of drills involving @17 "hijacked aircraft whilst the fighter wings were diverted everywhere but where they needed to be, and your considering that some kind of smokescreen? And Why is remotely controlling a Plane harder than firing a missile?
Quote:
Hijackers were not even required which might also explain why so many turned up alive. It might explain why 2 of the flights listed were not due to fly that day anyway.
I'd say may not have been required, but fair enough. Donest prove there were no Planes though: it only proves that some of the men named wernt credibly on them
Quote:
So, if you look at the complete picture, it seems to fit a whole lot better if you ask me.
and fits a whole lot worse if you ask me
Wow, weve had a debate! Wasnt that thrilling?
For something that you and many others believe is highly unlikely - you are having to accept lots of coincidences and exceptions to the rule - and if you think the subject is best not discussed because you believe (as you have stated on numerous other occasions) that there is a lot more compelling evidence elsewhere - THEN WHY ARE YOU DEBATING IT.
Speaking as a neutral impartial observer of your debate I would say that Andrew is making a more convincing case.
You do know petrol doesn't burn, right? Its the vapour that burns, takes time to convert liquid to vapour.
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Inflated Tyre under scaffolding...
Tyres bounce.
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Anomalous witness statements
Interview enough people your going to get anomalies. Does that mean you take the proportionally smaller sample as fact and throw out the far larger sample along with a couple hundred videos and pictures?
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Conflicting video clips
Taken from different distances, different heights, different lenses, different cameras, different formats, some shaky, some on a tripod.
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Projectile "emitted" on 2nd impact.
And NPT accounts for that how exactly? I don't think it takes too much of a leap of faith to believe plane debris & office contents could be pushed out the exit wound. Then of course there's the theory that the planes actually fired a missile just before impact, evidenced by the "flash" videos. A more likely scenario than the one your proposing I might add.
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Seemingly unburned piece of plane wreckage found on top of WTC building, not covered with other debris.
Seemingly? Your assuming the whole plane, every square millimetre was roasted inside the fireball? Its not very likely is it. You don't think that this piece might of, perhaps, been lodged in the building somewhere and was ejected when they blew the towers down? Or any number of other logical explanations? Fabricating a No Plane Theory to explain it seems a little extreme to me...
Andrew Johnson wrote:
You are free to of course REJECT this as valid evidence, but it IS EVIDENCE
Its not. Not by a long shot. Ask yourself this simple question: Why? Why would they fake the planes? What logical reason or need is there for them to do it? To take that risk? None at all.
NPT IS A JOKE AND THE SOONER PEOPLE REALISE THAT THE BETTER OFF THIS THIS MOVEMENT WILL BE. _________________ Make love, not money.
Well you know we have some very interesting theories coming up - for instance comparing a plane to a potato and a building to a tennis racket
How about changing these to a model plane and a model building - why don't you try that at home - I'm sure you will be able to get the plane to melt into the building.
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:16 pm Post subject: Quoting
I SWEAR TO GOD if anyone bloody posts a quote copying a whole damn previous post with a SINGLE BLOODY line of their own text below it I`ll absolutely freak out.
Jeesus!!!!!!!!!
If you are in need of "filler" that badly you had best cut off your broadband now.....
OOOoooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhh! _________________ The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
NPT IS A JOKE AND THE SOONER PEOPLE REALISE THAT THE BETTER OFF THIS THIS MOVEMENT WILL BE.
Let's see. Another anonymous poster. Uses capitals. Disparaging/ridiculing tone. Wonder if I should ask him/her what campaigning he/she has done. No, I won't bother. They will likely get grumpy again and say I'm being "unfair". Maybe I am but hey, we are talking about criminals with lots of money and power trying to cover their tracks, ay? So why do these anonymous posters get so upset with certain questions. Ah well.
To answer part of your posts, see response to John White as to additional reasons why NBB (oft confused and mis-named NPT which is not strictly an accurate label as it tends to suggest no flying objects at all).
"Show me the evidence then?"
"You still haven't answered...."
"You clearly cannot understand English..."
"You must provide proof of your arguments...."
Yes - I'm a-sighing too, my friend. _________________ Andrew
Couldn't no planes (bluescreens) and no planes (holograms) have their own forums/corners?
or another suggestion...could proponents of these theories demonstrate them? YES OR NO?
We're thinking about it - moderators are getting a bit tired of lots of anonymous posters - some of whom make specious arguments. _________________ Andrew
Speaking as a neutral impartial observer of your debate I would say that Andrew is making a more convincing case.
?????????
Thanks TTWSU3, I haven't had as good a laugh all day.
Yeah - me too. Although I have to confess I laughed at this too:
John White wrote:
And what has the kennedy assasination got to do with 9/11? OK, its another famous coverup and I dearly wish that 9/11, unlike Kennedy's murder, can be sucsessfully exposed, but in this context it seems a diversion.
Yeah - right - so talking about Pods isn't a diversion, but comparing stunts pulled on 9/11 to those on 22/11/1963 (look at those 11's again) is?
In any case, I was talking about a media fakery precedent from 40 years ago, which few people are aware of. I go for Media Fakery rather than holograms, ye see.
Here's a guy who seems to see the big picture fairly clearly. Talking about the "diversion" mentioned above.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Yeah - right - so talking about Pods isn't a diversion, but comparing stunts pulled on 9/11 to those on 22/11/1963 (look at those 11's again) is?
Andrew, I'm not supporting pods in anyway and I am obviously presenting it as a discredited theory previously heavily backed by almost every site backing "no planes", and calling it a pattern requiring consideration, as clearly many people do. And the meaning of the term "No Planes" on this thread is obviously as either CGI fakes or a hologram projected in the Sky
I'm not sure whose post's your reading mate _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:20 pm Post subject:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Look at the combustion. Petrol seems to burn fairly readily when the glass breaks.
Ah - that's a major difference Andrew. Petrol is a far lighter evaporative aromatic fuel (producing a more finely misted vapour) than Jet-A (similar to JP-8 jet fuel), which is 99.8% kerosene, and is an oily fuel more akin to paraffin and has a higher flashpoint than petrol.
The combustion characteristics (due to its vapourisation) are different to the example of a petrol bomb.
Works great when it's metered and atomised to perfection inside the combustor of a turbine, but lousy as a street fighting prop. Probably the main reason the released cloud of fuel from the ruptured tanks has crossed the 200ft of floorspace and left the building before it fully ignites.
Ask yourself this simple question: Why? Why would they fake the planes? What logical reason or need is there for them to do it? To take that risk? None at all.
That's a very perceptive question, if I may say so.
Though - you could usefully extend it.....
Having "arranged" for airliners to slam into the Twin Towers (fairly easy), why go to monumental trouble to set up a parallel CD (monstrously complicated with hundreds of actual geezers planting charges and all) to accompany it?
Why not just allow the LIHOP ? _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:39 pm Post subject:
Ignatz wrote:
That's a very perceptive question, if I may say so.
Though - you could usefully extend it.....
Having "arranged" for airliners to slam into the Twin Towers (fairly easy), why go to monumental trouble to set up a parallel CD (monstrously complicated with hundreds of actual geezers planting charges and all) to accompany it?
Why not just allow the LIHOP ?
Being aware that we're entering the realms of speculation, firstly there's no reason that hundreds would need to be involved. A handful could have laid the pre-surveyed charges in the week before (assuming Scott Forbes heard the preparations being made) in the powered-down windows of opportunity.
Secondly, the Towers had to crumble to nothing to have the major impact on the national psyche that seemed to be required.
Two smoking Towers with a few dozen victims would not have had the desired effect, imho.
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:24 am Post subject:
Click on the link below, it really puts things in perspective, planes or no planes is irrelevant ultimately, something needs to be done as soon as possible. If it means spreading the word in a more palatable fashion, then thats what needs to happen. NPT or NBB or whatever needs to be put on the back-burner at least until the wheel does start to turn. People in the street, who need to be reached out to, won't buy any theory that says their eyes were deceiving them. TTWSU3 has a superb idea with his walk, this is a constructive way forward. As I say, click the link, this is urgent.........
Look at the combustion. Petrol seems to burn fairly readily when the glass breaks.
Ah - that's a major difference Andrew. Petrol is a far lighter evaporative aromatic fuel (producing a more finely misted vapour) than Jet-A (similar to JP-8 jet fuel), which is 99.8% kerosene, and is an oily fuel more akin to paraffin and has a higher flashpoint than petrol.
The combustion characteristics (due to its vapourisation) are different to the example of a petrol bomb.
Works great when it's metered and atomised to perfection inside the combustor of a turbine, but lousy as a street fighting prop. Probably the main reason the released cloud of fuel from the ruptured tanks has crossed the 200ft of floorspace and left the building before it fully ignites.
Ghost planes don't need to carry fuel - all you need is your imagination and some pyrotechnics - of course you need to set them off on time to make it look real
That's a very perceptive question, if I may say so.
Though - you could usefully extend it.....
Having "arranged" for airliners to slam into the Twin Towers (fairly easy), why go to monumental trouble to set up a parallel CD (monstrously complicated with hundreds of actual geezers planting charges and all) to accompany it?
Why not just allow the LIHOP ?
Being aware that we're entering the realms of speculation, firstly there's no reason that hundreds would need to be involved. A handful could have laid the pre-surveyed charges in the week before (assuming Scott Forbes heard the preparations being made) in the powered-down windows of opportunity.
Secondly, the Towers had to crumble to nothing to have the major impact on the national psyche that seemed to be required.
Two smoking Towers with a few dozen victims would not have had the desired effect, imho.
Quite possibly (from a CT point of view)
It could be argued that taking 2 years or more to dismantle the charred stumps of WTC1+2 would be even more humiliating - and enraging - than the utter shock of 9/11 as it happened. And with much less risk from blabbermouths.
Depends on how many levels of cunning you want to consider (from a CT point of view, naturally) _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:03 am Post subject:
Ignatz wrote:
Depends on how many levels of cunning you want to consider (from a CT point of view, naturally)
Oh - (in the words of Blackadder) more cunning than a fox who's a Professor of cunning at Cambridge University - with a doctorate in psychic horror tarot theatre thrown in on the side.
Petrol seems to burn fairly readily when the glass breaks.
Its not the petrol that's burning, its the vapour coming off it.
I notice a shill insinuation in one of your other replies, I'm honoured I really am. Coming from someone who peddles a totally baseless, unneeded and illogical theory...
ANSWER the question NPT'ers, look in the mirror if you dare.
Thermate wrote:
Why? Why would they fake the planes?What logical reason or need is there for them to do it? To take that risk?
_________________ Make love, not money.
Last edited by Thermate on Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Having "arranged" for airliners to slam into the Twin Towers, why go to trouble to set up a parallel CD to accompany it?
All too easy. SHOCK & AWE man, shock and awe.
~10 men per tower for a week or 2 for the CD.
By the way, I think your forgetting Lucky Larry Silverstein needed them to come down to claim his $7,000,000,000 ...
He'd paid hundreds of millions for the Turkey Towers, it was both impractically expensive to remove the asbestos fire cladding (as the NYC Port Authority were insisting) AND impractically expensive to pay for a legal demolition due to the massive hazardous materials management that would've been required. _________________ Make love, not money.
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
