A question for the "No Planers"

[Craig W]

[chek]

[Witchfinder General]

[Craig W]

[Witchfinder General]

The plane shaped holes look to be real holes, however planes crashing into building would not cause plane shaped holes unless you believe the cartoon antics of roadrunner.

The holes could have been created by explosives set inside the building.
People will then argue that the metal was bending the wrong way, but I'm sure expolisives could be rigged in such a way to create that effect.

Explosives set on the outside of the building is unlikely as they might bee seen.

The other possibility is a directed energy weapon made the holes with the fireball as well as the planes being CGI.

My preferred theory is the hole was caused by DEW as this has fewer complications.

[Craig W]

Afternoon, WG.

[Witchfinder General]

Hi Craig

I would have expected the nose of the plane and the fuselage to crumple, the wings and tail to shear off with only the denser parts of the plane penetrating the building.

What shape this makes I could not say but something other than plane shaped.

The explosions or DEW to be synchronised with the impact of the cartoon

[Micpsi]

[Craig W]

I think you're 3rd point is under a misconception, Micpsi. The explosions WG was referring to were the ones immediately after the planes "hit".

[telecasterisation]

[Micpsi]

[Witchfinder General]

If you doubt that shaped holes cannot be produced take a look a figure 62 on the link below

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam4.html




[/img]

[Craig W]

Morning, WG.

For clarification, are you suggesting that whatever agent created the holes in WT5 in this photo could also have created the intricate plane-shaped holes at the moment of "impact" of the CGI planes to give the impression of real planes?

[Fred]

http://www.911researchers.com/node/463#comment-3410

[Witchfinder General]

[mason-free party]

fred and craig w are the same person posting...obvious

[Bobby]

Well lets take a simple approach to this , before I get all indepth and contraversial.

If your the American government , and your planning to make it look like two planes crash into the Twin Towers. Baring in mind regardless of whether you use two missles , or two planes , the damn thing is gonna collapse.

So do you:

A) - Crash two planes into the twin towers , all the news media catch two Boeing planes , smashing into the twin towers. Everyone sees the planes hit the tower. And the official story , on the surface , seem right.

Or do you:

B) - Crash two missles into the twin towers , graphically change every shot of the missile hitting the tower , to make it look like a plane hit. Stop anyone there blowing the whistle on the whole thing.

Surely it makes more sense to hit the thing with two planes. You've got enough things to send them down anyway. And who was to say that the missle , wouldn't go straight through the building , and fly out the other side.

[Craig W]

[Craig W]

[TmcMistress]

Wait wait wait... "plane huggers"? Gods, now I have to dig out my "Save the Planes" shirt...


I have no intention of actually getting involved in this conversation; I think my first two posts in the other thread have made my thoughts on this issue pretty clear. However, I did feel the need to say this:

[Craig W]

Be my guest, TmcM, and welcome.

[rodin]

So far this thread has been a success for the enemy as some genuine researchers use up time resources trying to argue with illogic.

Do a bit of googling. Find out who controls media (who cover up 911 and 77), and the money supply. Find out where the NWO 'world court' is and who financed it. Check out the pedigree of the most recent elected reps or the in-waiting

(Hint - try Cameron & Zarkhozy for starters)

Now we're fighting back!

[Ace Baker]

Why not just blow up the towers?

Besides the psyops and photo-ops angle already mentioned, don't forget about the government takeover of the airports. Prior to 9/11, airport security in the U.S. was private. They needed an excuse to create the Department of Homeland Security, and to take over the airports.

Why not use real planes?

1. Not accurate enough, could miss targets. Big problem.
2. Not strong enough, would mostly shred and bounce off, as in the Sandia F-4 test. Then, no excuse for "collapse".
3. Would leave real wreckage which could be investigated. Whether real passenger flights or substitutes, big problems with wreckage too.

There's more, but perhaps someone would have a go at these.

[egw]

1. Homing beacon

2. The wall thickness of the external box columns at the 90th floor level was ~6mm. That ain't thick. And in-between each column was glass. Glass ain't strong. Not compared to 500mph worth of fueled-up jet-liner.

The walls of the columns would be thicker at the 70th floor level, but the same principles apply.

3. They blew the building to kingdom come, from top to bottom, using God-knows-what* in order to make them collapse, so it's no surprise that there wasn't much plane left.

*Except I'm pretty sure it weren't "beam weapons."

[Ace Baker]

The exterior columns were box columns. As in, with a square cross section. This means that an impacting object will encounter the walls of the box columns edge on. These are connected together with steel spandrel plates. Also, you have neglected the floors. These were steel reinforced concrete slabs in steel pans. Again, encountered edge on.

Commercial aircraft are simply not designed for any sort of collision, they are designed to be as light as possible. We might expect the engines to penetrate the wall, but the wingtips? The tail?

And if a real plane crashed into WTC2, why on earth did they air fake video? Video fakery has been proven every which way, including my velocity analysis of Chopper 5. As it stands, no one has pointed out any errors with this paper.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Chopper5Velocity2.html

[egw]

[Ace Baker]

It would be a good time to review my paper. It's getting a fair bit of attention at the moment, from all sides. I've received plenty of insults and even some threats, but nobody has found any errors. I've also received some very strong praise.

The scientific principles involved are not complicated. Even OCTs admit that the premise is sound. The only real issue is possible margin of error. I provide control cases to show that the margin of error is far too small to account for the plane speeding up and slowing down repeatedly, as it appears to do on the Chopper 5 video.

Perhaps you can find the time (and do the deep breathing) needed to have a look. It would mean a lot to me.

[egw]

Let me get this straight. You are analysing 45 frames of video and have found discrepancies in the velocity of the plane, and what became of the plane after it hit the building, and you conclude that video fakery has occured?

If that's the case, and you are earnest in intent, then I think you are chasing your tail.

In any case, people who know what they're talking about can generally explain in simple concise language, to an intelligent novice, what it is that they are talking about.

Explain for us what you are talking about, comprehensively, in 100 - 200 words (if for no other reason than a graph is covering the final few paragraphs of your abstract).

[Ace Baker]

I was unaware that the page was displaying improperly. Which browser do you use?


Chopper 5 Velocity Analysis in a nutshell

A real airplane flying through air must have smooth motion, changes in velocity must be gradual. Therefore, variations in apparent velocity on video must be due to noise factors of some sort. These noise factors include atmospheric distortion, video resolution, compression artifacts, and, most significantly, camera motion.

Control cases of authentic airplane videos were presented which show that the margin of error in measuring velocity to be < 5%, once camera motion is eliminated.

The Chopper 5 video shows apparent fluctuations in velocity > 35%, or up to 186 mph. The only possible explanation for this is camera motion on the airplane. Stabilizing the video, thus removing camera motion from the equation, amplifies and randomizes the magnitude of velocity fluctuations.

I conclude that the airplane must have been recorded separately from the twin towers, and recorded with the camera motion documented in the graph. Along the way, I discovered what looks very, very much like a swipe of "digital paint" around the nose of the airplane, and that the color of the sky immediately behind the wings does not match color of the sky generally.

[egw]

1. Is your analysis based on 45 frames of video?

2. Do these frames span from a point where the plane is flying through the air, to a point where debris from the plane is supposedly exiting the far side of wtc2?