| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | gruts wrote: | | how big a hole are you expecting to see? |
It isn't the dimensions of said hole - I can simply see no break in the girder work that could be classed as a hole. |
I know what you mean - if you look at the area indicated by John White's arrows, I think you'll agree that compared with the area directly above and below there's something missing - ie a section of the thick strip of cladding that covered the corners of the building has gone.
whether or not the object that is seen emerging from this area of the building and falling into the streets below could have come out through there is debatable - but it must presumably have come from somewhere so if that's not the right position then where is it?
of course - it's also possible that all videos and photos that show this (like the one below) have been faked by the perps.
what do you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | can it be proved that the face being shown as the exit hole is indeed the side where the "plane part" exited.
im simply asking to eliminate any decieving, the towers look the same close up no matter which face your looking at, so if someone wanted to decieve they could simply show a face of the tower that was neither the entrance or exit side of the tower but claim it was the exit face of the plane debris.
i think confirming and establishing this first might be best, i hope no one takes offence but if the decieving part can be eliminated then we know there is no brake in the steel grid where the plane parts exited, and no one is pulling the wool over our eyes. |
hi marky - if you're referring to the pic posted by john white - then what reason do you have to doubt that we are looking at a small part of the opposite side of the tower to the one that was impacted by the plane (ie the north side - as described in the caption under the picture)?
to me it looks as it should based on these pics:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2hit15.html
do you agree?
and IMHO if you look at the NIST animation of the second strike....
....the circle indicated by John White is a rough match for where you'd expect the engine to come out. |
i did'nt know who cropped the original picture so for all i knew it could of been someone trying to decieve by showing a differant portion of the building but then claiming it was where the engine exited in order to promote disinfo.
however i do agree the the damage is consistant in the cropped photo to the photos you linked. therefore i can rule out deception and know the picture that is cropped is indeed the correct area of the tower where the plane part exited.
im left with a puzzling scenerio now, and its reflective of what tele has been saying, there is no brake in the steel grid at all where the plane part exited.
but im not going to jump to conclusions but the nose in nose out thing is really puzzling.
the only thing left to consider is could it be the cladding?
there are a few pieces of cladding missing, as the engine exits though the window(which it would of had to of done to end up in the street) as it scraps through could it dislode the cladding either side and lift it upwards so its poking out at a 90 degree angle untill the explosion which knocked the cladding totally off?
i don't know if this is true and i aint claiming it is, im just raiseing the possibility of the outerwall cladding being the culprit.
also can the engine fit through one of the windows? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the part of the engine that landed in the street isn't very big - but I've no idea at what point this part got separated from the rest....
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bobby wrote: | Why doesn't anyone consider (sorry if you have , Im generalising a bit) the idea that it wasn't the nose that came out of the front end but instead something else.
It in itself is possible that the nose and the plane , went through one side and began to come out the other. That the Tower , couldn't stop the plane , and that it went all the way through and popped out the other side. Lets not forget , the plane went in the wrong place (If youre the american government that is). It missed quite a few of the central steel columns. And so probably went through alot more of the building that people realise.
It could be , that it was the nose coming out the other end , and it wasn't TV fakery , but the nose survived the journey from one side of the tower to the other. This particularly possible one that the nose cone was hardend , so that It definatly penetrated the tower , and two (as I mentioned earlier) that the plane went in the wrong place. It exploded out the side of the building. |
hi bobby - the blob of gunk that emerges from the corner of the north side of the south tower after the impact does not look (to me) like a solid object, it doesn't behave like a solid object and it doesn't leave an appropriately sized exit hole so it can't be a solid object.
I also don't think that it bears any resemblance (in terms of size, shape, colour etc) to the nosecone of the plane that entered the building so IMHO we can forget about the idea that it's a nosecone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mason-free party wrote: | | eh gruts..explain to me how a plane in full sunlight appears black in one camera shot and appears white/silver in another?...you're an idiot mate or a zionist shill...which one ? |
Can you supply comparitive images please? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benjaminwebb1983
New Poster
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 2
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:15 pm Post subject: Re: Nose in/Nose out |
|
|
| Lyceum wrote: | How the heck did the nose of the plane pierce through one side of the building and then exit the other side of the building with a perfectly parallel precision?
See 4:36 of this film. http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice
Wake up and let us start investigating what really took place on 9/11. |
I am new to this forum...but have been reading a lot about 9/11 conspiracy theories...to be honest i have never paid much attention to the no planes theory...as i thought that it seemed unbelievable...but after seeing these videos and i watched all of them i am really starting to wonder if there was any planes that day...I mean there just seems to be so much evidence that there might not have been that now i am really wondering what did happen on 9/11...it seems that all what we seen in the media that day may have been one big lie...these videos really opened my eyes to a theory that before seeing them i had never even considered in my mind...
I guess now I will have to look more into this theory about the 9/11 Events
Ben |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | the part of the engine that landed in the street isn't very big - but I've no idea at what point this part got separated from the rest....
|
the engine isn't very big because it doesn't belong to one of the imaginery airliners that hit twin towers...however it was small enough to put on the back of a truck and plant it on the pavement...if it had fallen from the top of the towers it would have left a small crater...here's what David Boyle of Blackpool conspiracy exhibition said about there being no crater:
"the reason for no crater is because the engine may have struck a building on the way down and thus broken its fall"...that from someone who appeared on BBC Question time talking about pod theories...
David...get real or tell us who is pulling your strings?
_________________
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/part_6.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:32 pm Post subject: Re: Nose in/Nose out |
|
|
| benjaminwebb1983 wrote: | | Lyceum wrote: | How the heck did the nose of the plane pierce through one side of the building and then exit the other side of the building with a perfectly parallel precision?
See 4:36 of this film. http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice
Wake up and let us start investigating what really took place on 9/11. |
I am new to this forum...but have been reading a lot about 9/11 conspiracy theories...to be honest i have never paid much attention to the no planes theory...as i thought that it seemed unbelievable...but after seeing these videos and i watched all of them i am really starting to wonder if there was any planes that day...I mean there just seems to be so much evidence that there might not have been that now i am really wondering what did happen on 9/11...it seems that all what we seen in the media that day may have been one big lie...these videos really opened my eyes to a theory that before seeing them i had never even considered in my mind...
I guess now I will have to look more into this theory about the 9/11 Events
Ben |
Don't worry Ben,i was blinkered too for a couple of years until Andrew Johnson put me on the right track...its like a veil has been lifted from ones eyes..i think alot more are waking up too now on here...just that a few are afraid to admit they were wrong...john boy?
_________________
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/part_6.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: Re: Nose in/Nose out |
|
|
| mason-free party wrote: |
Don't worry Ben,i was blinkered too for a couple of years until Andrew Johnson put me on the right track...its like a veil has been lifted from ones eyes..i think alot more are waking up too now on here...just that a few are afraid to admit they were wrong...john boy? |
Hey MFP - people will start talking ye know, I'll just have to say that your comment above refers to when we were playing Scalextric and I was putting your car back on....
More seriously, just keep looking at the evidence and be wary of people being rude and insulting (beyond a basic level which is natural).
Keep checking and cross-checking - it takes time (it took me at least 6 months to get a really good feel for the evidence once I'd started looking at it properly).
Applies this technique to all the other stuff posted here!
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Don't worry Ben,i was blinkered too for a couple of years until Andrew Johnson put me on the right track...its like a veil has been lifted from ones eyes..i think alot more are waking up too now on here...just that a few are afraid to admit they were wrong...john boy |
Falling under the Illusion of the No Planes Theory Spell has wasted a year of your time when you could have been doing something actually useful
Sorry MFP: its not me thats going to get the shock
How do I know? Well becuase any objective viewing of the threads show that those who question NPT are willing to ask all the questions and look at all the facts... where as the minds of those under its spell just slip off the glaring problems that demolish the whole hypothesis like the fevered dream it is
Ben, I can tell is new, and therefore finding his truthseeking feet. To Ben I say:
For No Planes Theory to be True, there cannot be ANY genuine images of a Plane, there cannot be ANY genuine evidence of a Plane, and there cannot be ANY genuine eyewitnesses to a Plane
Is it more credible that areas of doubt due to odd frames or induced anomolies, and straightforward distortions, can be slanted to make the absurd seem real, or that pretending the mass of contrary evidence doesnt exist makes the absurd true?
Regretably, thats how MFP and Andrew delude themselves every day they continue to believe there were No Planes hitting the towers
Especially sad with Andrew and his "ask the tough questions folks" signature line: Seeing the tough questions is the pre-requisite step he struggles with
Heres another thing MFP:
Truth does not need agression, deciet, manipulation and personal smears to make it's self heard
But without the noise, chaos and cult-like tribal bonding encouraged by the "them and us" programming of places like "9/11 Researchers": whats left?
Frankly the facts are that No Planes Theory is a ridiculous folly whose influence is already diminishing, and thank god:
One day, I promise you, both you and Andrew WILL wake up!
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: Re: Nose in/Nose out |
|
|
| benjaminwebb1983 wrote: | | Lyceum wrote: | How the heck did the nose of the plane pierce through one side of the building and then exit the other side of the building with a perfectly parallel precision?
See 4:36 of this film. http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice
Wake up and let us start investigating what really took place on 9/11. |
I am new to this forum...but have been reading a lot about 9/11 conspiracy theories...to be honest i have never paid much attention to the no planes theory...as i thought that it seemed unbelievable...but after seeing these videos and i watched all of them i am really starting to wonder if there was any planes that day...I mean there just seems to be so much evidence that there might not have been that now i am really wondering what did happen on 9/11...it seems that all what we seen in the media that day may have been one big lie...these videos really opened my eyes to a theory that before seeing them i had never even considered in my mind...
I guess now I will have to look more into this theory about the 9/11 Events
Ben |
Hi Ben,
Welcome to the site.
Please don't fall into the trap of believing No Plane Theories (NPT). There is no evidence for it contrary to what Andrew Johnson will have you believe. In fact, what Mr Johnson fails to tell you is that most of the abuse (and bannings) on this site has come from advocates of NPT who, apparently frustrated at the lack of evidence, start name calling instead. (Although Andrew Johnson has revised his post above now and has removed the reference to abuse in case you're wondering why I've mentioned this. No doubt he realises it is easy to prove).
There have been many discussions on this issue which I suggest you look at carefully. The basic concept of NPT'ers is to show highly edited video footage where the planes have been deliberately removed. They then go onto argue that aluminium cannot cut through steel, ignoring completely the issues of scale, momentum, construction and structure of the planes versus the towers.
As a former architect, I understand the design of the towers reasonably well. The exterior walls were constructed of steel, hollow-square sectioned columns only 14" across. The steel used for these columns was less than an inch thick thus making the structure strong but lightweight (which is important to the discussion). These columns were then clad in aluminium. The columns were built off-site in small sections which were lifted onto site and bolted together. If you look at the photographs of the plane holes, the breaks in the outer steelwork are mostly at the connections between these sections, i.e. the enormous mass and momentum of each aircraft pushed the lightweight sections inward, breaking the bolts holding them together. The wing tip holes are likely to be cuts in the aluminium cladding only and not into the steel although the impression is of full impact.
Behind the walls were light-weight floor trusses composed of thin steel sections, metal decking and 4" of poured concrete as a screed. They would not have withstood a point load impacting them and would have been pushed apart or destroyed without much effort. Only the core structure of each tower was capable of stopping the momentum of the plane and that is what was witnessed. But the core was not solid and parts of the aircraft passed through the plasterboard walls of the core with relative ease. Again as witnessed.
Here is a picture of the outer wall sections during construction. The columns were not solid but hollow despite how they look here. You can see on the right hand picture the lightweight floor construction. Please bear in mind that these outer columns are just over a rulers length in depth!
Here is a graphic of the breaks in the south tower. You can see where the breaks are being mostly at the connections.
The NPT'ers will tell you that only explosives or a missile made these impressive plane like holes. One has to wonder how explsoives could have caused such shapes.
I can go on but please take some time to view what others have said before accepting NPT.
I hope you enjoy looking at the evidence.
James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sidlittle
Minor Poster
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 61
Location: A13
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
God , i seem to have stepped into the 'patronise a newcomer' thread.
white and james c may as well have had Ben sat on their laps 
My turn then, Just think for yourself Ben and don't trust anyone, certainly not those that tell you what and what not to believe.
Now run along you little whippersnapper (ruffles ben's hair)
James c, were the floors as flimsy as the exterior steel columns?
and to stay on-topic, What is your interpretation of the 'nose-out' footage? What are we looking at here?
cheers
_________________
'To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity.' Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Congratulations Sid, that was patronising
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sidlittle wrote: | God , i seem to have stepped into the 'patronise a newcomer' thread.
white and james c may as well have had Ben sat on their laps
My turn then, Just think for yourself Ben and don't trust anyone, certainly not those that tell you what and what not to believe.
Now run along you little whippersnapper (ruffles ben's hair)
James c, were the floors as flimsy as the exterior steel columns?
and to stay on-topic, What is your interpretation of the 'nose-out' footage? What are we looking at here?
cheers |
No nose out just a titanium engine which landed several blocks away. Titanium is stronger than steel and the engine had great momentum during its travel. In fact the engine in question travelled pretty much unimpeded being that it missed the core columns. Or can you not be bothered to look at the evidence? Oh yes sorry, I forgot, you prefer corrupted video footage to prove your point.
As for the walls and floor, I have given an explanation above or can you not read that either? At no point have I used the word flimsy and at no point have I told Ben that he must believe what I say which is odd because you appear to infer that he should believe you instead. Please try and keep up and less of the hypocrisy please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benjaminwebb1983
New Poster
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 2
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not saying that I believe the No Planes theory...I just said it might be one to think about...I mean there are so many different theorys it is sometimes hard to know what to believe...That is why I came to this forum so I could learn a bit more about each one...I just meant that the video on the no planes theory...September clues...Made some good points...Like the fact that networks had them interruptions 17 seconds before the planes hit the second tower...I mean you can hear it on the news footage...I had heard it before watching this video on one news coverage and thought that it was weird that it bleeped like that...I think it was ABC news coverage...And you do clearly hear a bleep about 17 seconds before they show the footage of that second plane crash....
I am not saying that I believe there was no planes...Just saying it is a theory I would like to know more about....And also the explosion does look different on some camera angles...The plane looks lighter on some of them...some show the much darker plane....That is one thing i wondered after 9/11...How could that UA 175 plane have looked so dark on the pictures...
So it is just a theory I would like to know more about....
Thanks
Ben |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mason-free party wrote: | | eh gruts..explain to me how a plane in full sunlight appears black in one camera shot and appears white/silver in another?...you're an idiot mate or a zionist shill...which one ? |
I'm not a zionist or a shill or an idiot - so please refrain from calling me silly names for the heinous crime of having a brain and using it.
BTW people have been banned from this forum for calling other people "shills" (not to mention persistently spamming and breaking other forum rules) - but perhaps there's one rule for them and another rule for admirers of andrew johnson....
I've no idea what your comments have to do with the nose-in/blob-of-gunk-out phenomenon, but it's obvious that images shot from different angles on different cameras at different resolutions don't look the same, especially if they've been digitised, compressed, blown up and then subjected to whatever else your NPT gurus need to do to produce the "anomalies" that will keep you chanting "fake! fake! fake!" like the sheep in "animal farm"....
I bet you could use the same techniques to come to the conclusion that every major event shot simultaneously by a multitude of cameras involves "tv fakery". the bogus nature of these repetitive claims is not just transparent but they're also getting really old.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mason-free party wrote: | | the engine isn't very big because it doesn't belong to one of the imaginery airliners that hit twin towers...however it was small enough to put on the back of a truck and plant it on the pavement...if it had fallen from the top of the towers it would have left a small crater... |
lol - it's part of an engine with a diameter roughly the size of a new york city streetsign that has fallen several hundred feet - not a meteorite from outer space....
and what are the chances of it flying out of the tower and just landing in that very spot? I think it's infinitely more likely that it would have bumped into something at least once prior to falling/rolling to this particular location, so most of its momentum will have been dissipated before it got there.
this would be obvious to you too if you'd just remove your NTP blinkers for a moment and use a little common sense....
on the other hand - I'd be interested to see your evidence that teams of perps drove around the wtc dropping bits of plane in the streets of NYC, while other teams of perps climbed onto the adjacent rooftops to plant bits of plane there and casually lob bits of plane down into the rubble pile.
who did it?
when did they do it?
and how did they do it without anybody noticing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sidlittle wrote: | God , i seem to have stepped into the 'patronise a newcomer' thread.
white and james c may as well have had Ben sat on their laps
My turn then, Just think for yourself Ben and don't trust anyone, certainly not those that tell you what and what not to believe.
Now run along you little whippersnapper (ruffles ben's hair)
James c, were the floors as flimsy as the exterior steel columns?
and to stay on-topic, What is your interpretation of the 'nose-out' footage? What are we looking at here?
cheers |
hi sid - I noticed that you went off to discuss this subject on the NPT sockpuppet forum - claiming that we're looking at the wrong side of the tower.
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=118&st=30&hl=
are you sure?
the pic posted by john white earlier in the thread shows a small part of the opposite side of the tower to the one that was impacted by the plane (ie the north side - as described in the caption under the picture).
to me it looks exactly as it should based on these pics:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2hit15.html
and IMHO if you look at the NIST animation of the second strike....
....the circle indicated by John White is a rough match for where you'd expect the engine to come out.
what's that forum all about anyway?
it's the first 9/11 forum I've ever seen where almost everybody is a fully paid up member of the NPT/space beams club - and almost everybody agrees with almost everybody else about almost everything - so nothing is really discussed in any depth because almost every thread is such a mutually-adoring, high-fiving, backslapping love-in....
"they didn't use planes"
"yes I agree"
"so do I"
"me too!"
"I agree even more"
"if killtown says so it must be true"
"you're so right"
"can I just say that I'm in total agreement?"
"your blog is really cool"
"it's awesome"
"I love you killtown - can I have your babies?"
"me too!"
"and me"
"oh yes I agree"
"so do I"
etc
etc
etc
are you all rehearsing for another remake of the stepford wives or something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sid can't understand "East side of North face"
Interestingly, here is the thread that sid was looking for back up with from the other "researchers"
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=63551&postcount=73
It is like a group collective, isnt it? Self re-enforcing their own belief system based on continously re-affirming what they wish to see and considering everything out of context
Its amazing really, no matter how much the NPT b/s gets pwned, they just keep on believing, whilst blanking that they have NEVER been able to solve the core problems with the whole hypothesis
Still i've decided to stop debating them on the whole, and let the whole thing burn itself out and eat itself: some people have a need for a simple "solution" becuase its too much work for them to keep expanding their own paradigm, thats what the NPT psy-op has sucked in, and they are only victims of themselves: exactly like the critics. Look at bushwacker for example, still firmply in denial after a whole year. Just the mirro of the same phenomona
Fingers crossed they will make progress one day:
Casualties of the Infowar
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sidlittle
Minor Poster
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 61
Location: A13
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JW and gruts, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU BOTH??!!!
Are you just pretending to be dense?!
John's highlighted damage is located on the NE corner. Yes? In fact, more specifically the damage is located on the eastern facade i.e to the left of the corner edge of the tower
The big fck off dildo object is clearly protruding from the north facade. I'll grant you it is coming from what could be described as the eastern side of the North face, yet unquestionably the protrusion is well right of the corner edge and does not match up with John's highlighted damage.
Now gruts, having studied the NIST (!) animation, you are saying the engine could have exited where John has indicated. Fine, but thats a completely separate discussion.
Do you understand gruts? John believes the dildo is the engine and it is exiting from where he has highlighted. That is what I am debating. That is what I am calling ridiculous. I know you don't even believe that as you think its some sort of debris, jet fuel combo..
| gruts wrote: | | there is a hole that accounts for the engine, which is roughly where you'd expect it to be - and if the blob is a combination of jet fuel/debris/smoke that mainly crashes through the windows of the wtc it's not surprising that there isn't any larger exit hole. |
Honestly gruts, you are so quick to argue against the possibilities of fakery that you don't even know what you are suppose to be arguing about.
_________________
'To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity.' Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Temper temper....
I've no idea what you're getting your knickers in a twist about sid, but maybe you should talk to john white (or your shrink) about it instead of hurling insults at me.
what I've said on this thread couldn't be more clear:
1 - I don't think the blob of gunk (smoke/fuel/debris) that emerges from the north side of the tower is a solid object (although it may briefly appear to be solid in the kind of low res, highly compressed video clips that NPT believers get so excited about) - it smashes through the windows of the north face and explodes into a fireball. it certainly isn't a nosecone and bears no resemblance (in terms of size, shape, colour etc) to the nosecone of the plane that entered the building.
2 - the engine part that was found in the street could have emerged from the hole indicated by john white, which is in roughly the correct location based on the NIST animation.
and as both of these claims make sense and are entirely on-topic - what you might think that I'm supposed to be arguing about is neither here nor there.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laetrile
New Poster
Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject: So why did CNN use their Logo to hide the "Nose Out&quo |
|
|
My best guess is that they screwed up the CGI and let the cartoon continue on it's path for too long.
Whatever the nose out is one thing is for sure.........it's not real |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
egw
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 101
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:54 am Post subject: Or should that be Sh*t In/Sh*t Out? |
|
|
| Lyceum wrote: | How the heck did the nose of the plane pierce through one side of the building and then exit the other side of the building with a perfectly parallel precision?
|
It didn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rowan Berkeley
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:02 am Post subject: Both sets of "nose-out" footage must be fake |
|
|
the chopper ones from the west and the ground level ones from the east.
there is footage identical to the chopper footage but showing no "nose-out", too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Easy Rider
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:24 pm Post subject: Re: Nose in /Nose out |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | Lyceum wrote: | How the heck did the nose of the plane pierce through one side of the building and then exit the other side of the building with a perfectly paralell precision?
See 4:36 of this film. http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice
Wake up and let us start investigating what really took place on 9/11. |
How did the nose cone remain intact until vaporized by the fireball emerging from the South Tower? Umm, perhaps because it was not made of aluminium? Perhaps because the modified, remote-controlled jet plane had a nose cone whose casing was made of stellite alloy and packed with depleted uranium to make sure that some of the fuselage of the plane penetrated deeply into the tower so that the explosives on board generated maximum damage, thus making the ensuing collapse of the tower seem more plausible?
See how lack of knowledge and imagination of the no-planers blinds them to real possibilities other than their absurd, ad hoc TV fakery? Just because they cannot think of how things happened does not mean that it did not happen. Stuck within a paradigm set by their own naivety and lack of knowledge about what technology is available to the military, the no-planers create childish mirages everywhere in order to explain what their lack of understanding deludes them into believing is physically impossible. |
What evidence do you have for your depleted uranium theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: Re: Nose in /Nose out |
|
|
| Easy Rider wrote: | | Micpsi wrote: | | Lyceum wrote: | How the heck did the nose of the plane pierce through one side of the building and then exit the other side of the building with a perfectly paralell precision?
See 4:36 of this film. http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice
Wake up and let us start investigating what really took place on 9/11. |
How did the nose cone remain intact until vaporized by the fireball emerging from the South Tower? Umm, perhaps because it was not made of aluminium? Perhaps because the modified, remote-controlled jet plane had a nose cone whose casing was made of stellite alloy and packed with depleted uranium to make sure that some of the fuselage of the plane penetrated deeply into the tower so that the explosives on board generated maximum damage, thus making the ensuing collapse of the tower seem more plausible?
See how lack of knowledge and imagination of the no-planers blinds them to real possibilities other than their absurd, ad hoc TV fakery? Just because they cannot think of how things happened does not mean that it did not happen. Stuck within a paradigm set by their own naivety and lack of knowledge about what technology is available to the military, the no-planers create childish mirages everywhere in order to explain what their lack of understanding deludes them into believing is physically impossible. |
What evidence do you have for your depleted uranium theory? |
You miss my point. It is the possibility, not the real evidence, that is relevant here. Unable to understand what they are seeing in the nose-in/nose-out footage, no-planers substitute far-fetched explanations for more plausible one like mine, which they never considered. In scientific research, when there is no independent evidence to support competing hypotheses, the rule is go with the more plausible and simpler one. It's called Occam's Razor. NPT breaks that rule. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
