IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Was Video Fakery Used On 9/11?, Planes vs no planes

michael72
post Feb 19 2014, 02:11 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 73
Joined: 30-June 09
Member No.: 4,447



Sorry, if this has been posted before. I scanned and did not see it. The person who put this together seems to be an expert on what technology can do in video. We all have seen movies with extraordinary effects, so was something like this part of the 9/11 scam? I certainly think its possible. Evidence on here alone, and elsewhere as well trashes the USG account. I won't recount them all, but we know there is lots, so were there any real highjacking or were they faked highjacks? We know it was not 19 Arabs, or at the least, if they were part of the conspiracy (the plan) they could not have flown the maneuvers into the towers. I have favored drone substitutes that were the tower hits. With no evidence of strikes at the Pentagon and Shanksville...were there no planes at the Towers? Was it a bigger psy-op than we first thought? Was imagery inserted into the newscasts we all watched? Technically, this video certainly makes a strong statement that it COULD have been done. Compared to the whole country, relatively few people were in NYC and actually would have seen planes or no planes. And of course, anyone saying they saw no planes would not be aired if it countered the planned deception.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDWP0Wn6xpo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 19 2014, 04:45 AM
Post #2





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (michael72 @ Feb 19 2014, 06:11 PM) *


Excellent analysis of the many cock-ups from the perpeTRAITOR's hired minions:
thanks michael72

The video that probably caused more champagne to be spluttered from the intoxicated lips of
the perpeTRAITORs than any other .... witness the devious squirmings from
the on-screen bribed panel of useless-eater experts.

Art Bakers's even-smarter follow-up video has mysteriously vanished off youtube:
such censorship from the Highest Level of governance by the dual-citizen brigandeers
in Washington DC is always a good sign we're treading heavily on the flat feet of
those who must know by now they're headed for the lynch gallows

This post has been edited by MikeR: Feb 19 2014, 04:47 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goprisko
post Feb 19 2014, 08:39 AM
Post #3





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 5-January 14
Member No.: 7,649



There is a recent posting in the AA 757 thread,which documents existence of two of
the aircraft post 9/11, with one of them being scrapped in 06.

The photos shown, are of fuselages undented, let alone unsmashed.

I believe the case is settled quite nicely.

No pax were killed on 9/11.

No jet liners were hijacked on 9/11.

Damage to the WTC buildings involved preplanted demolition.

Damage to the Pentagon involved an AGM, most likely one using solid propellant, given no turbofan engine was found.

Al-Quaeda is a CIA network.

This operation was used as cover for operations planned for the purpose of taking control of Asia and it's resources.

This operation was used to justify conversion of the US into a fascist police state.

INDY
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 19 2014, 11:38 AM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (michael72 @ Feb 19 2014, 01:11 AM) *

Thank you, michael72, for your submission citing Youtube video, "9 11 – NO PLANES – VIDEO FAKERY."

While the content was stark revelation after stark revelation , what I found to be most shocking was who was in on things apparently from the very inception of the plan, and who later (for Lord-knows-what motive) rendered aid, comfort and support to the plan.

The producer of the above cited video notes that the Michael Hezarkhani video depiction of a plane striking the WTC South tower includes the following audio exclamation: "Oh my God, a plane just crashed into the building. I can't believe it. Oh, my God!" while an earlier release of this video lacks it. (This segment of the video starts at elapsed time of 37:50.)

It certainly seems that the [false] inclusion of that exclamation was intended to further seal into the minds of America (and beyond) that very real planes did, in fact, strike the WTC towers on 9/11. (Producer's voiceover at elapsed time 37:30: "Sound effects make visual effects more believable.")

And while I am on the subject of false exclamations intended to serve the purpose of strong psychological suggestion, let us not forget what I wrote about celebrity politician Giuliani's arrival on the 9/11 scene in a prior post which I include here:

QUOTE
Now, think, think, think back to 9/11. Shortly after the towers collapsed, Ghouliani appeared on the dusty, paper strewn street of lower Manhattan, and when he was approached by a reporter asking, "What do we know at this time?" Ghouliani made a point to say "WE KNOW THAT TWO PLANES STRUCK THE WTC." My, my, what an assertive, affirmative, declarative sentence. He, as a lawyer, did not include a word like "allegedly." He did not use a word like "reportedly," nor "suspected." He made no mention of promising an investigation. No! Ghouliani just chose to seal things into the minds of the public with his official endorsement… his celebrity endorsement… you know, just like Oprah exploited her "Oprah Effect" when having bogus 9/11 guests on her show.


P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 19 2014, 12:53 PM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



The producer of the above cited video branded, literally, Chopper-5 WNYW helicopter reporter and videographer Kai Simonsen as a BOLDFACED LIAR for his role in allegedly faking 9/11 video —- specifically of a plane approaching and crashing through, that is, right through the WTC South tower-—and for later backing up that fraud with a nonsensical song and dance routine.

This begs the questions: why would Kai Simonsen do what he did? What was in it for him...certainly not a credit to advance his career? Would Mr. Simonsen be so low as to do what he did for a mere paycheck.

Maybe. I've personally witnessed some pretty low behavior in the workplace done in the name of a paycheck.

Or maybe Mr. Simonson was drawn into the plot by blackmail, such blackmail having been postulated by me in a prior post as being behind getting a minimum number of real people to have their identities used as "real" crew members and "real" passengers of "doomed" 9/11 flights which never existed to begin with. (See: Why I No Longer Place Credence In The Plane Swap Theory.)

Remember Slick Willie's political philosophy: "Everyone has something to hide, and everyone has his price."

Was Mr. Simonsen presented with a choice: do our bidding or face tough prison time for... [Lord-knows-what]?

You know, everyone is a potential victim of governmental blackmail since every phone call, text message, fax, email, etc. is tapped by your government.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Feb 19 2014, 09:03 PM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



QUOTE (goprisko @ Feb 19 2014, 12:39 PM) *
No pax were killed on 9/11.


*Sigh* "Vicsims"/Witness Protection Program/secret NWO biosphere commune?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 20 2014, 06:21 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
From Simon Shack’s FAQ section:

QUOTE
The skeptics argue that “too many videos of the airplane were captured, therefore all cannot be fake …” Too many indeed: there are a simply ludicrous amount of “lucky” shots. In fact, the sheer amount of existing ‘airplane’ images is grossly absurd in itself: We now have more than 45 “amateur videos” (some of which were released – inexplicably – as late as June 2008!). We also have at least 10 still pictures depicting alleged “Flight 175” “in its very last second of flight” 


First off, the "lucky shots" description is ludicrous because thousands of New Yorkers were focused on this area after the strike on Tower 1.

According to the NPT accusations, that’s 55 people who allegedly, knowingly allowed their names to be publically used as authors of totally manipulated footage, or altered the footage themselves. 55 people, alleged “sleepers”, who “know” exactly what happened on 9/11 in Manhattan. That the towers were blown up by internal explosives and that a hologram was used to fool on the ground witnesses. 

That’s a lot of loose ends.





Please also check the above collection of still images for debris falling from the impact side of the facade.

I agree that certain footage has been edited, withheld, censored or have had their resolution purposely lessened. The Naudet second tower impact has clearly been edited, one Citgo camera was physically removed, the "gatecam" footage which was capable of reading registrations on vehicles has been purposely reuploaded (at least twice) to make the footage useless etc. 

But to insinuate that an actual army of ops actually added an aircraft to footage caught? And adding them perfectly to match the flightpath?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 20 2014, 09:28 AM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE
Please also check the above collection of still images for debris falling from the impact side of the facade.


I simply do not remember any person-on-the-street claiming to have witnessed fireballs coming out of the WTC towers. Ditto for debris falling.

The still photos of the South tower at http://www.youtube.com/embed/8uCdeRGw4PQ show much debris flying in just about all directions moments after alleged "impact." Why weren't many, many people at street level killed or maimed by this falling debris? Remember, this occurred while both towers were in a state of evacuation. Many people must have been streaming out of the WTC buildings and right onto the streets.

What I do remember, were crowds of people fleeing up West Street with a plume of dust at their heals when, later, the towers were becoming "undone." I remember a similar scene of people running down Washington Street.

My point is that people were on the street at the time of later "collapse." People must have been on the streets near the WTC at the time of the alleged second airliner strike at the South Tower. Why weren't many skulls sliced wide open by falling debris from the South Tower "strike" if such debris was, in fact, real?

I do remember a report of about a half-dozen people on the street who were killed by dust, but none by debris.

Many, many videos from various angles and many, many still photos could have been synchronized by falsification to make it appear that there must have been a real plane in flight. It's really not a big deal for people who know how to do it. So, numerous depictions of what is supposed to be a real event prove nothing especially when they have attached names that nobody is going to track down to check veracity.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 20 2014, 10:03 AM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
So, numerous depictions of what is supposed to be a real event prove nothing especially when they have attached names that nobody is going to track down to check veracity.


Isn't that the duty of NPT advocates? If you're so convinced why not take the next step?

There are, at a minimum, 55 names associated with the videos and images (I excluded those with dubious connections).

What really bothers me is that people would claim that videos or pictures are fake, and then use the same videos to make assertions about the impossibility of the nature of the penetration. How can any conclusions be made about anything shown in the video when it's claimed that it has been corrupted, manipulated or entirely faked?

As I said, I agree that certain footage has been edited, withheld, censored or have had their resolution purposely lessened. The Naudet second tower impact has clearly been edited, one Citgo camera was physically removed, the "gatecam" footage which was capable of reading registrations on vehicles has been purposely reuploaded (at least twice) to make the footage useless etc.

But to insinuate that an actual army of ops actually added an aircraft to footage caught? And adding them perfectly to match the flightpath?

NPT is designed to be a dead end where wordplay coupled with a "duhbunker" style of debate can paper over the cracks.

Videos and images of aircraft? All fake.

Authors of videos and images? All fake or stooges (who are still alive!)

Witnesses? Liars

How do you know there were no planes? Based on the same fake videos and images. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 20 2014, 10:14 AM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 09:03 AM) *
How do you know there were no planes? Based on the same fake videos and images. rolleyes.gif


In a nutshell, here's a proverb: "If you are going to be a liar, then you'd better have a good memory."

If you are going to stage an event like 9/11, then you had better remember to have all your ducks in a row and to tie up all loose ends.

If you are going to have photos of fireballs and copious amounts of metallic debris flying in all directions at a time when the second air strike on the South Tower was an unexpected, unthinkable thing, then you'd better remember to come up with quite a few dead bodies with shards of metal sticking out of their skulls.

P.M.

This post has been edited by paulmichael: Feb 20 2014, 10:18 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 20 2014, 11:19 AM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 20 2014, 09:14 AM) *
If you are going to have photos of fireballs and copious amounts of metallic debris flying in all directions at a time when the second air strike on the South Tower was an unexpected, unthinkable thing, then you'd better remember to come up with quite a few dead bodies with shards of metal sticking out of their skulls.

P.M.



The second air strike was unexpected, but people weren't stupid nor were the police.
People were staying far clear of the towers and the police wouldn't let them get close even if they wanted to.

So it was IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to have "shards of metal sticking out of their skulls".
Nice try though.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 20 2014, 11:48 AM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 20 2014, 10:19 AM) *
The second air strike was unexpected, but people weren't stupid nor were the police.
People were staying far clear of the towers and the police wouldn't let them get close even if they wanted to.

So it was IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to have "shards of metal sticking out of their skulls".
Nice try though.


Huh?

Refer back to my prior reply.

At the time of the second strike, the towers were in the process of being EVACUATED.

People were right in the towers at that time, yet you say they were kept clear???

People were right on Washington St. about 40 minutes later really close to the South Tower escaping its "undoing."

They were not kept clear!

I don't know when PATH service was halted, but there could have still been PATH commuters evacuating.

What about first responders in the vicinity of the South Tower scrambling about outdoors to address the earlier event at the North Tower. Why were they not severely injured or even killed by that debris?

The alleged AA11 strike on the North Tower occurred at 8:46:30 AM. The alleged UA175 strike on the South Tower occurred at 9:03 AM. Do you think that first responders could have arrived at the scene in just about a quarter-of-an-hour and got organized to totally clear the area in the midst of what must have been chaos?

Some of the photos of the alleged strike on the South Tower and of the resultant fireballs and debris fall seem to have been taken close enough to the South Tower to put the photographers in real harm's way. Why no shrapnel injuries?

Nice try though, NP1Mike.

I suggest that you get over your state of denial.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 20 2014, 11:49 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
If you are going to stage an event like 9/11, then you had better remember to have all your ducks in a row and to tie up all loose ends.


All 4 events of 9/11 had to be tightly controlled.

2 alleged aircraft buried under 2 million tons of rubble. Check.
1 alleged aircraft fully penetrating the first floor of a building (which ruled out any aeriel views). Check.
1 alleged aircraft fully penetrating and desintegrating into the ground. Check.

"Flight 11" was a "surprise" event (in that it happened first - and there's only one clear, yet edited film of it)

"Flight 77" was a "surprise" event (for the close proximity witnesses - and only 2 grainy videos showing jack shit, one provenly manipulated, another one proven to have been stolen, and others which were allegedly "off" or pointed at the moon)
The alleged fuel, limb, blood and debris free, unblackened "punchout hole" was actually a crime scene within a crime scene - controlling prying eyes of first responders and military personnel.

"Flight 93" was a completely isolated event in the arsehole of nowhere.

There you have three sudden events which the media and shills would shitspray all over in the weeks, months and years that followed.

But "Flight 175"? Let's look at those "loose ends".

This particular event involved an array of mainstream media networks working in sync to fake this particular event. Scores of individuals were in position to capture what in reality was just an explosion and another array of individuals were at hand to insert the plane into their footage at a later stage. An array of stooges, which included firefighters, were also at hand to bolster the aircraft impact illusion by claiming that they had actually seen the aircraft.

Honestly PM, do you really believe that given the nature of the other three "hit and run" events (coupled with obfuscation) which are the MO of false flags/black ops, that such a convoluted, highly dangerous op would even be considered? Do you really believe that the perps would leave their coward bastard lives in the hands of so many "loose ends"?

It makes no sense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 20 2014, 12:16 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



FURTHERMORE...

Right on 9/11, there was a televised news reports about the Manhattan hospital emergency rooms where staffs were prepared and awaiting injured parties from the World Trade Center.

These emergency rooms were surprisingly idle. At first, the E.R. staffs were perplexed, but they soon realized that there were by far and away more casualties than injuries at the WTC. With the blast of debris allegedly coming out of the South Tower, there should have been many, many debris-related injuries ranging from relatively minor to major, if not fatal injuries. I have never heard of any such injuries, to this date.

You have to wonder why an alleged WTC burn victim who appeared on "Oprah" was taken across the river to a hospital in New Jersey when there was so much excess capacity in Manhattan E.R.s. (See my prior post at Wtc Elevators & Oprah's Failure for more about this bogus burn victim.)

Also, right on 9/11, there was the report of a poor woman who supposedly was on the street waiting at a bus stop when she was horribly burned by flaming jet fuel that came from above due to one of the strikes on the WTC towers. There was a later report that she had succumbed to her injuries. YET THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THIS CASUALTY 10 YEARS LATER IN A RUNDOWN OF ALL 9/11 CASUALTIES IN THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS. As I have already stated, if you are going to be a liar, then you'd better have a good memory.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 20 2014, 01:36 PM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 10:49 AM) *
Do you really believe that the perps would leave their coward bastard lives in the hands of so many "loose ends"?


Absolutely.

That ilk always have and always will rely on their big staffs of "spin doctors" to pull their sorry **** out of the fire one way or another.

I've been in the business world long enough to have observed that the most dangerous people are the idiots who think that they are smart.

Combine this with a psychological profile of being infallibly narcissistic (and psychopathic), and you have a really bad day like 9/11/2001.

Moreover, I posited that the 9/11 concoctors must have been on some kind of mind-altering drug to have believed that such a non-feasible, totally absurd caper would be a slam-dunk and, so they gave it a "go". (See: Can Methamphetamine Or Ecstasy Use Explain The Brazen Acts Of 9/11?)

What those 9/11 jerk-concoctors neglected to take into account is that while others may not be as smart as they, the others are sufficiently smart to eventually figure out the score. There's a saying which the concoctors neglected to appreciate; it's: "I may be slow, but I'm ahead of you." In the context of 9/11, perhaps a rephrase is in order: "I may be slow, but I am on to you."

Anyway, you mentioned the word "explosion." Here's a brief rundown: you have two planes heavy (loaded with fuel) striking two buildings with alleged fireballs affecting quite a few floors of those buildings, yet the media covered only two WTC burn victims who suffered their burns at street level and who were clearly bogus. What are the odds?

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 10:49 AM) *
"Flight 11" was a "surprise" event (in that it happened first - and there's only one clear, yet edited film of it)


What I remember on 9/11 was an early video, shown once and only once, of a plane with wings level crashing into the North Tower. It just disappeared into the building with no resultant explosion or fireball.

Then later, the well-known video of AA11, zooming over Church St. and crashing with wings banked and with resultant fireball, was released by the media.

The earlier video must have been sent down the memory hole.

I didn't dream this. Some time ago, my brother brought to my attention a posting by someone on the Net who pointed out this earlier video and it's discrepancies with the later "official" one.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 20 2014, 02:42 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



You said earlier

QUOTE
If you are going to stage an event like 9/11, then you had better remember to have all your ducks in a row and to tie up all loose ends.


And when I point out the overwhelming number of loose ends re "Flight 175" and ask

"Do you really believe that the perps would leave their coward bastard lives in the hands of so many "loose ends"?"

You say "Absolutely".

Over and out rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 20 2014, 04:21 PM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 20 2014, 10:48 AM) *
At the time of the second strike, the towers were in the process of being EVACUATED.

People were right in the towers at that time, yet you say they were kept clear???



Of course people were in the towers at the time of the WTC2 strike.
But check your facts.
They weren't being EVACUATED through the front doors!!!
The firemen and police weren't stupid.
They saw the debris falling and people jumping from the buildings.
They were directing the people who were evacuating to do so UNDERGROUND!

QUOTE
What about first responders in the vicinity of the South Tower scrambling about outdoors to address the earlier event at the North Tower. Why were they not severely injured or even killed by that debris?


At least one fireman _was killed by a falling person.
At least one pedestrian was injured by falling debris. Check the library of photos.

QUOTE
The alleged AA11 strike on the North Tower occurred at 8:46:30 AM. The alleged UA175 strike on the South Tower occurred at 9:03 AM. Do you think that first responders could have arrived at the scene in just about a quarter-of-an-hour and got organized to totally clear the area in the midst of what must have been chaos?


Now you're hitting on an area that I did a fair amount of research on.
Yes the first responders WERE at the towers within 15 minutes!
It's on record. Just do the research yourself.

QUOTE
Some of the photos of the alleged strike on the South Tower and of the resultant fireballs and debris fall seem to have been taken close enough to the South Tower to put the photographers in real harm's way. Why no shrapnel injuries?


"seem to have been taken" are the operative words Paul.
But they weren't in fact in harms way when they were taken.
Thank God for zoom lenses! smile.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 20 2014, 04:56 PM
Post #18





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 20 2014, 03:21 PM) *
"seem to have been taken" are the operative words Paul.
But they weren't in fact in harms way when they were taken.
Thank God for zoom lenses! smile.gif


For the most part, for rebuttal, I am going to let my prior reply post stand as is.

But I am not going to let your comment about zoom lenses go by.

There are zooms from a distance on the horizontal plane, and then there are zooms upward at an angle to the heights of the WTC.

I was referring to the latter shots that would have put photographers into harm's way.

You may have noticed that I frequently refer people to my prior posts.

I think now is a good time to refer to: Vampires, They Be! Vampires, Vampires, I Tell You!, …you gotta believe me!

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 20 2014, 06:25 PM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 03:03 AM) *
What really bothers me is that people would claim that videos or pictures are fake, and then use the same videos to make assertions about the impossibility of the nature of the penetration. How can any conclusions be made about anything shown in the video when it's claimed that it has been corrupted, manipulated or entirely faked?

That's their "logic" OSS. First they tell you say a "Strontium Barium Niobate hologram" was used to fake the planes and then they tell you the Strontium and Barium* in some dust samples mean the buildings were nuked. rolleyes.gif

This people can whole their life firmly believe the slogans like "planes don't 'melt' into buildings" and post it everywhere they can as long as they have the access to the keyboard, internet and the sites they like to infest with their B.S. as far as the mods don't move that crap into "Alternative theories" and bin. But they actually would never take a calculator and do simplest calculations using high school physics knowledge, publicly available information about the WTC towers outer wall construction and the B767 to find out the WTC outer wall structures had no chance to withstand the planes impacts at such speeds shown by the multiple radars and in case of WTC2 also by the numerous videos. And even if you do the calculation for them, share the principle and results**, and corner their "argument" that aluminium can't 'slice through the steel' out they instead of learning something start to insult you and common sense even more with even more bizzare conjectures.

----
* anybody can easily find out the Strontium is common in concrete and Barium in wall paints - I myself have all my appartment painted by more or less almost pure BaSO4 - and do I have a radiation sickness from it? Nope...

** it is actually rather simple - there were 100+ ton aircrafts flying at 100s of m/s against just <40 tons of the wall panels covering the more or less almost perpendicular impact crossection area of <40m2 and area around it, moreover each of them connected to the rest of the wall structure literally just by <100 bolts which could snap opon the force of the impact, moreover this panels were at the same time already pulled in inward direction by statical force exerted on them by the floors hanging on them and so even facilitating the penetration, moreover ~40% of the "walls" were just windows being no significant obstacle to the penetration whatsoever anyway... -it is immediately clear that zero momentum of 40 tons can't arrest momentum of 100+ tons impacting it and it has really not much to do with what materials face each other there - and anyway a lead bullet also can penetrate inches of solid steel armor if having a sufficient speed...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 20 2014, 06:45 PM
Post #20





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



Good points tume!


QUOTE
- and anyway a lead bullet also can penetrate inches of solid steel armor if having a sufficient speed...



I find I have to repeat myself a bit on this one, but no harm.
The plane (aluminum) didn't penetrate inches of solid steel.
It penetrated the building.
There is a difference.

There is a difference between pushing steel columns back into the building, until the bolts snap (in an instant)
and the columns move inside (still as solid beams, not sliced into two parts)
AND
aluminum slicing through steel beams, cutting them in two (which did not happen).



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 15th September 2019 - 04:38 PM