Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Alternative Theories _ R. I. P. - No Plane Theory

Posted by: onesliceshort May 2 2012, 10:56 PM

I'm just going to jump straight in here. Basically Jim Fetzer has been evading these points I raised at "TruthandShadows" blogspot (820 posts later..)

Post 1.


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?



So how can people who allege that all footage is a complete fabrication and that it's been in the perps'  hands literally from day one, base any scientific claims on observations made in them??

Even the claim that no aircraft debris was seen falling from the impact side doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Pause and play the impact seen in the following video. Slowmo if you can.



Then there's this:



I don't know if there is any footage of the base of that area, but the collapse of the tower also leaves the debris claim open to obfuscation.

We have to remember that this aircraft was allegedly travelling at over 700 feet per second. Over 4 times its own length travelled in one second as it impacted the facade.

The length of the fuselage from the nose to the wings is 60ft. The aircraft's recorded speed would cover that 60ft distance in less than a tenth of a second.

When the 60ft of fuselage appears to penetrate the facade, this could be down to optical illusion. The event was over in one tenth of a second.

Here's a video that's as close as I could find to the collision of a hard steel object (steel sled) against a bulky object such as the fuselage. A car.

Normal speed



Slow motion (pay attention to the actual collision at the beginning of the video)



See how the car appears to "melt" or "disappear"? The actual interaction was over in a fraction of a second.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 2 2012, 10:57 PM

Post 2.

The impact hole

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/1338/wtc2holereal0el.jpg

Impact hole vs aircraft

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RzjE83XnsHI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/DTQSal6eKsM/s1600/e-24_wtc2-impact-pattern.jpg

The claim is that cutter charges were used to "carve" the impact hole. What I have major problems with are the "slice mark" through the facade where the base of the vertical stabilizer would have struck, and more specifically the indentation mark (without breaching the facade) where the left wing would have struck. 

Cutter charges?

Posted by: onesliceshort May 2 2012, 10:58 PM

Post 3.

The claim that the tower didn't budge (and for me personally the nail in the coffin of NPT)

An analysis of Scott Myers' impact video







There's a sway that can only have been caused by a solid object travelling through the tower to cause the movement in that direction.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 2 2012, 11:01 PM

Post 4.

The claim that modification of the witnessed aircraft which was travelling well over the structural limitations of a standard transport category Boeing 767 is "impossible"

Rob's response:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804735

My response:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804737

What's the difference in bodyframe between these two 747s?





This...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-120417-space-shuttle03.photoblog900.jpg

QUOTE
Weights

Empty: 151,315 lb (68,635 kg)
With main engines: 171,000 lb (77,564 kg)

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/shuttle_atlantis.pl


QUOTE
The aircraft was extensively modified by Boeing in 1976.[2] Its cabin was stripped, mounting struts added, and the fuselage strengthened; vertical stabilizers were added to the tail to aid stability when the Orbiter was being carried. The avionics and engines were also upgraded, and an escape tunnel system similar to that used on Boeing's first 747 test flights was added. The flight crew escape tunnel system was later removed following the completion of the Approach and Landing Tests (ALT) due to concerns over possible engine ingestion of an escaping crew member

Flying with the additional drag and weight of the Orbiter imposed significant fuel and altitude penalties. The range was reduced to 1,000 nautical miles (1,850 km), compared to an unladen range of 5500 nautical miles (10,100 km),[3] requiring an SCA to stop several times to refuel on a transcontinental flight. The SCA had an altitude ceiling of 15,000 feet and a maximum cruise speed of Mach 0.6 (445mph) with the orbiter attached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Carrier_Aircraft

Posted by: onesliceshort May 2 2012, 11:04 PM

Post 5. (please read thoroughly)

The claim that holograms were used (this is pivotal to NPT)

I was pointed to a discussion paper on holograms being experimented on by DARPA which could have allegedly been used on 9/11

"3-D Holographic Display Using Strontium Barium Niobate"

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA338490

QUOTE
"Until recently, however, research in photorefractive holography has been limited to the production of two-dimensional (2-D) holograms and very limited field-of-view (FOV) 3-D holograms."

"The proposed method employs a volume hologram recorded and read in real time in a photorefractive crystal to produce a 3-D image. This innovative technique is simple, and it differs from previous attempts at 3-D dis plays. We used a photorefractive material, SBN, to record a hologram, and a phase-conjugate read beam, which is generated from a double-pumped phase-conjugate mirror (DPPCM), to accurately reproduce the holographic image in space over a large perspective. The resultant holographic image is free from system-induced aberrations, may be viewed over a wide range of angles that can be expanded by the use of a mosaic of crystals, and has uniform high quality over the entire FOV."




QUOTE
"The three-dimensional hologram is a real image of the object and can be displayed in free space. The image can be viewed by projection, via lens relays, directly into the eye or a camera. Figure 3 shows the hologram of two dice earrings recorded in the SBN:60 photorefractive crystal. The dice have dimensions of 2 mm on a side. We verified the third dimension of the image by viewing the hologram at different perspectives, which demonstrated parallax when we rotated the viewing angle by placing the camera on a pivot arm. The FOV of the hologram (fig. 3) was measured to be -14°. We determined the FOV by the angular range in which the hologram was clearly visible."

"Using equations (8) and (9), we calculated the maximum FOV of the holo- gram presented in figure 3 to be -24°, where Lc = 20 mm, d = 40 mm, <p= 20°, and s = 3 mm. Because of incomplete phase conjugation of the read beam, the measured FOV of 14° is much less, because the entire region of the crystal was not used. The alignment of the pump beam and reference beam in the DPPCM is critical to enhance a large phase-conjugate read beam."


Note: look at the limited field of view (FOV) with the first experiment:



Note: look how exact these positions have to be to project a static image:




QUOTE
"The increased perspective (FOV) is evident on the die in the background of figure 5, where the side of the die with the three is visible at one edge of the FOV, as shown in figure 5a; while at the other edge of the FOV, the side of the die with the six is clearly visible, as shown in figure 5b. We measured the FOV of the hologram presented in figure 5 to be -30° by rotating the camera on a pivot arm that was centered at the image plane. The hologram is clearly visible through the entire FOV; however, there was a bright strip of light that appeared due to scattering when the viewing angle passed through the intersection where the two crystals were attached by double-sided tape. Using equations (8) and (9), we calculated the maximum FOV to be -44°, where Lc =40 mm, d = 45 mm, <p= 20°, and s = 3 mm. As previously stated, the FOV was limited because the read beam did not fill the entire crystal. The maximum possible FOV is desired so that the images are more realistic."


Given the multiple angles at which the aircraft was captured, the following is very important:

QUOTE
"We would also like to display the hologram in such a medium that the image could be viewed at different angles. A scattering liquid was tested, but proved ineffective since the perspective was lost, and only a 2-D image was visible."


Those multiple angles can be seen in this video linked to earlier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uCdeRGw4PQ

And these documented first responder witnesses to an aircraft (which Jim Fetzer actually claims "reinforces" the hologram argument because they were deceived! Yeah, you work that one out)

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21931&view=findpost&p=10804309

The following is also very important. Each individual holographic projection is stored on a crystal (Strontium Barium Niobate) and each complex projection requires the previously mentioned specifically placed multiple apparatus to achieve just one hologram. A single frame.

QUOTE
"Presently, much research is focused on studying holographic storage in photorefractive crystals via angular [7], wavelength [8], and electric-field [9] multiplexing; however, these images are generally 2-D. We have stored multiple 3-D holograms in the photorefractive crystal via wavelength multiplexing. The experimental setup used to study wavelength multiplexing is shown in figure 2. However, the writing beams originated from an argon-ion laser that was operating in a multiline configuration. Also, the DPPCM was not used. The read beam was generated from a second argonion laser running in a single-line configuration. Several holograms were written simultaneously at the lasing wavelengths of the argonion laser.
The relative powers of the primary lasing wavelengths used to record the holograms are listed in table 1. We read the individual holograms by tuning the read beam to a particular wavelength. The relative powers of the read beam used to reconstruct individual holograms are also listed in table 1."


A lot of the jargon is way over my head but even I can see that both the theoretical and experimental stages of this concept is nowhere near as advanced as to project a realistic aircraft caught on video in its last seconds of flight. Or multiple images caught at different angles (including ground to air angles), at varying distances.

The maximum FOV achieved is 44° but with major distortions.

The apparatus has to be in exact positions, distances and angles from eachother to project a static image.

How could they have projected this solid looking, constant, mobile hologram without first having previously set it up for a dry run??

How can even this (alleged) impressive technology even begin to portray an aircraft not only in motion, but covering a distance of 700fps over thousands of feet, in a descent, banking, and disappearing at the precise moment of reaching the building?

It couldn't.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 2 2012, 11:06 PM

Post 6.

Miscellaneous:

"Fade to black" argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zjrWa6khyY

"No "strobe lights" argument:

Luis Alonso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TWJtg2gI7s

"No debris falling from impact zone" argument:

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7906/wtc2exit3yx6.jpg

Kathy Cacicedo

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/images/2nd-hit/Cacicedo_Kathy_explosion_kcphotographer-com_when_bigpic3.jpg


Michael Hezarkhani (HD, debris)

First aired after midnight— 9/12 at 12:15 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPeNkZz4mmU&fmt=22

Stabilized

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zWVfsYZP90&feature


Joshua Lentz (debris, sound, nose of plane)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98nHHgne4cs

http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/911conspiracytv/2nd-hit_WNBC_Dub4A_32_slow_animated.gif


Jennifer Spell (plus interview - sound, light reflection, debris)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5flD6Qok4pQ

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/4720/jenniferspellas7.gif


Debris filmed on road in real time on exit side of tower 2 impact:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-lc34jqDS0


"Videos and images were actually of hologram"


Holograms (which we know was a technology that was too primitive to project an aircraft travelling 700fps) don't reflect light (sun) or make aircraft sound

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPeNkZz4mmU&fmt=22

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98nHHgne4cs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5flD6Qok4pQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha1o8Rv1iPw

(02:30mins)

http://vimeo.com/28948302

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7ZSnLCmdPc

(admittedly clearly edited)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUyV3Ue1rMY&fmt=18

Posted by: onesliceshort May 2 2012, 11:08 PM

Post 7.

My own 2cents on other technology to aid penetration of the building:





Note: I don't agree with the "drone out" claims in this next video as no "exit hole" is visible.



Exit area in question:

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/7657/exithole2he8.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-5fd/6-30_wtc2-north-face-exit.jpg


Apparent aircraft "appendage" physical interaction with facade




ASCE gif of facade damage showing this interaction:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RzjE83XnsHI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/DTQSal6eKsM/s1600/e-24_wtc2-impact-pattern.jpg

http://911anomalies.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/boeingwtc2qi02.jpg?w=450


Finally, cause of "nose out"?



Edit: As i said. 2cents!

Posted by: amazed! May 3 2012, 03:04 PM

Terrific work OSS!

I especially liked the footage in slow mo showing the piece of landing gear or whatever continuing on, and that with the audio at ground level where you can HEAR that debris hitting the ground seconds later.

Posted by: rob balsamo May 3 2012, 05:24 PM

Good work OSS...

I've never actually before seen the videos of the tower oscillating after the impact. If the NPT wasn't already a dead issue before, it's certainly dead now.

Thanks for posting... I'm actually going to pin this into the Alternate Theories Section and add a bit to the title of the thread as this isn't really a "debate" any more. NPT is dead.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 3 2012, 09:36 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 3 2012, 10:24 PM) *
Good work OSS...

I've never actually before seen the videos of the tower oscillating after the impact. If the NPT wasn't already a dead issue before, it's certainly dead now.

Thanks for posting... I'm actually going to pin this into the Alternate Theories Section and add a bit to the title of the thread as this isn't really a "debate" any more. NPT is dead.


Thanks guys. Yeah those two vids needed to be seen, particularly the "oscillating" tower.

Posted by: Tamborine man May 4 2012, 11:54 AM




Hey, hold on just a minute or two here, dear OSS and Rob!
Shouldn't you first check the 'pulse' before declaring somebody or something is 'dead'!

Imagine you both are attending the funeral of NPT (or in this case it's obviously a 'wake'). There in front is the coffin, the lid nailed down and
'the stars and stripes' draped over it, with a little bunch of flowers (that have seen better days), casually flung on top. Lots of people have turned
up to this 'historic' occasion.

You're all in high spirit. The booze is out and the music is on. Everybody is telling silly banal jokes, spiced up with much scorn and ridicule.
'Up front' you notice your 'buddy' hybridrogue, the most agitated and excited of you all, feebly attempting like an "expert" to dance the
cha cha cha with his partner snowcrash - who, as you know, quite enjoy being noticed up there 'up front', like an "expert" as well.

Jimd100 'the not too brainy' now comes over to you and proud-braggingly repeats what he had just written in one of his posts at 'truthfraction',
while at the same time laughing hysterically over his own self-perceived 'witticism'!

He says:
"< -- debated Alpo Marbles CIT and Craig Stinke CIT on whether Lloyde was a super duper secret agent, who helped conceal a huge 757
passenger jet flying over the pentagon during Rush hour traffic in broad daylight, on 9-11 2001, as light poles were planted to create a fake
flight path for reasons known only to the perps.

It's not something I'm proud of -- the same feeling I had when my friend came over unannounced while I had a fat chick in my bed."

You two of course look 'perplexed' (if nothing else), but soon your attention change direction, as over there you now see pickering, arabesque,
hoffman and victoria arriving, joining the rest of the "usual suspects".

But then, just at that moment, a small banging noise is heard coming from up the front. All of a sudden a 'deafening' silence falls over the
assembly. The music is turned off. The banging noise gets louder. Now everybody notice to their 'horror' that the banging is coming from
inside the 'coffin'. Nobody dares to go near. Instead, one after another, everybody turns around and they all quietly and "dumb-founded"
leave the so-called 'funeral' or 'wake' behind.
The much anticipated "merrymaking" is over for now – even before it almost got really started!

I implore you, OSS and Rob! do not ever, under any circumstances, be seen trying to associate yourself with this sorry 'mob'. None of them
(these many people alluded to above) truly understand any or even one of the 'golden rules' which simply states that: "The 'first' shall inevitably
become the 'last'. Or, translated into its basics: "Haughtiness, self-admiration and self-importance shall never defeat humankind." Nay. On the
contrary: "It is humankind as a whole who will one day defeat these 'unsavoury corrupted', and eventually lifting those up (those
who are letting
themselves being caught in this sorry shit), to where they truly and rightfully belong to in the first place!

Let us all be truly honest. Every person in the whole 'wide' world know that planes were present and witnessed on the day, at the 4 locations
in question on 9/11-01. This cannot be denied by anyone. Not even by those at the 'septemberclues' forum.
(The people over there follows a 'policy' which simply states that: "everything" shall be considered fake, unless the opposite is proven to our
satisfaction). It doesn't say anything about what the individual really thinks in private.
Therefore, not even 'septemberclues' can in all honesty be considered an exemption to this fact above, as we can simply just adopt and apply
their own 'policy' against them when it comes to their own views on a personal level. Or in other words: Why should WE believe a word THEY
are telling us? What they're saying could as well be 'fake' and dishonest! Where's the proof to the contrary??

Therefore, 'septemberclues' is "out", and the fact remains, that the whole 'wide' world know that planes were present at the locations we're
talking about. Again, this cannot be denied - unless of course, somebody is into either sophism, silly semantics or plain silliness – and what
intelligent persons want to go there!

And hence, NPT cannot in all fairness and in all clear simple truth and conscience "literally" be associated in any way whatsoever to what
the whole 'wide' world is perfectly aware of, namely: Planes WERE witnessed, and therefore planes WERE present at all four locations.

NPT must therefore by sheer logic and by sheer reason have other meanings and other connotations.
NPT must therefore be associated with something else, something entirely different.
NPT must therefore categorically and implicitly be a 'description' exclusively used as "a derogatory term" whereby others could be 'accused'
(by the perps, their sycophants and their minions) of being, amongst many other things, 'tin-foil-hat-clowns, dumb-asses, wackos, fools,
dis-info-agents, manipulators, and what not, all in the same vein; because these so-called 'manipulative people' didn't think a plane impacted
f.ex. the pentagon!

NPT was disgustingly and nastily used against CIT, and therefore, incidentally, also used against me, sitting there 'safely' on the sideline, firmly
on the side of CIT.
NPT was also used again and again, derogatorily, against many other very good people.

NPT is far from "dead". NPT will of itself break open the 'imagined' lid in spite of the 'rusty' nails, and emerge again. Nothing exist that is strong
enough to hold it down.
There was no plane impacting the pentagon, and there was no plane impacting the field in Shanksville.
'The future' will learn that no planes impacted the WTC towers.

Rob, with your example about the 'cornfield and the trees', the alleged plane (bar the port wing), would have missed the 47 trees in the middle,
had your analogy been a reference to WTC2.

OSS, will reply to some of your other points in the OP when I got some more time, probably over the weekend!

Cheers to you good people



Posted by: rob balsamo May 4 2012, 12:31 PM

QUOTE
Every person in the whole 'wide' world know that planes were present and witnessed on the day, at the 4 locations
in question on 9/11-01. This cannot be denied by anyone. Not even by those at the 'septemberclues' forum.


Exactly, and this is one of the reasons that the "NO PLANE Theory" is dead.

I know some people are now attempting to redefine the words "No planes", as the NPT has been dead for quite some time now, with people like Fetzer attempting resurrect such absurd theories by changing the definition, but the definition accepted by society is clear.

"No Planes" means No planes.

As you said - "Every person in the whole 'wide' world know that planes were present and witnessed on the day"

NPT is dead.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 4 2012, 10:19 PM

TM, I think the insinuation about Snowcrash and the others is pretty unfair and insulting.

As Rob just pointed out, if you yourself acknowledge that planes were used in Manhattan, what's the problem?

Posted by: Tamborine man May 5 2012, 04:54 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 3 2012, 01:19 AM) *
TM, I think the insinuation about Snowcrash and the others is pretty unfair and insulting.

As Rob just pointed out, if you yourself acknowledge that planes were used in Manhattan, what's the problem?



Hi OSS,

you sound as being very serious about your first point. Naturally hope you're not, but will nevertheless respond
to it as if you are ......because one can never know for sure how other readers might react to it!

So you mean - me, 'insinuating' that snowcrash and partner can dance the cha cha cha - is unfair and insulting?
If that's the case, i suppose there could be some 'truth' to that, but mind you, only if they both hate "dancing"!

Or, OSS, had you chosen to instead, you could also just have taken it as a little bit of fun and 'cheekiness' to
make the "imagined scenario" slightly more tolerable to read .....for maybe only some or other, of course.

To your second point, i'll reply in another post later on -

Cheers

Posted by: Tamborine man May 7 2012, 02:04 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 3 2012, 01:19 AM) *
As Rob just pointed out, if you yourself acknowledge that planes were used in Manhattan, what's the problem?



Well, that's exactly the point, OSS. Both friend and foe around the world, including you and Rob, acknowledge
the presence of planes at 9/11-01.

Therefore NPT could NEVER have been a term formulated in connection and in context with the above undeniable
fact. Thus NPT must initially have been formulated for other reasons and purposes; and as we're all perfectly
aware of, indeed it was.
It was solely and exclusively used as a "tool or weapon" by the 'foes' and 'detractors' to denigrate, abuse, mock,
ridicule, etc., not only CIT and P4T, but also their supporters. (You know the story, so no need for more 'details').

My worry is this: By declaring NPT for "dead", for whatever reason, this could be seen as if P4T are capitulating to
the 'detractors' and 'professional disinformants' and thereby playing into their hands, as these people have probably
been aiming for exactly this outcome, this 'death', from the very start.

Talking about "death" in the context we're discussing, implies a certain 'finality' where any kind of 'resurrection'
would be out of the question.
Therefore, killing off NPT for good would of course forever prevent the 'T' in NPT being able one day to undergo a
metamorphosis in peoples mind by changing it into another 'T', but then this time instead, standing for the much
more appropriate name of NP'T', 'T' = Truth!
(As IT is of course already with regards to the pentagon and Shanksville, but still remains to be seen at WTC. That
is yet to come)!

I fear that declaring "the death" of NPT, will be used with vicious glee and almost 'orgasmic rapture' by the mob of
'detractors', not only against CIT, but also against P4T. These "people" could now put a 'spin' on the whole thing.
They obviously couldn't give a 'rat's arse' about doing so. They wouldn't give a damn, that the intentions from you
and Rob were entirely different - this would simply be ignored.
(They could of course claim that by you and Rob declaring NPT "dead", you're by default (inadvertently) "admitting"
that a plane must have impacted both pentagon and Shanksville)!

I fear that the promulgation of this "decree" could see the end of CIT and P4T, and all the hard work they have put
into this over the years, and it all could come to nought. Fear the same could happen to Di Maggio and Killtown.

Hope you'll be able to allay my fears and apprehensions of course, by coming up with some very good reasons (that
seems to escape me at the moment) why i didn't need to worry so much.
Needless to say, that my worries also extend to the heated debate caused by "consensus 9/11"!

Peace to the world

Cheers

Posted by: onesliceshort May 7 2012, 09:02 AM

QUOTE ™
My worry is this: By declaring NPT for "dead", for whatever reason, this could be seen as if P4T are capitulating to the 'detractors' and 'professional disinformants' and thereby playing into their hands, as these people have probably been aiming for exactly this outcome, this 'death', from the very start.


You're way off base TM. This has nothing to do with "capitulating" to anybody. It was in response to Jim Fetzer trying to redefine what NPT actually is ("NPT doesn't mean that there were no planes"...come on) and trying to wrap it up in credible documented and proven research by CIT and Rob.

You know yourself that anything I posted on the subject over at TAS wasn't a kneejerk reaction but an attempt by myself to see why good people like yourself defended it. To see if there was any basis for the claims. The reasons are listed above mate. There's no truth in it that I can see.

You should be asking Jim Fetzer and Dennis Cimino why they created this little soap opera. Fetzer had his responses ready to copy and paste both here and at TAS because he knew what the reaction would be. He has painted anybody who doesn't agree with his warped wordplay as possible disinformationists (at VT - a site that allowed a clear disinfo "Pentagon missile" video be posted even though it was repeatedly proven that it was a hoax)

Even Senor El Once, a long time NPT advocate, has admitted publically at TAS that NPT is wrong based on the above posts.

If there's any counterargument I'd like to hear it.

Did you read the post on the "hologram technology" that you cited to me?

Posted by: Tamborine man May 7 2012, 11:11 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 5 2012, 12:02 PM) *
You're way off base TM. This has nothing to do with "capitulating" to anybody. It was in response to Jim Fetzer trying to redefine what NPT actually is ("NPT doesn't mean that there were no planes"...come on) and trying to wrap it up in credible documented and proven research by CIT and Rob.



Now you're completely confusing me, OSS!
Now it looks like we're completely talking past each other!

I have always been under the impression that "the no plane theory" first really started with the 'birth' of the 'Pentacon forum'
back in 2007. This 'countermeasure' as a result of the vicious attacks that then took place trying to discredit CIT.
Do you remember the slogan, "Hunt for the Boeing757"? Do you remember Swing Danglers 17 points, that conclusively proves
that no Boeing could have entered the pentagon, and therefore gave incredible support and much stronger backbone to the
"no plane theory"?

It is solely from this 'starting point' that i'm personally and independently defending NPT, and for no other reason.


QUOTE
You know yourself that anything I posted on the subject over at TAS wasn't a kneejerk reaction but an attempt by myself to see why good people like yourself defended it. To see if there was any basis for the claims. The reasons are listed above mate. There's no truth in it that I can see.


Yes i now gather that when you talk about NPT, then you're limiting the debate to exclusively center around WCT and nothing
else!
I cannot recall any time where you or Rob have been spelling out this "separation of terms" in a clear language, so that could
very well be where all the misunderstandings and confusions arise from!
Though i do grant you, that from yours and Rob's point of view it needn't have been done, as it should all have been "implied"
or "understood", but i'm sorry to say that on this occasion, i didn't get it.

So for the sake of absolute clarity can we now come to an agreement, that when you speak of NPT as being 'dead', then you're
only and exclusively referring to that as being the case solely with regards to WCT?

Can we also come to an agreement that the term, "NPT is dead", does not, and cannot, apply to the pentagon and to Shanksville?


QUOTE
You should be asking Jim Fetzer and Dennis Cimino why they created this little soap opera. Fetzer had his responses ready to copy and paste both here and at TAS because he knew what the reaction would be. He has painted anybody who doesn't agree with his warped wordplay as possible disinformationists (at VT - a site that allowed a clear disinfo "Pentagon missile" video be posted even though it was repeatedly proven that it was a hoax)


I only speak for myself. You should know this by now, OSS!


QUOTE
Did you read the post on the "hologram technology" that you cited to me?



Yes, and was going to reply earlier, but didn't find the time the last 3 - 4 days!

I noticed that you didn't mention my quote from DARPA's budget papers once! Will you tell me why?

Instead you quoted a lot from the "3D-holographic Display" paper. This link i included for no other reasons
than to show that even back in 1998 great research was conducted by others re. 'hologram projections'.

For me, the only important part is the one i quoted from DARPA's paper. It is in that especially, where the
clues are to be found, i think! (Is that why you ignored it)? dunno.gif wink.gif

In the OP's many posts, it looks like you're addressing several different people, but none in particular.

I can only offer comments to a couple:

For the most part, debris' falling from impact facade, looks like it consist mostly of pieces of alu. claddings,
as these pieces are long and narrow.

I think it will be rather difficult to prove that the 'oscillations' in the tower was caused by a plane. It could also
have been caused solely by the explosions, i think. (But i'm naturally biased, of course)!

Cheers

Posted by: rob balsamo May 7 2012, 11:43 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 7 2012, 11:11 PM) *
I have always been under the impression that "the no plane theory" first really started with the 'birth' of the 'Pentacon forum'
back in 2007.



You thought wrong.

Click....
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13622

Click...
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10864

then click...
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showforum=24
(be sure to adjust the drop down to "the beginning" on the lower right)

Note the dates....

Posted by: Tamborine man May 8 2012, 08:35 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 6 2012, 02:43 AM) *
You thought wrong.

Click....
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13622

Click...
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10864

then click...
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showforum=24
(be sure to adjust the drop down to "the beginning" on the lower right)

Note the dates....



I did - and humbly stand corrected.

Must admit that i never visited LCF, so missed out on this very interesting debate in those days!
(Not much has changed since then, it seems).

A few posts, from the threads you linked to, caught my attention -

'weknow', a.o.t., wrote:
"But this hologram story even its true you know we cant talk about this !
Its really difficult to make people understand what happened that day and you want to add the no-plane theory ???
Please don't, its already difficult like this."

'LiveFreeOrDieTrying' wrote:
"Even if no planes hit the towers, we have better change of exposing 9/11 by saying they did".

Strange really, what goes on in some peoples mind!
One "truther" is filled with fear, while the other
"truther" doesn't mind telling fibs!!

Nevertheless, i'll continue to defend the 'no plane theory' with regards to pentagon and Shanksville,
and looking forward to see if i at least will be able to come to an agreement with Onesliceshort, as
formulated in my previous post.

Cheers

Posted by: amazed! May 8 2012, 08:44 AM

Famous line from Cool Hand Luke--what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Posted by: rob balsamo May 8 2012, 09:01 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 8 2012, 08:35 AM) *
I did - and humbly stand corrected.


You're welcome TM!

Many feel that the NPT was/is an orchestrated disinformation campaign in order to obfuscate and marginalize the research done at the Pentagon and Shanksville during that time.

The NPT was running rampant at the time significant findings were being uncovered in Pentagon Research. Much of those people who started the NPT back then are no longer around.

Case in point....
http://www.infowars.com/is-nico-haupt-a-cointelpro-operative-2/

Posted by: Tamborine man May 8 2012, 09:04 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ May 6 2012, 11:44 AM) *
Famous line from Cool Hand Luke--what we have here is a failure to communicate.



Strother Martin!

Posted by: onesliceshort May 8 2012, 03:19 PM

QUOTE
Nevertheless, i'll continue to defend the 'no plane theory' with regards to pentagon and Shanksville,


That phrase is exactly why I objected to Fetzer's wordplay and his lumping of Pentagon and Shankesville research in with NPT.

It's not a case of crossed lines TM. There were planes involved. Any fudging of the definition of NPT doesn't interest me mate.

Edit: and the only paper I found online regarding DARPA and 3D holographic technology using Strontium Barium Niobate was the one I discussed (well, posted, nobody ever commented bar Senor el Once at TAS who has now rejected NPT having touted it for four years).

It's titled "3-D Holographic Display Using Strontium Barium Niobate". dunno.gif

Posted by: Tamborine man May 9 2012, 01:52 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 6 2012, 06:19 PM) *
That phrase is exactly why I objected to Fetzer's wordplay and his lumping of Pentagon and Shankesville research in with NPT.

It's not a case of crossed lines TM. There were planes involved. Any fudging of the definition of NPT doesn't interest me mate.


Hi OSS,
i got absolutely no interest in any kind of "wordplay" or "fudging of definitions" at all. For me
it is alone a question of Truth, the pursuit of Truth, telling the Truth, the whole Truth, and
nothing but the Truth.

I found Swing Danglers '17 points' over at CIT's discussion forum:

invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=317

It should be very clear and obvious from this, that the 17 points are meant to be seen as a
very strong defense of CIT's "no plane theory". I.e., no plane impacted the pentagon!

As Rob so rightly pointed out, and that i also pointed out, NPT was/is used as a very powerful
weapon (indeed a two-edged 'sword') to denigrate, discredit and annihilate CIT, P4T and their
supporters.
(I urge you to have a look over at truthfraction right at this moment)!

At WTC it is worse. Here the NPT people are called 'lunatic disinfo'es' by not only the shills,
loyalists and the professional disinformants, but also by other 'truthers' who are now siding
with their 'detractors'; albeit for completely other reasons!

The confusion is total, and that's why i was hoping to come to some agreement with you, to
try to alleviate some of this BS - but alas, this doesn't seem to be possible.

QUOTE
Edit: and the only paper I found online regarding DARPA and 3D holographic technology using Strontium Barium Niobate was
the one I discussed (well, posted, nobody ever commented bar Senor el Once at TAS who has now rejected NPT having touted
it for four years).

It's titled "3-D Holographic Display Using Strontium Barium Niobate". dunno.gif



In the thread "Debunkers respond to Cimino", you must have overlooked my post no.140!

And you must have overlooked it again in my reply post no. 210 to you on 27/3-12, where
i wrote:

"Please read in conjunction with quote from DARPA's budget paper, as shown in post 140!"

I my post no. 299 addressed to Rob on 15/4-12, I only quoted the pertinent part from the

DARPA Paper that i was interested in, as follows:
"…..
more sophisticated technology would have been utilized then; sort of more in line with what
DARPA was playing around with in those days - and of course, before that time as well:"

".....
These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)
based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state
lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits
per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges
(> 1000 kilometers).

Cheers

PS!
To give you a little glimpse of where i'm coming from, and perhaps imbue a little calm, i
recommend to you this gentle chant:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19879&st=840&start=840

PPS!
Link to CIT doesn't work!
Found in 'Pentagon' thread, under title: 'There is no friggin plane impact'. Post of 29/8-08.

Posted by: elreb May 10 2012, 06:44 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 8 2012, 07:52 PM) *
It should be very clear and obvious from this, that the 17 points are meant to be seen as a
very strong defense of CIT's "no plane theory". I.e., no plane impacted the pentagon!

I find it a lot simpler to state that AA 11, AA77, UA 93 and UA 173 did not hit anything.

Personally, I do not believe that any civilian 757/767 caused any damage.

Posted by: 23investigator May 11 2012, 07:22 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ May 11 2012, 08:14 AM) *
I find it a lot simpler to state that AA 11, AA77, UA 93 and UA 173 did not hit anything.

Personally, I do not believe that any civilian 757/767 caused any damage.


Dear 'elreb'

at the end of the day, it will be you, that is "right" on the money.

Robert S

Posted by: amazed! May 11 2012, 02:56 PM

Agreed, Elreb!

Posted by: Tamborine man May 11 2012, 10:48 PM

Agreed, elreb -

Cheers

Posted by: 23investigator May 12 2012, 04:32 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 12 2012, 12:18 PM) *
Agreed, elreb -

Cheers


Dear 'Tamborine man'

Please forgive me, but needed somewhere to tag this onto.
Just dealing, with the Boeing 757 -first-, that is the Pentagon.

Mr Bob Pugh, had no doubt in his mind, right from the first instant, that it did not appear a large commercial aircraft had come in impact with the Pentagon wall.
He expressed also there was no collatoral damage to support such a notion, in fact reporting the hole he saw in the wall as no more than 16 feet wide, as he expressed it, the size of a 'domestic garage door'.
This can be viewed on you tube --9/11 truth: Pentagon Eye Witness Bob Pugh Tells his story.
http://youtu.be/-xtEJ4zrlPM

On the same video, at 4:41 a Gentleman is handling a piece of debris, which people about comment could be part of the undercarriage of an aircraft, other comment made argued against this, saying it was too small.
Whoever made that comment was on the 'money', there can be little doubt, in fact when carefully considered, the part looks to have come away from another part of an aircraft, which was most definitely not a Boeing 757.
Another video on you tube --9/11 Pentagon Explosion and missing plane wreckage
http://youtu.be/YSGK13Cgg
At 9:41, shows the same gentleman holding the same piece of debris.

Another video on you tube -- Witness D C 9/11
http://youtu.be/DifwsjF8X5L
At 10:54 shows a Gentleman handling a piece of debris, with every appearance, of being ripped from some sort of aircraft. A person in the background can be heard to say --that is not from a commercial aircraft-- it is too thin, and comes from a smaller plane--, or words to that effect.
There can be little doubt that the man's opinion was on the 'money'.

It is puzzling to consider, why these instance of hard evidence, are being ignored, and the people involved have not been sought out, for their observations.

Robert S

Posted by: amazed! May 12 2012, 11:34 AM

Robert

For me, all 3 of those YouTubes were 'no longer available' dunno.gif

Posted by: 23investigator May 12 2012, 08:21 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ May 13 2012, 01:04 AM) *
Robert

For me, all 3 of those YouTubes were 'no longer available' dunno.gif


Dear 'amazed'

The internet seems to have those days.
In fact when I went to check out your comment it took a number of tries to get to it.
All other topics opened 'ok'.

When I went back into 'google' to use the address http;//youtu.be/DifwsjF8X5L, it told me it could not find such a topic.
I added the title Witness D.C. 9/11.
Same non result.

I then just used the title.
Witness D.C. 9/11.
Google brought it up.

The youtube info says
Full documentry new in 2010
uploaded by CTV911
Jan7 2011
7776 views.


Perhaps give that a try 'amazed'.

Hope the method works for you, and the other two.
Perhaps you can be 7777.

Robert S

Posted by: bpete1969 May 15 2012, 09:58 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 8 2012, 09:01 AM) *
You're welcome TM!

Many feel that the NPT was/is an orchestrated disinformation campaign in order to obfuscate and marginalize the research done at the Pentagon and Shanksville during that time.

The NPT was running rampant at the time significant findings were being uncovered in Pentagon Research. Much of those people who started the NPT back then are no longer around.

Case in point....
http://www.infowars.com/is-nico-haupt-a-cointelpro-operative-2/



Unfortunately, NPT will remain alive as long as people like Fetzer have the ability to get their hands on a keyboard.

As for disinfo...consider the method of presentation by the number one proponent of the theory. He makes a totally subjective claim and relies on facts that lay on the periphery of his main argument to bolster the main claim. When that fails, he uses the "only a fool would disagree" ploy and then states that he has proven his case. Any question you pose or rebuttal you offer is immediately dismissed and then he ridicules you for being a "disappointment" to him, or that he expected better of you and you failed. He then tries to throw you off by inundating you with links to all of his past works on the subject as if the fact they are print on a webpage makes then definitive proof that he is right and you are wrong. When that fails, he then falls back on his education and PhD as a way to intimidate you.
Uncle Fetzer was made for disinfo....and you have to commend him on doing the job well, for a time.

Posted by: rob balsamo May 15 2012, 11:37 PM

QUOTE (bpete1969 @ May 15 2012, 09:58 PM) *
When that fails, he uses the "only a fool would disagree" ploy and then states that he has proven his case. Any question you pose or rebuttal you offer is immediately dismissed and then he ridicules you for being a "disappointment" to him, or that he expected better of you and you failed.



Yes, I especially get a good chuckle (well, perhaps a deep belly laugh really) when Fetzer now claims I am not competent to be the head of P4T. Especially given the fact that he knows I created P4T and grown this list of my peers with my work...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Again, Fetzer is just pissed off that we will not endorse his crap, nor does our work support his crap.. .and like clockwork, he attacks anyone who disputes his crap.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 20 2014, 06:23 AM

Bump

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 24 2014, 08:38 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 11:23 AM) *
Bump


I'm bumping this again for anybody who actually wants to debate the content.

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 24 2014, 09:40 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 24 2014, 07:38 PM) *
I'm bumping this again for anybody who actually wants to debate the content.


I don't need to debate this but I just wanted to say job well done OSS!
You've got all the important points pretty much covered.

Posted by: Alpha66 Jun 3 2015, 08:44 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 24 2014, 09:40 PM) *
I don't need to debate this but I just wanted to say job well done OSS!
You've got all the important points pretty much covered.


PLEASE READ - important:

Just checked this thread, and found Spetember Clues and Simon S. (his name is in reality Simon Hytten btw) are mentioned. I can only warn people of this guy and his theories. Especially about his forum which seems to be run by the Stasi or Gestapo. My advise: Ignore this guy Simon H. and his peers and all his sites, videos and fora. It might evben be these people are so called "gatekeepers" to divide and ridicule the "truth" movement. I have no proof for this, but found their stuff and behaviour ridiculous. Research these guys yourself and you may find suspect stuff. That´s all I am going to say, but again just ignore these S.Clues club of fraudsters. rolleyes.gif thumbdown.gif

Here is a hint where to begin your research of these "persons":

http://killtownsecretarchive.blogspot.de/2009/10/simon-hytten-dumb-as-post.html

Posted by: NP1Mike Jun 3 2015, 06:47 PM

QUOTE (Alpha66 @ Jun 3 2015, 07:44 AM) *
PLEASE READ - important:

Just checked this thread, and found Spetember Clues and Simon S. (his name is in reality Simon Hytten btw) are mentioned. I can only warn people of this guy and his theories. Especially about his forum which seems to be run by the Stasi or Gestapo. My advise: Ignore this guy Simon H. and his peers and all his sites, videos and fora. It might evben be these people are so called "gatekeepers" to divide and ridicule the "truth" movement. I have no proof for this, but found their stuff and behaviour ridiculous. Research these guys yourself and you may find suspect stuff. That´s all I am going to say, but again just ignore these S.Clues club of fraudsters. rolleyes.gif thumbdown.gif

Here is a hint where to begin your research of these "persons":

http://killtownsecretarchive.blogspot.de/2009/10/simon-hytten-dumb-as-post.html



I think Simon S./September Clues became popular simply because of opportunism. He was at the right place at the right time.
I have watched more of his videos/garbage than I really should have.
There are so many holes/errors in them that it is really pathetic.

I can only agree. If anyone still hasn't discovered this kook, do yourself a big favor and pass him by. It will be time worth saved.



Posted by: 23investigator Jun 4 2015, 06:07 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ May 12 2012, 06:02 PM) *
Dear 'Tamborine man'

Please forgive me, but needed somewhere to tag this onto.
Just dealing, with the Boeing 757 -first-, that is the Pentagon.

Mr Bob Pugh, had no doubt in his mind, right from the first instant, that it did not appear a large commercial aircraft had come in impact with the Pentagon wall.
He expressed also there was no collatoral damage to support such a notion, in fact reporting the hole he saw in the wall as no more than 16 feet wide, as he expressed it, the size of a 'domestic garage door'.
This can be viewed on you tube --9/11 truth: Pentagon Eye Witness Bob Pugh Tells his story.
http://youtu.be/-xtEJ4zrlPM

On the same video, at 4:41 a Gentleman is handling a piece of debris, which people about comment could be part of the undercarriage of an aircraft, other comment made argued against this, saying it was too small.
Whoever made that comment was on the 'money', there can be little doubt, in fact when carefully considered, the part looks to have come away from another part of an aircraft, which was most definitely not a Boeing 757.
Another video on you tube --9/11 Pentagon Explosion and missing plane wreckage
http://youtu.be/YSGK13Cgg
At 9:41, shows the same gentleman holding the same piece of debris.

Another video on you tube -- Witness D C 9/11
http://youtu.be/DifwsjF8X5L
At 10:54 shows a Gentleman handling a piece of debris, with every appearance, of being ripped from some sort of aircraft. A person in the background can be heard to say --that is not from a commercial aircraft-- it is too thin, and comes from a smaller plane--, or words to that effect.
There can be little doubt that the man's opinion was on the 'money'.

It is puzzling to consider, why these instance of hard evidence, are being ignored, and the people involved have not been sought out, for their observations.

Robert S


Dear 'NP1Mike' and 'Tamborine Man'

Please forgive me for this route to bring forward this comment.

(1) In the case above: it is very clear from viewing the video that these were not rehearsed comments.

(2) In the case of Tower two: there were some comments made by people who appear not to have rehearsed their lines.

They clearly and articulately stated that the aircraft they had just seen hit tower two was not a large commercial airliner such as a Boeing 767.

It seems these people have become lost in the fog of illusion that no doubt kicked into high gear after both these terrible events.

Robert S

Posted by: 23investigator Jun 6 2015, 02:32 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 4 2015, 07:37 PM) *
Dear 'NP1Mike' and 'Tamborine Man'

Please forgive me for this route to bring forward this comment.

(1) In the case above: it is very clear from viewing the video that these were not rehearsed comments.

(2) In the case of Tower two: there were some comments made by people who appear not to have rehearsed their lines.

They clearly and articulately stated that the aircraft they had just seen hit tower two was not a large commercial airliner such as a Boeing 767.

It seems these people have become lost in the fog of illusion that no doubt kicked into high gear after both these terrible events.

Robert S



Continuing the theme above.

There is a video in which a woman in a helicopter is in conversation with another woman back at a TV station.

Her initial account was that she had sighted the aircraft that actually hit Tower Two.

It most certainly did not seem she was talking about a large passenger aircraft.

In fact that conversation was clearly edited and again lost in the fog of illusion.

My personal appraisal of the video is that it is the most realistic of any of the video footage presented and still available to the public.

Not to say it has not been visually edited as well as the audio discussion between the two women: as it most definitely has.

The visual editing is by superimposing a white globe effect over the actual aircraft detail.

The aircraft is not anything like the proportions of a Boeing 767.

Robert S


Posted by: 23investigator Jun 10 2015, 05:30 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 6 2015, 04:02 PM) *
Continuing the theme above.

There is a video in which a woman in a helicopter is in conversation with another woman back at a TV station.

Her initial account was that she had sighted the aircraft that actually hit Tower Two.

It most certainly did not seem she was talking about a large passenger aircraft.

In fact that conversation was clearly edited and again lost in the fog of illusion.

My personal appraisal of the video is that it is the most realistic of any of the video footage presented and still available to the public.

Not to say it has not been visually edited as well as the audio discussion between the two women: as it most definitely has.

The visual editing is by superimposing a white globe effect over the actual aircraft detail.

The aircraft is not anything like the proportions of a Boeing 767.

Robert S


More of above

In the first instance, the woman appears to refer to a 737.

She then modifies her comment to a very large aircraft, like a Boeing 747 or a DC9.

A male in the mix of conversation then says: "to be honest Elli, I did not get the impression that it was that 'bigger' plane".

I hope he kept his job: the world needs more honest people like that.

The conversation then fluctuated between: at least a 727 saw it a minute ago: and it was at least a 727, 727 or 737.

Robert S


Posted by: 23investigator Jun 12 2015, 05:27 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 10 2015, 07:00 PM) *
More of above

In the first instance, the woman appears to refer to a 737.

She then modifies her comment to a very large aircraft, like a Boeing 747 or a DC9.

A male in the mix of conversation then says: "to be honest Elli, I did not get the impression that it was that 'bigger' plane".

I hope he kept his job: the world needs more honest people like that.

The conversation then fluctuated between: at least a 727 saw it a minute ago: and it was at least a 727, 727 or 737.

Robert S


There are various versions of the video I am referring to.

Like most videos on the internet over the issue of 9/11: quality varies greatly.

One thing is consistent: the aircraft involved is small: compared to the size of a Boeing 767.

Another: the aircraft follows the same flight path.

Perhaps the most significant: when the aircraft becomes visible an interesting thing happens.

Tower Two becomes wider on the side nearest Tower one.

To really appreciate this it is necessary to view all the videos labelled "chopper 4": and others showing the same event that are not so labelled.

If and when you view these videos: please ask yourself: how could Tower Two become wider (wider than Tower one): and WHY.

Robert S



Posted by: 23investigator Jun 14 2015, 07:41 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 12 2015, 06:57 PM) *
There are various versions of the video I am referring to.

Like most videos on the internet over the issue of 9/11: quality varies greatly.

One thing is consistent: the aircraft involved is small: compared to the size of a Boeing 767.

Another: the aircraft follows the same flight path.

Perhaps the most significant: when the aircraft becomes visible an interesting thing happens.

Tower Two becomes wider on the side nearest Tower one.

To really appreciate this it is necessary to view all the videos labelled "chopper 4": and others showing the same event that are not so labelled.

If and when you view these videos: please ask yourself: how could Tower Two become wider (wider than Tower one): and WHY.

Robert S


If you are still with this series of posts.

There is one video on youtube that is very worth viewing.

The Google address: NIST FIOA WTC2 Plane Impact WTC1 Smoke Ejections, 9 03am (NBC4 News Broadcast)(1)

I suggest you type the address in full, as provided: it may be case-sensitive.

You should find the quality of this video as being very good.

The aircraft that appears from the top right corner of the screen is relatively 'well defined'.

The aircraft is not very large: but the wings are visible: as is the horizontal stabiliser on the port side of the aircraft.

The altitude of the aircraft is discernable: the distance from the towers is a little more difficult to determine: but to trained pilots: probably not that
difficult.

As the aircraft progresses closer to the Towers: it becomes obvious that it is not a very large aircraft.

In this instance, the white effect evident about the starboard wing does not appear to be as a result of image editing: as clearly the white
globe effect is: in other versions of this video.

I am not saying by this: that video has not been edited: as I am suspicious that it has.

But if you pause the video just before the aircraft goes out of view behind Tower one: at the top right corner of Tower one: it is
evident that the aircraft is at that point, over the water: and compared to the size of the Towers: not all that large.

With the video paused: Tower two appears to be wider than Tower one.

If you use a piece of paper and pencil and mark off the width of Tower two and compare it with the width of Tower one: you should
be left with no doubt at all that Tower two for some reason is wider than Tower one.

My suspicion is that this is the result of image editing.

Why? to not reveal the size of the aircraft as it becomes (or should become) visible between the two towers.

You should also notice that at this very time in 'this video' there is a 'cut in', showing Tower one, with evidence of an explosion at the bottom left.

A female commentator breaks in with: "another one just hit".

If you remember the commentators in other versions of the same video said they did not notice the aircraft circling the towers: being
generous the 'cut in' may have been a genuine one: but it is interesting to note: that the explosion is nonetheless still recorded in the main video!!!

The audio of a woman though, then saying: "something just hit, a very large plane, a 747 or a DC9 just flew past my window"!!!

I ask you: did it look like a very large plane to you??

It is well worth listening to the remainder of the audio.

They then 'cut in' another piece of video: which the male commentator says: "is another piece of tape".

I ask you: does that aircraft look like a Boeing 767??

The male commentator is the same one who previously says: "to be honest Elli, I did not get the impression it was that bigger plane".

Please watch the rest of the video, and listen carefully to the audio.

Robert S

Posted by: 23investigator Jun 19 2015, 11:51 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 14 2015, 09:11 PM) *
If you are still with this series of posts.

There is one video on youtube that is very worth viewing.

The Google address: NIST FIOA WTC2 Plane Impact WTC1 Smoke Ejections, 9 03am (NBC4 News Broadcast)(1)

I suggest you type the address in full, as provided: it may be case-sensitive.

You should find the quality of this video as being very good.

The aircraft that appears from the top right corner of the screen is relatively 'well defined'.

The aircraft is not very large: but the wings are visible: as is the horizontal stabiliser on the port side of the aircraft.

The altitude of the aircraft is discernable: the distance from the towers is a little more difficult to determine: but to trained pilots: probably not that
difficult.

As the aircraft progresses closer to the Towers: it becomes obvious that it is not a very large aircraft.

In this instance, the white effect evident about the starboard wing does not appear to be as a result of image editing: as clearly the white
globe effect is: in other versions of this video.

I am not saying by this: that video has not been edited: as I am suspicious that it has.

But if you pause the video just before the aircraft goes out of view behind Tower one: at the top right corner of Tower one: it is
evident that the aircraft is at that point, over the water: and compared to the size of the Towers: not all that large.

With the video paused: Tower two appears to be wider than Tower one.

If you use a piece of paper and pencil and mark off the width of Tower two and compare it with the width of Tower one: you should
be left with no doubt at all that Tower two for some reason is wider than Tower one.

My suspicion is that this is the result of image editing.

Why? to not reveal the size of the aircraft as it becomes (or should become) visible between the two towers.

You should also notice that at this very time in 'this video' there is a 'cut in', showing Tower one, with evidence of an explosion at the bottom left.

A female commentator breaks in with: "another one just hit".

If you remember the commentators in other versions of the same video said they did not notice the aircraft circling the towers: being
generous the 'cut in' may have been a genuine one: but it is interesting to note: that the explosion is nonetheless still recorded in the main video!!!

The audio of a woman though, then saying: "something just hit, a very large plane, a 747 or a DC9 just flew past my window"!!!

I ask you: did it look like a very large plane to you??

It is well worth listening to the remainder of the audio.

They then 'cut in' another piece of video: which the male commentator says: "is another piece of tape".

I ask you: does that aircraft look like a Boeing 767??

The male commentator is the same one who previously says: "to be honest Elli, I did not get the impression it was that bigger plane".

Please watch the rest of the video, and listen carefully to the audio.

Robert S


Continuing: but diverging a little.

A Mr Richard Hall from the UK has prepared a number of interesting videos.

I am not promoting that all he has had to say is correct.

Work that he carried out relating to the flight path visible in twenty-six different videos showing an "image of an aircraft" that appears to collide with Tower two, compared to a plot of the flight path created by using
information collected from civilian radar is interesting.

From 3D modelling created by Mr Hall from the above data: it is apparent that the flight path in the videos aligns with the radar plot.

Each of the videos though: seems to have a different shaped aircraft.

The aircraft in each video just seem to pass through the wall of the tower unhindered.

Yet then in later photographs (many extracted from video taken) there appears to be significant damage caused to the wall of the tower at the point of entry of the aircraft.

As extensive as the damage appears, it is still not large enough to accommodate the free passage of a Boeing767: yet the aircraft in the videos give every appearance of passing through the wall as a complete unit.

Those of the videos that are taken from the side of the aircraft are such that they do not allow any consideration of the penetration hole at the moment of impact.

Those of the videos that are taken from behind or below the aircraft: all have had one thing in common.

The appearance of the wall, before and when the aircraft passes through, have obviously been digitally image edited.

There is no doubt about this: when the lack of detail of the wall is considered.

But then after the explosion and smoke have subsided "lo and behold" there is a gaping hole in the wall, with all detail showing.

Robert S

Posted by: NP1Mike Jun 19 2015, 05:11 PM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 19 2015, 10:51 AM) *
The appearance of the wall, before and when the aircraft passes through, have obviously been digitally image edited.

There is no doubt about this: when the lack of detail of the wall is considered.

But then after the explosion and smoke have subsided "lo and behold" there is a gaping hole in the wall, with all detail showing.

Robert S


As a 'planer' (with no doubts whatsoever about the tower impacts/penetrations) I too remain puzzled by the lack of reaction of the towers as the plane is entering.

If we focus just on the fuselage entering WTC2 for a moment, in addition to plane parts that should have broken apart the instant of contact, we also should have seen the wall area around the fuselage break up, even to the smallest degree.
But we don't see any of this.



Posted by: 23investigator Jun 20 2015, 01:03 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) *
As a 'planer' (with no doubts whatsoever about the tower impacts/penetrations) I too remain puzzled by the lack of reaction of the towers as the plane is entering.

If we focus just on the fuselage entering WTC2 for a moment, in addition to plane parts that should have broken apart the instant of contact, we also should have seen the wall area around the fuselage break up, even to the smallest degree.
But we don't see any of this.


Dear, 'NP1Mike'

Yes.

Perhaps the best video to consider about this discussion is: New High def Plane hits South Tower on 9 11

Whilst the image of the aircraft does not convince me it is that of a Boeing 767: as well as suffering the malady of other videos where wings and tailplane shorten and momentarily disappear, whilst the fuselage takes on a bent
appearance: all this before the aircraft is in contact with the tower wall.

When considering the actual impact and disappearance: the first evidence of the event is grey to white individual balloons.
This expands into a larger grey white balloon: through which a reddish centre progresses outwards and upwards to then exhaust in the rising part of the enlarging white balloon plume: which then turns darker in colour.
Whilst this is happening: a different white effect develops under the original bottom of the first reaction.
This effect seems to be accompanied by a considerable amount of solid objects which appear to have been ejected away from the wall and are falling earthwards due to gravity.
The individual plumes then seem to convolute into a large dirty grey one with some whiter elements: with a distinct reddish portion appearing at the height of the impact in the centre of the width of the south face.

There was a very similar appearance in the video of the impact with the North Tower: and the Pentagon.
In the case of the North Tower: after a distinct flash before the aircraft reaches the face of the tower.

Aircraft are normally fuelled with 'hydrocarbon' fluid: which when it explodes, forms a very active red balloon: which as the volatiles are consumed changes into a black cloud.

Why is there only a 'hydrocarbon' explosion once the aircraft has disappeared into the inside of the tower?

One: the aircraft did not explode at the time of impact: which is highly unlikely if it had impacted the wall of the tower.
Two: the aircraft did not impact with the wall of the tower: but exploded once it became in contact with objects within the tower.

So: what caused the evidence of the white explosion?

When it is considered as to the overall magnitude of the 'hydrocarbon' explosion along the eastern wall and the eastern side of the northern wall: there would have had to have been a significant amount involved.

It seems the only way that such a volume could have been available for the explosion: is that it was conveyed into the building by some sort of aircraft.

Unless the floors of the South Tower that were involved in the explosion were not occupied and were used as receptacles for 'hydrocarbon' fuel.

Robert S





Posted by: 23investigator Jun 20 2015, 01:03 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) *
As a 'planer' (with no doubts whatsoever about the tower impacts/penetrations) I too remain puzzled by the lack of reaction of the towers as the plane is entering.

If we focus just on the fuselage entering WTC2 for a moment, in addition to plane parts that should have broken apart the instant of contact, we also should have seen the wall area around the fuselage break up, even to the smallest degree.
But we don't see any of this.


Dear, 'NP1Mike'

Yes.

Perhaps the best video to consider about this discussion is: New High def Plane hits South Tower on 9 11

Whilst the image of the aircraft does not convince me it is that of a Boeing 767: as well as suffering the malady of other videos where wings and tailplane shorten and momentarily disappear, whilst the fuselage takes on a bent
appearance: all this before the aircraft is in contact with the tower wall.

When considering the actual impact and disappearance: the first evidence of the event is grey to white individual balloons.
This expands into a larger grey white balloon: through which a reddish centre progresses outwards and upwards to then exhaust in the rising part of the enlarging white balloon plume: which then turns darker in colour.
Whilst this is happening: a different white effect develops under the original bottom of the first reaction.
This effect seems to be accompanied by a considerable amount of solid objects which appear to have been ejected away from the wall and are falling earthwards due to gravity.
The individual plumes then seem to convolute into a large dirty grey one with some whiter elements: with a distinct reddish portion appearing at the height of the impact in the centre of the width of the south face.

There was a very similar appearance in the video of the impact with the North Tower: and the Pentagon.
In the case of the North Tower: after a distinct flash before the aircraft reaches the face of the tower.

Aircraft are normally fuelled with 'hydrocarbon' fluid: which when it explodes, forms a very active red balloon: which as the volatiles are consumed changes into a black cloud.

Why is there only a 'hydrocarbon' explosion once the aircraft has disappeared into the inside of the tower?

One: the aircraft did not explode at the time of impact: which is highly unlikely if it had impacted the wall of the tower.
Two: the aircraft did not impact with the wall of the tower: but exploded once it became in contact with objects within the tower.

So: what caused the evidence of the white explosion?

When it is considered as to the overall magnitude of the 'hydrocarbon' explosion along the eastern wall and the eastern side of the northern wall: there would have had to have been a significant amount involved.

It seems the only way that such a volume could have been available for the explosion: is that it was conveyed into the building by some sort of aircraft.

Unless the floors of the South Tower that were involved in the explosion were not occupied and were used as receptacles for 'hydrocarbon' fuel.

Robert S





Posted by: 23investigator Jun 20 2015, 01:05 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) *
As a 'planer' (with no doubts whatsoever about the tower impacts/penetrations) I too remain puzzled by the lack of reaction of the towers as the plane is entering.

If we focus just on the fuselage entering WTC2 for a moment, in addition to plane parts that should have broken apart the instant of contact, we also should have seen the wall area around the fuselage break up, even to the smallest degree.
But we don't see any of this.


Dear, 'NP1Mike'

Yes.

Perhaps the best video to consider about this discussion is: New High def Plane hits South Tower on 9 11

Whilst the image of the aircraft does not convince me it is that of a Boeing 767: as well as suffering the malady of other videos where wings and tailplane shorten and momentarily disappear, whilst the fuselage takes on a bent
appearance: all this before the aircraft is in contact with the tower wall.

When considering the actual impact and disappearance: the first evidence of the event is grey to white individual balloons.
This expands into a larger grey white balloon: through which a reddish centre progresses outwards and upwards to then exhaust in the rising part of the enlarging white balloon plume: which then turns darker in colour.
Whilst this is happening: a different white effect develops under the original bottom of the first reaction.
This effect seems to be accompanied by a considerable amount of solid objects which appear to have been ejected away from the wall and are falling earthwards due to gravity.
The individual plumes then seem to convolute into a large dirty grey one with some whiter elements: with a distinct reddish portion appearing at the height of the impact in the centre of the width of the south face.

There was a very similar appearance in the video of the impact with the North Tower: and the Pentagon.
In the case of the North Tower: after a distinct flash before the aircraft reaches the face of the tower.

Aircraft are normally fuelled with 'hydrocarbon' fluid: which when it explodes, forms a very active red balloon: which as the volatiles are consumed changes into a black cloud.

Why is there only a 'hydrocarbon' explosion once the aircraft has disappeared into the inside of the tower?

One: the aircraft did not explode at the time of impact: which is highly unlikely if it had impacted the wall of the tower.
Two: the aircraft did not impact with the wall of the tower: but exploded once it became in contact with objects within the tower.

So: what caused the evidence of the white explosion?

When it is considered as to the overall magnitude of the 'hydrocarbon' explosion along the eastern wall and the eastern side of the northern wall: there would have had to have been a significant amount involved.

It seems the only way that such a volume could have been available for the explosion: is that it was conveyed into the building by some sort of aircraft.

Unless the floors of the South Tower that were involved in the explosion were not occupied and were used as receptacles for 'hydrocarbon' fuel.

Robert S





Posted by: 23investigator Jun 20 2015, 01:05 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 20 2015, 06:41 AM) *
As a 'planer' (with no doubts whatsoever about the tower impacts/penetrations) I too remain puzzled by the lack of reaction of the towers as the plane is entering.

If we focus just on the fuselage entering WTC2 for a moment, in addition to plane parts that should have broken apart the instant of contact, we also should have seen the wall area around the fuselage break up, even to the smallest degree.
But we don't see any of this.


Dear, 'NP1Mike'

Yes.

Perhaps the best video to consider about this discussion is: New High def Plane hits South Tower on 9 11

Whilst the image of the aircraft does not convince me it is that of a Boeing 767: as well as suffering the malady of other videos where wings and tailplane shorten and momentarily disappear, whilst the fuselage takes on a bent
appearance: all this before the aircraft is in contact with the tower wall.

When considering the actual impact and disappearance: the first evidence of the event is grey to white individual balloons.
This expands into a larger grey white balloon: through which a reddish centre progresses outwards and upwards to then exhaust in the rising part of the enlarging white balloon plume: which then turns darker in colour.
Whilst this is happening: a different white effect develops under the original bottom of the first reaction.
This effect seems to be accompanied by a considerable amount of solid objects which appear to have been ejected away from the wall and are falling earthwards due to gravity.
The individual plumes then seem to convolute into a large dirty grey one with some whiter elements: with a distinct reddish portion appearing at the height of the impact in the centre of the width of the south face.

There was a very similar appearance in the video of the impact with the North Tower: and the Pentagon.
In the case of the North Tower: after a distinct flash before the aircraft reaches the face of the tower.

Aircraft are normally fuelled with 'hydrocarbon' fluid: which when it explodes, forms a very active red balloon: which as the volatiles are consumed changes into a black cloud.

Why is there only a 'hydrocarbon' explosion once the aircraft has disappeared into the inside of the tower?

One: the aircraft did not explode at the time of impact: which is highly unlikely if it had impacted the wall of the tower.
Two: the aircraft did not impact with the wall of the tower: but exploded once it became in contact with objects within the tower.

So: what caused the evidence of the white explosion?

When it is considered as to the overall magnitude of the 'hydrocarbon' explosion along the eastern wall and the eastern side of the northern wall: there would have had to have been a significant amount involved.

It seems the only way that such a volume could have been available for the explosion: is that it was conveyed into the building by some sort of aircraft.

Unless the floors of the South Tower that were involved in the explosion were not occupied and were used as receptacles for 'hydrocarbon' fuel.

Robert S





Posted by: 23investigator Jun 24 2015, 05:04 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 20 2015, 02:35 PM) *
Dear, 'NP1Mike'

Yes.

Perhaps the best video to consider about this discussion is: New High def Plane hits South Tower on 9 11

Whilst the image of the aircraft does not convince me it is that of a Boeing 767: as well as suffering the malady of other videos where wings and tailplane shorten and momentarily disappear, whilst the fuselage takes on a bent
appearance: all this before the aircraft is in contact with the tower wall.

When considering the actual impact and disappearance: the first evidence of the event is grey to white individual balloons.
This expands into a larger grey white balloon: through which a reddish centre progresses outwards and upwards to then exhaust in the rising part of the enlarging white balloon plume: which then turns darker in colour.
Whilst this is happening: a different white effect develops under the original bottom of the first reaction.
This effect seems to be accompanied by a considerable amount of solid objects which appear to have been ejected away from the wall and are falling earthwards due to gravity.
The individual plumes then seem to convolute into a large dirty grey one with some whiter elements: with a distinct reddish portion appearing at the height of the impact in the centre of the width of the south face.

There was a very similar appearance in the video of the impact with the North Tower: and the Pentagon.
In the case of the North Tower: after a distinct flash before the aircraft reaches the face of the tower.

Aircraft are normally fuelled with 'hydrocarbon' fluid: which when it explodes, forms a very active red balloon: which as the volatiles are consumed changes into a black cloud.

Why is there only a 'hydrocarbon' explosion once the aircraft has disappeared into the inside of the tower?

One: the aircraft did not explode at the time of impact: which is highly unlikely if it had impacted the wall of the tower.
Two: the aircraft did not impact with the wall of the tower: but exploded once it became in contact with objects within the tower.

So: what caused the evidence of the white explosion?

When it is considered as to the overall magnitude of the 'hydrocarbon' explosion along the eastern wall and the eastern side of the northern wall: there would have had to have been a significant amount involved.

It seems the only way that such a volume could have been available for the explosion: is that it was conveyed into the building by some sort of aircraft.

Unless the floors of the South Tower that were involved in the explosion were not occupied and were used as receptacles for 'hydrocarbon' fuel.

Robert S



Sorry about all the duplications: I don't think I was patient enough.

Changing direction a little.

Can anybody explain to me the phenomenon evident in the images of the fuselage skin that was photographed on Building five: where there appears to be a 'brown coloured material' behind the outer aluminium skin in a number of locations.

thanks

Robert S

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)