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
Physics And Materials Science Of Collision, Looking for a quantitative understanding based on science

resurgance
post May 19 2013, 01:46 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 3-May 13
Member No.: 7,383



Hello Everyone,

I am new to this forum.

I would like to ask a question please which is about the 'Sandia F4
Phantom Crash Test Video'.  There are several versions of it out there on the net and youtube.  In one version there is a telephone conversation going on layered over the top.

Does anyone know the version I mean? Am I allowed to post a link to it here?

I am very interested to try and find one of the people who are talking in the converstion.  I think that one of the people on the phone might be Jeff Hill.  The other person who is supposedly a NASA scientist sounds like he might be from the Netherlands or somewhere like that.  I would
like to be ask this chap some  questions about his because he does sound like a fairly well informed scientist who has spent time on this

Does anyone here know the video I am referring to and who the gentleman might be?  
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post May 19 2013, 03:43 PM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 476
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (resurgance @ May 19 2013, 12:46 PM) *
Hello Everyone,

I am new to this forum.

I would like to ask a question please which is about the 'Sandia F4
Phantom Crash Test Video'. There are several versions of it out there on the net and youtube. In one version there is a telephone conversation going on layered over the top.

Does anyone know the version I mean? Am I allowed to post a link to it here?

I am very interested to try and find one of the people who are talking in the converstion. I think that one of the people on the phone might be Jeff Hill. The other person who is supposedly a NASA scientist sounds like he might be from the Netherlands or somewhere like that. I would
like to be ask this chap some questions about his because he does sound like a fairly well informed scientist who has spent time on this

Does anyone here know the video I am referring to and who the gentleman might be?


Post the link(s), please.

Do you think the simulation has any relevance to the Pentagon?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 20 2013, 10:45 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

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



Maybe Hill the Shill was talking to this con artist?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778170
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
resurgance
post May 21 2013, 01:00 PM
Post #4





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 3-May 13
Member No.: 7,383



QUOTE (kawika @ May 20 2013, 02:43 AM) *
Post the link(s), please.


Do you think the simulation has any relevance to the Pentagon?


Hi - thanks for the replies. Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPe-bKIid8w

When I just clicked on it again, I saw that it was uploaded by pumpshitout.com

When I started to get drawn into this, well I have to say it just felt weird. Because I had 'avoided' considering any 'no planes theories' probably for the same reason that rest of Jo public does, because it all becomes too confusing and difficult to think about. I am no seasoned conspiracy theorist - just never cared before to question things. But then I watched, loose change, and that did make me start looking deeper. Soon after that I heard a radio interview with one of you chaps, and that was probably the most significant thing. After that I looked at ACE Baker's 'the key' and that was when something just fell into place because I realized that I had always felt there was something off about those videos of flight 175 going into the south tower.

At that point I started thinking about the science of it because that is what was bothering me. Sometime around about then I stumbled across 'scientists for 911 truth'. It sounded like what I was looking for. I sent the coordinator an email and he wrote back siting this video as pretty much perfect and final
proof of both the pentagon attack and the WTC.

It took me a couple of days and then I realized that the F4 is completly different than a passenger jet so the comparison is scientifically valid. And then it occurred to me that there were rockets firing the F4 and driving it all the time as it plows it's way into the wall.

So I was rather disappointed because they were calling thelves 'scientists for 911 truth'. I have written back to them three times, and politely asked if they could tell me who the NASA scientist
was but I have heard nothing more.

I did want to ask what other members here make of Judy Woods comments/photographs of the aftermath. I am very interested in how the mentality of the 'debunking' community naturally makes one disinclined to 'look for one self'. It is when I noticed that Judy Wood was being almost universally scapegoated, I thought it would worth the effort of listening for my self to what she is saying. I don't really know what a million and a half tons of rubble should look like but everytime I look at those arial shots now - well it does all look rather too flat and close to street level. And when she points out all those neat round holes in the buildings and melted burning cars surrounded by paper that is not burning, well that just takes it all to another level of weirdness.

I am rambling - cheers - keep up the good work! smile.gif

This post has been edited by resurgance: May 21 2013, 01:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post May 22 2013, 08:51 PM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 476
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



I see a few things wrong with this test.

1. 90 degrees to the wall.
2. Wall is thick concrete, not brick, kevlar, steel and limestone.
3. Fighters are designed for higher stresses than commercial airliners.
4. It is on a fixed rail, not floating 15 feet above the earth.
5. It doesn't encounter five light poles, cyclone fence, a trailer mounted generator and another fence before reaching the wall.
5. I don't see the jet penetrating the wall and continuing 310 feet, on an angle, through a forest of reinforced concrete columns, furniture and interior walls.

Am I forgetting anything?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 22 2013, 09:17 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
Am I forgetting anything?


The strengthened concrete. It was to test concrete that was to be used in nuclear plants!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post May 22 2013, 09:19 PM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 476
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 22 2013, 08:17 PM) *
The strengthened concrete. It was to test concrete that was to be used in nuclear plants!


I am not seeing an after picture in the video. How badly damaged was the wall?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 22 2013, 09:43 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (kawika @ May 23 2013, 02:19 AM) *
I am not seeing an after picture in the video. How badly damaged was the wall?


Good question. I've never seen it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post May 22 2013, 10:00 PM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 22 2013, 08:43 PM) *
Good question. I've never seen it.

Because the video is like a magic trick. It makes you think you're seeing more than you really are. The film stops right at impact and you never see the final results of the crash.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
resurgance
post Jun 7 2013, 08:35 AM
Post #10





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 3-May 13
Member No.: 7,383



QUOTE (kawika @ May 23 2013, 07:51 AM) *
I see a few things wrong with this test.

1. 90 degrees to the wall.
2. Wall is thick concrete, not brick, kevlar, steel and limestone.
3. Fighters are designed for higher stresses than commercial airliners.
4. It is on a fixed rail, not floating 15 feet above the earth.
5. It doesn't encounter five light poles, cyclone fence, a trailer mounted generator and another fence before reaching the wall.
5. I don't see the jet penetrating the wall and continuing 310 feet, on an angle, through a forest of reinforced concrete columns, furniture and interior walls.

Am I forgetting anything?


Exactly! Well said.

I got sent this video link by Frank Legge who claimed that it was perfect proof of how a planes tail can show no deceleration as it crashes into a building.

I was actually asking about WTC south tower and flight 175.

I found scientist for 9/11truth and mistakenly thought that I would find some hard edged, real
honest scientist who could explain using experimentally verifiable proper mathematical
explanation. Instead, I got a patronizing and pompous reply from Frank along with this stupid pointless video.

What really infuriates me (and this is not often these days) is that I have now politely written to him on three separate occasions asking where he got the video from
and who the alleged NASΑ scientist is. And so
far he has not replied. I think it is extremely dishonest for someone to start a website that they call
scientists for 9/11 truth, when they are clearly not interested in the truth and no nothing about what real
science is about.
Dear Frank

I wrote to you a while back saying that I was interested in trying to understand more about the alleged collision of flight 175 with the South Tower of the World
Trade Centre on sept 11, 2001.

I wrote to you because your website was called 'scientists for 9/11 truth' and thought that perhaps this would be a place where I could find some of the answers I was looking for.

You sent me a link to a video of a crash test done by Sandia Labs which you said
proved that it was possible for flight 175 to crash into WTC2 without the tail section showing any deceleration.

I responded three times since then giving justifiable scientific reasons for disagreeing with that opinion, the main objection being that in order to compare the situations fairly the it is not sufficient that the object in the collision is any 'plane' traveling at the same approximate speed.

Because apart from
those two 'facts' every other aspect of the collision is different: the structure that the plane is colliding with, the fact that one plane is being powered all the time
during the collision, the size, structure, geometry, and materials of the plane.

I have politely asked you to give me some more information about where you obtained the video you sent and who the people are who were discussing the WTC event, particularly the person you said was a NASA scientist.

In the interests of being fair, and scientific in one's approach (as your website claims to be) please could you send me this information? Or at least please could you acknowledge
this email.

Thank you

Peter Hunt


There is the last email I sent him.

He says that he thinks that people who put forward no planed theories do a disservice to the truth movement because it makes it seem less credible.

However that is the whole point. It is f.. ing incredible. You can't escape it.

Anyone who understands materials and can 'see'
the underlying structure of this flimsy aluminium sausage with
great big lumpy appendages, striking closely spaced steel girders and space between floors that
is too narrow for it to fit in, anyone with one iota of understanding about materials and physics is going to say it looks more than a tad suspect.

He just fails to see the magnitude of it. Or what is his agenda? To me it is not about building 7. You
just don't feel it the same level of true horror and disgust with our governments until
you see that probably, almost certainly were no real planes involved.

That's how I see it. That's my subjective point of view. I am guessing there are millions of people worldwide who have now seen the video footage of building 7 collapse. They know that it was set up, ่but the vast majority don't care. They say to themselves, as I did, "yeah well, that's a bit bad and now I better go and cook lunch". Or whatever, and just forget about it.

But when I started to see what was staring me in the face all along, the truly incredible fact that
those images of flight 175 entering the south tower could well be fake because it is so scientifically unlikely (just as everyone actually does know) for a plane to transform itself into
an invincible (but not so invincible) missile, that was the moment
when I woke up and actually became passionate about this.

The atrocities that our countries have committed in our names, and based on
this colossal lie; it is the single biggest event of my lifetime. If I don't stand up and say something and speak the honest truth of what I personally see, then
as far as I am concerned I will have failed at as a human
being.

And this is why Frank Legge has angered me so much because he seems to be engaged in this
as if it is some kind of ponssy game for nobs, with endless self flattery for peer reviewed papers and and more self aggrandizement which has got nothing to do with the cold blooded murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and all, but no courage to look into the soul of the matter and face a reality which is not just incredible but utterly appalling.
the rest.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 7 2013, 09:37 AM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



Hi Resurgance,

Frank Legge is a disinfo merchant regarding the Pentagon. And Jeff Hill is now an Official Narrative shill having once spearheaded the no plane theory. Both are now best of "friends".

Here's just one breakdown of the lies Frank Legge is capable of and has never had the cojones to answer

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;hl=Frank+legge

There's many more if you use the search engine here and type his name in (or Jeff Hill's)

As for the no plane theory itself, I took an honest approach to the argument (out of respect for the good members of this forum here that truly believe it)

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992

It doesn't stand up to scrutiny (I threw my own 2cents in there as well).

My personal belief is that a souped up craft cum device was used.

Pilotsfor911Truth have shown that it's impossible for a standard 767 or alleged sim pilots to have carried out the manouevres involved and that there's no evidence that UA175 hit that tower. Or that any of the official narrative involved the standard passenger planes cited. Having said that, it in no way supports the no plane theory.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Jun 7 2013, 01:13 PM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 476
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



I believe planes hit the towers. The best reason I can think of is because there were so many varied images of the UA175 event.

How could you possible get into many, many private and professional cameras and fake that? You gotta fake the image and sound, making both fit with the camera's location.

How do you get hundreds of witnesses on the ground who saw the planes coming and strike the towers to tell similar stories?

They were real. I do not believe they were flown by humans, for obvious reasons. The logistics of fakery are impossible under real world conditions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
resurgance
post Jun 8 2013, 09:43 AM
Post #13





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 3-May 13
Member No.: 7,383



QUOTE (kawika @ Jun 8 2013, 12:13 AM) *
I believe planes hit the towers. The best reason I can think of is because there were so many varied images of the UA175 event.

How could you possible get into many, many private and professional cameras and fake that? You gotta fake the image and sound, making both fit with the camera's location.

How do you get hundreds of witnesses on the ground who saw the planes coming and strike the towers to tell similar stories?

They were real. I do not believe they were flown by humans, for obvious reasons. The logistics of fakery are impossible under real world conditions.


I haven't heard hundred's of witnesses that actually saw 175 crash into the south tower. When I first heard about "no planers" I scoffed and wasn't going to listen. However, I am also aware of the psychological processes that are at play here. I have done enough science to know that even the most brilliant scientists can let personal prejudice get in the way of their objectivity.
(Einstein and the fudge factor that he introduced into General Relativity because he believed the Universe had to be static)

I replayed I think it was ABC news as it was broadcast on the day. The number of eye witnesses they had in that moment who saw completely different things is frightening. Less than 50 percent of the people I heard actually saw a passenger jet. "it was a small twin prop
Private plane" "it was green" "that was a military plane". "I was standing looking up at the tower and I did not see a plane". "I saw an explosion"

I am not making this up. This is what I have actually heard when I watched one off the news channels again. I started watching CNN also. The "eye witnesses" coming on the phone on that news channel seemed to be in greater agreement that they saw a passenger jet.

But them I started to think about it. The people who are on the ground are mostly looking where when the second plane hit? Are they concentrating on the south tower or the north tower? And now there are people jumping from the North Tower. I
don't know about you, but I would be in a state of shock and totally distraught by this. I would think that hundreds of people by now would be looking either away because the can't bear to see what is happening or a few of them, maybe hundreds are transfixed, watching and waiting for the next jumper.

There is a great video where people are shown a seen and asked to look for something in the seen, like how many times the presenter changes his shirt or something. After looking at the scene, we are then asked, "how many people noticed the gorilla?" probably more than 95 % didn't see a six foot dude wearing a ridiculous gorilla suit walk right into
the middle of the set and wave his arms at the viewers.

So now there is this almighty explosion and you turn around, and everyone is saying, "what the f was that?" And then almost imediately you "hear" someone say "it was a plane" , and someone else is saying "yeah look! It's on TV". And now it just spreads through the crowd and of course the rest of the world.

Now I am not saying that I know anything. Except at this point I can say that I know something which I did not know before. Now I truly know that I do not know. I do not know that any planes hit those towers. And that is the truth. I know that I don't know what happened and I also know that this "not knowing" is uncomfortable and profoundly disturbing. It is the very fact that it is not a convenient thing to believe or not believe or to even consider that makes me all the more suspicious and far less inclined to pay to much heedence to "eye witness testimony"

That's why I decided in the end to go deeper into the science of the materials and physics. Because it is either scientifically possible or it is not. Science is generally very clear cut like that. You need the right set if mathematical tools and you either prove that it is possible or that it is not.

I have seen simulations of the alleged crashes and I am
deeply unimpressed. To me the simulations that I have seen so far are ludicrous at best, and at worst very shoddy and dishonest.

The "Perdue" simulation is nothing more than a farcical joke that pays no attention whatsoever to the actual strengths of the materials involved. Another simulation which seems to have found it's way into some part or other of the official documentation, shows a 747 crashing into an entirely different type of steel structure, and wait for it . .. "we removed the floors because it was easier to see without them" Yeah - the diameter of body of the plane is about one and half times the distance between the floors. So not only has this fragile low density aluminum tube got to miraculous slice through multiple steel
boxes on the outside of the building, but it has to pile drive it's way longitudinally through the entire width of the building, and the nose re-emerge unscathed traveling at the same velocity (almost) as was when it entered.

I recently met some who was living in New York on the day. What he said was very interesting. I asked him about his experience and he said that he had actually seen the second plane hit the south tower. But wait a minute; check out what he said. "
I saw it hit. I was at home and I saw the first plane hit the tower on the TV and so I went outside and then I saw the second plane hitthe other tower. "

Yeah? How perfect is the performance? You set it up so
you have the whole world watching, focussed intently, and the pow! Just between three and five at most genuine live feeds and "everyone has seen it" and even though your looking at it, thinking it looks a bit odd, you put it out of your mind because it is too inconvenient to
think about. That was my experience.

I want to (but don't really) to go back
and watch carefully each of the live news feeds and make a careful note of what each "live witness" actually says as they come on the air.

I am also interested in analyzing the "sound"
of the plane in each of the homemade videos. I have a sneaky suspicion the dopler shift is wrong.

And I still think that it is highly significant that you don't see a huge burst of flame from the rear of the engines when they make contact with outside of the building.

And I find it strange that after researching this for a mere four or five months I can find not one single honest scientist (real scientist) who can explain how aluminium is able to cut steel so cleanly

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Jun 8 2013, 10:07 AM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 476
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



I hear your frustration. The events are confusing as hell.

Many of the witnesses who made it onto the news were north of the site, so when the south tower was struck they couldn't see the plane coming. They just saw the fireball erupt. Many said they thought it was a bomb. Many were not sure what happened to the north tower, did not attribute the damage to a plane.

Think about the cameras. They don't have bias. Think about the impossible logistics of getting hold of all those images and manipulating them to fit each other.

What I would suggest you do is help us gain access to the truly raw videos taken by the HQ news cameras. I say this because I know that what has been released to us has been manipulated. Not by inserting images, but by editing and sound cutting and pasting.

We know that there are two channels of sound on the short clips that NIST used in their analyses, but the whole video they gave us only has one channel. That means the whole video copy that was released has been hacked/edited. There are other examples.

Please don't get distracted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
resurgance
post Jun 8 2013, 12:25 PM
Post #15





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 3-May 13
Member No.: 7,383



QUOTE (kawika @ Jun 8 2013, 09:07 PM) *
I hear your frustration. The events are confusing as hell.

Many of the witnesses who made it onto the news were north of the site, so when the south tower was struck they couldn't see the plane coming. They just saw the fireball erupt. Many said they thought it was a bomb. Many were not sure what happened to the north tower, did not attribute the damage to a plane.

Think about the cameras. They don't have bias. Think about the impossible logistics of getting hold of all those images and manipulating them to fit each other.

What I would suggest you do is help us gain access to the truly raw videos taken by the HQ news cameras. I say this because I know that what has been released to us has been manipulated. Not by inserting images, but by editing and sound cutting and pasting.

We know that there are two channels of sound on the short clips that NIST used in their analyses, but the whole video they gave us only has one channel. That means the whole video copy that was released has been hacked/edited. There are other examples.

Please don't get distracted.


You see what I appreciate about being here at this forum is that two people can actually express different points of view without resorting to the debunkers strategy of hurling personal insults at you. So I really respect you for that. To me that is the point of this. To be able to freely ask and to dig for the truth.

But when you say, don't get distracted, I am not sure what you mean. I mean my brain is a mess just trying to think about this stuff and I will tend to go off on side tracks because that is the way brain works. I am never just thinking about this thing or that because Lord help me I also have teach science and I am constantly tied up thinking about how to do that. And then
I am also tied up (through choice) philosophizing (mostly with myself) about what heck it really means to be a living human being on this planet, whether there is God in heaven, whether we will discover aliens in our lifetime, and whether time itself is actually real
or whether that is just another "belief" that we have been sold and bought into as unquestioned and unquestionable reality.

Notwithstanding, if it was a cruis missile as one of the first hand witnesses on TV said he thought it sounded like, then to edit in planes onto
the "private videos" would be very easy. Keeping in mind that no one sees on TV until hours later any of the privately owned videos.

Hey - and you know what? I could be wrong. I
could be wrong about all of it or none if it? I would prefer to be wrong.

I said before I am interested in the psychogical mechanisms that are at play here such as the way different people are ridiculed for what they believe or how certain people become everyone's scapegoat.

So I am starting to hear a lot of people ridiculing J wood because she has this "crazy idea" about directed energy weapons. And when I first hear the idea, yes, my own prejudices kick in and I don't like the idea. But then I think, that if people are "pre-judging" the ideas of this person and their reaction is this strong, then maybe I should go and see what she has to say.

And when I do listen to her, she points out something in all the rubble and chaos that I hadn't noticed before. So now never mind the planes, can someone honestly explain why there is so little actual rubble and why all those cars are on fire but surrounded by paper that isn't burning, and why given the nearly 70 years that have past since the end WW2 would America not have found the time to invent some new weapon of mass diatruction, and yes what are all those round holes seen in the arial shots of the aftermath? I don't know of any way to deal more rationally with the information. I use my eyes, I look, and I don't know what a million and a half tons of rubble are supposed to look like but the site does actually look very very flat.

And then a few years later they discover this great hole right at the base of the one of the towers or was it both, and you can see all this smooth melted rock, and there is some ridiculous British Tabloiid paper claiming that it is evidence of the last ice age and it just coincedenlty happens to be at the base of the WTC which had smoldered for 100 days.

I was quite disturbed this for a while, and maybe I still
am. But I would rather be where I am with my eyes and ears open, and not blindly clinging to prejudices and beliefs or the need to be right.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Jun 8 2013, 12:51 PM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 476
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (resurgance @ Jun 8 2013, 11:25 AM) *
You see what I appreciate about being here at this forum is that two people can actually express different points of view without resorting to the debunkers strategy of hurling personal insults at you. So I really respect you for that. To me that is the point of this. To be able to freely ask and to dig for the truth.

But when you say, don't get distracted, I am not sure what you mean. I mean my brain is a mess just trying to think about this stuff and I will tend to go off on side tracks because that is the way brain works. I am never just thinking about this thing or that because Lord help me I also have teach science and I am constantly tied up thinking about how to do that. And then
I am also tied up (through choice) philosophizing (mostly with myself) about what heck it really means to be a living human being on this planet, whether there is God in heaven, whether we will discover aliens in our lifetime, and whether time itself is actually real
or whether that is just another "belief" that we have been sold and bought into as unquestioned and unquestionable reality.

Notwithstanding, if it was a cruis missile as one of the first hand witnesses on TV said he thought it sounded like, then to edit in planes onto
the "private videos" would be very easy. Keeping in mind that no one sees on TV until hours later any of the privately owned videos.

Hey - and you know what? I could be wrong. I
could be wrong about all of it or none if it? I would prefer to be wrong.

I said before I am interested in the psychogical mechanisms that are at play here such as the way different people are ridiculed for what they believe or how certain people become everyone's scapegoat.

So I am starting to hear a lot of people ridiculing J wood because she has this "crazy idea" about directed energy weapons. And when I first hear the idea, yes, my own prejudices kick in and I don't like the idea. But then I think, that if people are "pre-judging" the ideas of this person and their reaction is this strong, then maybe I should go and see what she has to say.

And when I do listen to her, she points out something in all the rubble and chaos that I hadn't noticed before. So now never mind the planes, can someone honestly explain why there is so little actual rubble and why all those cars are on fire but surrounded by paper that isn't burning, and why given the nearly 70 years that have past since the end WW2 would America not have found the time to invent some new weapon of mass diatruction, and yes what are all those round holes seen in the arial shots of the aftermath? I don't know of any way to deal more rationally with the information. I use my eyes, I look, and I don't know what a million and a half tons of rubble are supposed to look like but the site does actually look very very flat.

And then a few years later they discover this great hole right at the base of the one of the towers or was it both, and you can see all this smooth melted rock, and there is some ridiculous British Tabloiid paper claiming that it is evidence of the last ice age and it just coincedenlty happens to be at the base of the WTC which had smoldered for 100 days.

I was quite disturbed this for a while, and maybe I still
am. But I would rather be where I am with my eyes and ears open, and not blindly clinging to prejudices and beliefs or the need to be right.


If you want to brainstorm on this video evidence, send me a PM, so I can contact you via Skype
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
resurgance
post Jun 9 2013, 01:11 AM
Post #17





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 3-May 13
Member No.: 7,383



QUOTE (kawika @ Jun 8 2013, 11:51 PM) *
If you want to brainstorm on this video evidence, send me a PM, so I can contact you via Skype



Thanks. I have to ask for permission from the forum administrator before I can send PM's. I also need to set up skype on my computer.

Are you talking about the video evidence of flight 175 and the south tower?

I can list some of the initial problems I have with this evidence:

A/ no noticeable detraction of plane on the outside of the tower

B/ no big fireball from rear of engines when the make contact with tower

C/ tower seeming to repair itself after plane has entered

But there is of course more. One that really stands out is the perspective and light/shadows of the very first video. There is something, which I can't quite put my finger on that just looks wrong, like the plane is too dark. It actually has the look of being something very 2 dimensional. Ok - that's not very objective perhaps, but I did spend around five years in art schools, studyiing and practicing drawing and you kind of get a feel for when something is really convincingly real. I know this because 99% of my drawings and paintings had this same lifeless look about them.

It was a really bright sunny morning with blue skies. Whatever angle that plane was flying at there should have been some bright flashes of light bouncing off it, not just a uniform black/grey mat charcoal
color. I could be wrong.

In the end I have to admit defeat and say that I simply do not know. But that is enough.

The real point for me has become this. I don't know, which means I don't believe anything that was told to me via the media. I do believe that the US and Uk governments and others had far more to benefit from the attacks than Al Qaeda did. I do believe that it is possible that it was all faked and was used as a practice ground for testing some new weapon. I do believe that what I personally do or don't believe does not really matter. Except I feel shame and sorrow for what has been done in Afganistan and Iraq and had I known what I know today, I would have been far more vocal when it came to protesting against the war(s) - not that that would have really made any difference.

Recently I have see lots and lots more video footage of a plane going into the south tower. There seems to be a glut of newly released NIST footage. At first, it is almost reassuring to see because I can start to believe that I am wrong and that a plane really did strike the tower. But even then, your looking at one of the brightest bluest sky videos so far and your waiting for the guy to catch the shot, but no. Right at the most crucial moment he turns the camera away or 1 crucial second has been cut from the video. Why? Why would someone edit out that one crucial second?

It all comes down for to something else. Why am I bothering to look for truth? It was an act of war. No one tells the truth during acts of war. Why would I expect this
to be different? I ask scientists for answers and in the silence I hear a government saying, "war is not that complicated" Governments who are agressors don't start wars and then appologize for their cruely and inhumanity unless they are made to. They conned millions of people and those same millions of people would rather continue to believe what is so obviously physically incorrect because the alternative, this task of thinking for oneself and using one's own brain, is far to difficult. And there are others who know it is all wrong but don't actually care but are rather pleased because, at least for the duration, of their lifetime, they will be able to continue living in degree of comfort they have become accustomed to. How do I know any of this is true? Because I have observed those very same thought process
in myself.


I don't think that any of my ramblings here are worth very much at all, and I am tempted to delete this whole long post but what the heck. Cheers Peter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
resurgance
post Jun 16 2013, 03:01 PM
Post #18





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 3-May 13
Member No.: 7,383



It is a pity that this thread was moved. When I started
it originally I posted it in the forum the WTC south tower. The
reason for that was and still is that this is the 'collision'
that we all 'see' so clearly on video and this is the particular collision that I am trying to make sense of.

It just so happened that I had gone to 'make believe' scientists for 9/11 truth initially to see if they had any answers. And it was there that I got sent the link for the now infamous and totally irrelevant Sandia Test Video. I told Frank Legge that I wasn't specifically interested in the pentagon at the moment and was concentrating on trying to understand 175 supposedly colonizing with the South Tower of WTC. Frank Legge who seemed to be think that it didn't matter and that the Sandia video
somehow 'proves' everything about planes and their alleged collisions with any and all
types of buildings on 9/11. This is according to that Internet website 'science' and in his own words "why do you need to worry about proving it mathematically, we know what happened. There really were planes and the Sandia test proves it"

I am really doing my best not to resort to using debunkers tactics of name calling and using bad language... However: there are retards. Then there are what some call monkeytards, and then there are ftards. That's right F...tards.

So here is a copy of the latest message, this time sent to his fellow tard, J Wyndham:
Dear John

I have written to Frank Legge and asked him if he could let me know what source was of the Sandia video that he sent me the link for. There are many 'versions' of the Sandia video on YouTube. However, the version I received the link for from you chaps had a conversation going on over the top.

I said that I would like to know who the two people were who were having the conversation. In the earlier email that Frank sent me he had said that one of the people in the video was a NASA scientist. That person sounded quite well informed and genuinely interested in understanding the science behind the collisions. I asked politely, although I did raise several
objections to that video being used as a comparison or evidence in connection with flight 175. My objections are based on the number of variable that are not the same: 1/ Smaller aircraft 2/ Difiiferent geometry of plane and different grades of materials 3/ Solid concrete wall rather than steel girders 4/ the fact that the phantom jet is being powered by rockets and that those rockets continue to provide thrust throughout the whole duration of the impact, whereas the engines on flight 175 would have stopped proving thrust once they made contact with the outside wall of girders and floor.

When scientists make comparisons it is usual to keep
the variables the same or to only change one variable in the situation. There are so many different variables that are not the same with the Sandia test that it is simply not scientific to
even consider it as a piece of 'evidence' that has any relevance to either the work Trade Centre or the Pentagon attacks.

Irrespective of whether or nott you agree with the above, I believe it is misleading and dishonest to claim that a website has an interest in the science of 9/11 and then to withold the sources of information that are being used to support a particular view point.

So I will ask you John, please would you be kind enough to
tell me where that particular version of the Sandia test came from and who the people were who were talking in the video, particularly the person whom it is claimed was/is a NASA scientist.

Kind regards,

Peter Hunt

I wonder whether I will actually get an answer this time.

Science is not about believing something is true and then setting out to only collect 'evidence' , not to mention invalid evidence, and then
manipulating it just to keep try proving that one is right. You can't be a know it all and claim to be a real scientist. The two are incompatible. If you want to find the Truth, you first have to admit unreservedly the depth of your ignorance and be willing to live the discomfort
of 'not knowing'.

If I start to think that I know what happened on 9/11, well as soon as I do, then my listening and reading instantly becomes prejudiced and selective. I start to filter out any information that does not support my point of view and effectively become bigoted. I cannot be truly
seeking the Truth if I am obsessed with what I think I already know and trying to be right about it.

I would really like to know what those guys agenda is because from
the moment I had the misfortune of finding "scientists for 9/11 truth"
it just smelled fishy. And when they refuse to answer simple questions about the sources of their information, and can't even understand that simplest of things about the scientific method, well it just looks like the work of Ftards and dishonest ones at that.





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Jun 16 2013, 03:24 PM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 476
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



I've had some interaction with both of these guys. Neither one is particularly helpful.

I have been told, by people I trust, that a plane going 400+ MPH can indeed slice through steel.

I cannot accept that the damages done to the towers where the planes entered were the result of some pre-planted demolition scheme, that had the ability to blow inwards.

Maybe these planes had titanium wings instead of aluminum. I don't know.

Until someone comes up with a plausible explanation I am sticking with planes did it.

This post has been edited by kawika: Jun 16 2013, 03:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 16 2013, 04:32 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

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



I'll post this link again. Maybe it was overlooked?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992
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: 16th September 2019 - 02:59 AM