Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Research _ Explosion Recorded On A Camera Before The Tower Is Struck

Posted by: roscoe Jan 3 2014, 04:49 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc23nPsmP_Q

Camera on the ground shakes as plane that strikes the North Tower passes overhead. Then there is the sound of the impact with the tower.

Posted by: 23investigator Jan 3 2014, 05:40 AM

QUOTE (roscoe @ Jan 3 2014, 06:19 PM) *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc23nPsmP_Q

Camera on the ground shakes as plane that strikes the North Tower passes overhead. Then there is the sound of the impact with the tower.


Dear 'roscoe'

Well done.

Did you notice the lady in the background also reacted at the same time.

That would have had to have been as the result of the percussion of an explosion, as she didn't appear to be particularly concerned about the sound of the aircraft going over head.

Perhaps we are all beginning to see why the aircraft entered the building: without totally dismantling itself on the face of the Tower.

It is highly likely the same technique was used with the South Tower, hence the strange greying out effect on the face of the South Tower, and the similar effect on the face of the North Tower.

Again Well done.

Robert S

Posted by: MikeR Jan 3 2014, 08:03 AM

QUOTE (roscoe @ Jan 3 2014, 08:49 PM) *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc23nPsmP_Q

Camera on the ground shakes as plane that strikes the North Tower passes overhead. Then there is the sound of the impact with the tower.


This video was yet another example of the vast number of vids still-being-forced onto our attention by Insider-Job elements bent on continuing the 9/11 Effor-Fraud for another 12 years... or until we finally all wake up.

The official USG website was adamant: on 09/11/2001 Route AA11 was CANCELED Corroborating evidence supports the fact that AA11 never flew. Therefore, whatever the infamous Naudet shot might show, it does NOT show a real Boeing flying into a real WTC1. That camera shake was NOT caused by a Boeing jetliner.

Check the huge volume of evidence that all 4 Boeings were/still are fakes of one kind and another, and evidence of the rest of your 9/11 false flag can be rejected as garbage. "No Planes" is key to the whole sad false flag.

There were NO BOEINGS ... you ain't the first person with a credibility problem... I spent all year 2002 before I finally knew for certain there were NO PLANES. The "No-Planes" position has been totally researched to finality...it's not rocket science... understand that, figure it out from all the evidence, and you will spot every single one of the vast numbers of vids currently being posted which are ALL paid for by perpeTRAITORs who cocked-up badly on the day.... and more fool US for being anything the idiots ever say/said.

The perpeTRAITORs are still spending zillion$ trying to stop US from learning the truth, including bribing an army of idiots typing phony ad hominem comments all over the Internet ... but the cretin perpeTRAITORs are also finding each day brings the hangman's noose 24 hours nearer to their fat-scrawny necks

BTW The official BTS website was down for days while various obviously-fraudulent attempts were made to cover-up the "error" but these false tries only underscored the fact that some entities were acting illegally to fudge the data.

Posted by: MikeR Jan 3 2014, 08:33 AM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 4 2014, 12:03 AM) *
The perpeTRAITORs are still spending zillion$ trying to stop US from learning the truth, including bribing an army of idiots typing phony ad hominem comments all over the Internet ... but the cretin perpeTRAITORs are also finding each day brings the hangman's noose 24 hours nearer to their fat-scrawny necks


All 3 of the Twin Towers were demolished, Building 7 was brought down by computer-Controlled Demolition ...but the other 2 buildings were NOT simple whole-building demolitions of the controlled kind.... they were both turned to dust by a process of the highest-military-engineering order. The demolition of WTC2 and WTC1 is still a top-secret military operation about which my lips would be sealed. Both buildings turned to dust....solid steel ended up as dust.... solid concrete turned to dust in the air over the whole of Manhattan.... you CAN still see it in the vids, but you MUST consciously tell your brain to TELL your eyes where and how to look, or you will miss the crucial evidence in the exact-same way you WILL miss seeing your entire screen being recolored in front of your eyes in Prof Wiseman's clever quirkology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voAntzB7EwE

Grab the full psychological implications of Richard's cunning presentation of the Color Changing Card Trick here ....and your view of 9/11 (and Shady Hoax too) will never be the same again...


That much I promise

Posted by: 23investigator Jan 3 2014, 08:51 AM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 3 2014, 09:33 PM) *
The official USG website was adamant: on 09/11/2001 Route AA11 was CANCELED Corroborating evidence supports the fact that AA11 never flew. Therefore, whatever the infamous Naudet shot might show, it does NOT show a real Boeing flying into a real WTC1. That camera shake was NOT caused by a Boeing jetliner.


Dear 'MikeR'

Probably about one of the few pieces of truth about 9/11 is that AA11 did not impact the North tower.

You are far from the only person who has looked at the flight history of the aircraft involved in the terrible events of 9/11.

There is certainly a tremendous amount of confusion generated by those records, which most likely leads to a conclusion that the two flights from Boston were not by the aircraft claimed, or at least did not take the routes that have been claimed.

Can I suggest you have another look at the video in question.

The camera does look to be at a strange angle at the time of the aircraft flying over: certainly the sound of the aircraft does not sound like that of a Boeing 767 200 at the altitude involved: but do you feel that the video has been staged; if so why not dub in the sound of a real Boeing 767 200.

The explosion could have been dubbed too, but that would mean that the whole presentation was very elaborate: as if you look between the guys legs, a woman in a reddish garment, who does not look to have been part of any planned production walks along, without any concern about the aircraft noise: but her reaction when the explosion occurs seems to be very genuine, in fact not even looking in the direction of the tower but more to her right and rearwards.

Other people in the background appear to have been affected by the explosion too.

So going on what appears to be your thesis, are we to believe that somebody dubbed an aircraft whining over head into the video at the time of the explosion, to cover up that there was an explosion at Tower one.

This does not particularly make a lot of sense: but it certainly conflicts with the immediate spontaneous reports of people who reported that they observed a 'smallish' aircraft fly into the North Tower.

Robert S

Posted by: MikeR Jan 3 2014, 11:24 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Jan 4 2014, 12:51 AM) *
Can I suggest you have another look at the video in question.


Robert ... I started investigating 9/11 from the inescapable LIE about the Pentagon Plane

No plane hit the Pentagon.

I won't begin the tedious tale all over, if you haven't discovered after 12 years
why it was that the Pentagon was left 99.99% untouched, intact and tautologically unscathed
after NOT being hit by the Airforce transport plane (NOT flying on Route AA77 BTW)
was given suitable cover by the Military Magician's Hollywood Fireball, so that it could
skim over the Pentagon rooftop ...

if I had a copy of the watchtower audio, the only thing I could add
would be the MM's unprintable language as she discovered that the Navy Seals'
dynamite was too damp to detonate under the Pentagon's foundations
as the military transport plane flew safely over the building, without which
facade collapse, the MM's illusion wasn't gonna fool a kid in the front row
of the audience, let alone give David Copperfiled any insider magic tips he didn't
already have heaps in abundance....


The building therefore remained totally intact until one single charge went off.
But that was mistimed at 54 minutes AFTER the Big Bang, and it completely
failed to rock the Pentagon Universe.

Given that egregious Pentagon Plane LIE, we MUST assume that the next shred of
911 evidence MUST also be equally suspect if not downright fraudulent, and
given the LIE, why should I take an eleventeenth view of any of the
post 9/11 revised-as-in-cooked-as-in-faked videos?

If anything, after 12 years of post-9/11 Insider-Job fraud, we MUST regard
every major headlined incidental event with extreme suspicion.

Indeed, when we FIRST check the London 7/7 Tube Bombing, when we
look at the Aurora shooting, the Shady Hoax shooting, the Boston Bombing ...
every broadcast scene is suspicious, every close-up shot yields clear evidence
of yet more fraud, more fakery.

How far can we take this search? How much do the perpeTRAITORs rely on
the average video/tellywatcher seeming to believe whatever LIE the perps
throw at the screen?

What if we throw caution to the winds and assume that the false flags
are being flown higher and wider than the Pearl Harbor Perp ever imagined?
False-flag Deepwater Horizon?
Looked like an accident ... till the first few whistleblower tales
turned into a Corexit torrent
Phony Fukushima?
Surely not: so how come ALL the Japanese Seismographs record a quake
100 TIMES less than the false figure the USGS publicized?
What about Hurricane Sandy?
Surely they won't get away with faking weather now: yet it was indisputable
enhances and re-engineered by non-natural forces...
Chemtrails?
Only shows they CAN get away with the jet-exhaust condensation-trail LIE
Climate warming?
Look closely at the politics, and the algorian stench becomes unbearable

I'll let you check jimstonefreelance.com for all the blatant in-yer-face fakery
that was still ongoing cover-up of the Fukushima event (which will kill us
all even yet)

In order to get back on-topic 9/11, I seriously suggest that we check
Hurricane Sandy's link with NWO Criminality is way-y-y more than the
name in common with Sandy Hook being way-y-y more-than-coincidental

Hurricane Sandy 2012 revealed pathological similarities
in common with Hurricane Erin 2001:

Hurricane Erin is yet another 9/11 event that we must explain along
with the 4 Boeings that did not fly in 2001.

Hurricane Erin took 7 days to fly up the Atlantic from Bermuda,.
By the morning of 9/11/2001, the massive Katrina-sized Hurricane Erin
was just hours off totally devastating New York.

Yet for all of those 7 days, none but NONE of the the weather maps
so much as hinted at the looming problem storm...

Absolutely no mention of any problem, let alone any warning issued.

Katrina was dead-beeline aimed square on New York.... and not a word?


Why?

Doncha think that question isn't a million time$ more significant than some vague
query about what mini-seismic foot-stomping might've tripped the Naudet's
phony camera obscura?

We MUST explain all the 9/11 evidence.... and "No Planes" is just a smart choice.

We have a helluva long list of insider jobs since 9/11, and without investigations
from alternative bloggery, each one risks a popular vote ultimately letting
the treasonous perpeTRAITORs off the hangman's noose

Posted by: datars Jan 3 2014, 01:13 PM

Thanks for the share, I'll send this off to Richard Gage

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 3 2014, 10:49 PM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 3 2014, 10:24 AM) *
Robert ... I started investigating 9/11 from the inescapable LIE about the Pentagon Plane

No plane hit the Pentagon.


MikeR I'm with you on various aspects of 9/11, including the all-important Pentagon.

However, despite being a no-planer for a certain period of time, I had to ultimately reject
that hypothesis.

The scheduled flights hitting the towers? No way. But there were planes involved.

I have more than enough proof to satisfy me.



Posted by: roscoe Jan 4 2014, 03:41 AM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 3 2014, 08:03 AM) *
This video was yet another example of the vast number of vids still-being-forced onto our attention by Insider-Job elements bent on continuing the 9/11 Effor-Fraud for another 12 years... or until we finally all wake up.

The official USG website was adamant: on 09/11/2001 Route AA11 was CANCELED Corroborating evidence supports the fact that AA11 never flew. Therefore, whatever the infamous Naudet shot might show, it does NOT show a real Boeing flying into a real WTC1. That camera shake was NOT caused by a Boeing jetliner.

Check the huge volume of evidence that all 4 Boeings were/still are fakes of one kind and another, and evidence of the rest of your 9/11 false flag can be rejected as garbage. "No Planes" is key to the whole sad false flag.

There were NO BOEINGS ... you ain't the first person with a credibility problem... I spent all year 2002 before I finally knew for certain there were NO PLANES. The "No-Planes" position has been totally researched to finality...it's not rocket science... understand that, figure it out from all the evidence, and you will spot every single one of the vast numbers of vids currently being posted which are ALL paid for by perpeTRAITORs who cocked-up badly on the day.... and more fool US for being anything the idiots ever say/said.

The perpeTRAITORs are still spending zillion$ trying to stop US from learning the truth, including bribing an army of idiots typing phony ad hominem comments all over the Internet ... but the cretin perpeTRAITORs are also finding each day brings the hangman's noose 24 hours nearer to their fat-scrawny necks

BTW The official BTS website was down for days while various obviously-fraudulent attempts were made to cover-up the "error" but these false tries only underscored the fact that some entities were acting illegally to fudge the data.


Firstly I'm well aware that persons who on the face of it appear to be on the side of getting to the truth are in fact planted to divert investigation away from the correct line of inquiry. It's not the first time this has been done, even prior to 911.

However.

There is no suggestion that this is American Airlines Flight 11, in fact it very likely isn't.

I am prepared until someone shows me different (with supporting evidence) that AN AIRCRAFT hit the North Tower here. Holograms etc are far too complicated and in danger of being exposed. Just use a real aircraft and go from there.

By the way I'm aware of all the shills, I can only assume from the quality of the opposition that it doesn't pay well.

Posted by: roscoe Jan 4 2014, 04:03 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Jan 3 2014, 05:40 AM) *
Dear 'roscoe'

Well done.

Did you notice the lady in the background also reacted at the same time.

That would have had to have been as the result of the percussion of an explosion, as she didn't appear to be particularly concerned about the sound of the aircraft going over head.

Perhaps we are all beginning to see why the aircraft entered the building: without totally dismantling itself on the face of the Tower.

It is highly likely the same technique was used with the South Tower, hence the strange greying out effect on the face of the South Tower, and the similar effect on the face of the North Tower.

Again Well done.

Robert S


Well the first thing I would say to people is make sure this is cloned everywhere before T.H.E.Y. remove it.

Looking at this and comparing it with the audio tape that also shows two explosions there is a discrepancy of the timings. In reality the gap would be greater, this is because sound will travel through a fluid (Air) faster than through the ground. Hence the time difference. In the audio tape both sounds are travelling through air.

I'm not of the NO PLANER fraternity, it's too complicated not to use a real aircraft and fraught with problems. There's a lot of people in New York and there would be hundreds of people now saying that they saw no aircraft, this is not the case.

It is clear that whatever plane it was, it WASN'T AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11.

Posted by: roscoe Jan 4 2014, 04:09 AM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 3 2014, 08:33 AM) *
All 3 of the Twin Towers were demolished, Building 7 was brought down by computer-Controlled Demolition ...but the other 2 buildings were NOT simple whole-building demolitions of the controlled kind.... they were both turned to dust by a process of the highest-military-engineering order. The demolition of WTC2 and WTC1 is still a top-secret military operation about which my lips would be sealed. Both buildings turned to dust....solid steel ended up as dust.... solid concrete turned to dust in the air over the whole of Manhattan.... you CAN still see it in the vids, but you MUST consciously tell your brain to TELL your eyes where and how to look, or you will miss the crucial evidence in the exact-same way you WILL miss seeing your entire screen being recolored in front of your eyes in Prof Wiseman's clever quirkology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voAntzB7EwE

Grab the full psychological implications of Richard's cunning presentation of the Color Changing Card Trick here ....and your view of 9/11 (and Shady Hoax too) will never be the same again...


That much I promise


I've seen the lecture by DR Judy Wood and to be honest I think it's a crock. At the end she calls Steven Jones, Webster Tarpley and David A Griffin GATEKEEPERS. I think this is a double bluff it's her who is the GATEKEEPER thrown in to divert the inquiry, watch it they're everywhere.

Posted by: roscoe Jan 4 2014, 04:19 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 3 2014, 10:49 PM) *
MikeR I'm with you on various aspects of 9/11, including the all-important Pentagon.

However, despite being a no-planer for a certain period of time, I had to ultimately reject
that hypothesis.

The scheduled flights hitting the towers? No way. But there were planes involved.

I have more than enough proof to satisfy me.


I cannot bring myself to believe that T.H.E.Y. decided not to use a real plane. NO, it's just too complicated.

There was a plane that crashed into each tower. They just weren't the ones they said they were.

In fact they don't have any hard evidence that they were.

Scheduled flights hitting the towers? Absolutely not. Even that plan could have gone pear shaped on them.

No my current working hypothesis is that these planes were remote controlled drones. Guided in to a discreet distance by someone on the ground and then the last few hundred feet guided to where the explosion was to be by a laser coming out of the tower itself.

Posted by: roscoe Jan 4 2014, 04:36 AM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 3 2014, 11:24 AM) *
Robert ... I started investigating 9/11 from the inescapable LIE about the Pentagon Plane

No plane hit the Pentagon.

I won't begin the tedious tale all over, if you haven't discovered after 12 years
why it was that the Pentagon was left 99.99% untouched, intact and tautologically unscathed
after NOT being hit by the Airforce transport plane (NOT flying on Route AA77 BTW)
was given suitable cover by the Military Magician's Hollywood Fireball, so that it could
skim over the Pentagon rooftop ...

if I had a copy of the watchtower audio, the only thing I could add
would be the MM's unprintable language as she discovered that the Navy Seals'
dynamite was too damp to detonate under the Pentagon's foundations
as the military transport plane flew safely over the building, without which
facade collapse, the MM's illusion wasn't gonna fool a kid in the front row
of the audience, let alone give David Copperfiled any insider magic tips he didn't
already have heaps in abundance....


The building therefore remained totally intact until one single charge went off.
But that was mistimed at 54 minutes AFTER the Big Bang, and it completely
failed to rock the Pentagon Universe.

Given that egregious Pentagon Plane LIE, we MUST assume that the next shred of
911 evidence MUST also be equally suspect if not downright fraudulent, and
given the LIE, why should I take an eleventeenth view of any of the
post 9/11 revised-as-in-cooked-as-in-faked videos?


I hear what you're saying.

I just posted this because by speculating we could all end up disappearing up our own rhetoric. Only hard evidence is useful now. Yes it's fun to speculate but where has it gotten us?

Eyewitness reports, video evidence is all we have. Occasionally we catch them lying. It's an inquiry we need. Stop offering your theories it allows them to call you a Conspiracy Theorist. Stop lumping in everything else not associated with 911, it gives them ammunition. Merely offer your QUESTIONS and say that intelligent unbiased inquiry is all you have and remind the detractors that this is what they should be doing in a democracy.

Posted by: roscoe Jan 4 2014, 04:44 AM

QUOTE (datars @ Jan 3 2014, 01:13 PM) *
Thanks for the share, I'll send this off to Richard Gage


Thanks.

Just let me say that I don't think this is set up.

If you play it again you can here the fear in guys voice. It's happening in front of his eyes.

Posted by: 23investigator Jan 4 2014, 09:15 PM

QUOTE (roscoe @ Jan 4 2014, 05:33 PM) *
Well the first thing I would say to people is make sure this is cloned everywhere before T.H.E.Y. remove it.

Looking at this and comparing it with the audio tape that also shows two explosions there is a discrepancy of the timings. In reality the gap would be greater, this is because sound will travel through a fluid (Air) faster than through the ground. Hence the time difference. In the audio tape both sounds are travelling through air.

I'm not of the NO PLANER fraternity, it's too complicated not to use a real aircraft and fraught with problems. There's a lot of people in New York and there would be hundreds of people now saying that they saw no aircraft, this is not the case.

It is clear that whatever plane it was, it WASN'T AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11.


Dear 'roscoe'

Immediately prior to the lady in the red garment coming into view, there was another lady in a light garment walking a little in front of her.

The aircraft noise can be heard at this point of time, which it appears had attracted the first ladies's attention: as she is looking upwards in the direction over the fence that is immediately beside her as she walked along.

By the time of the explosion noise, the first lady had almost gone out of camera view, so it is hard to gauge her further reaction.

The lady in the red garment meantime had just reached the guys legs that were in the foreground.

As she goes to go behind his left leg, she can be seen to give a slight jump of surprise which becomes obscured by the guys left leg.

This occurred at the exact time as the start of the noise of the explosion, which rumbled for a further time; causing the lady in the red jumper as she emerged between the guys legs to pause and turn her head to the right, looking up at the sky over the fence.

It appears nobody in the view finder of the camera had a view of the aircraft that went overhead, but the first lady appears to know which direction it was heading.

To be able to determine exactly where the explosion was would have been very difficult, but the camera people "male" obviously connected: low aircraft -- knowledge that the towers were in its path, and close proximity of the towers.

There does not seem to be anything staged in the actions and reactions of all of these people; and most certainly the smoke that then appeared was not staged.

I have been an aircraft 'buff' all of my life, of in a few days 72 years: the aircraft noise in the video did not sound like that of a Boeing 767 200 to me.

No authority at all on explosion noise, but if it is compared with the sound captured at the "naudet" location, there definitely seems to be some similarity.

Robert S








Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 4 2014, 09:29 PM

QUOTE (roscoe @ Jan 4 2014, 03:36 AM) *
Eyewitness reports, video evidence is all we have. Occasionally we catch them lying. It's an inquiry we need. Stop offering your theories it allows them to call you a Conspiracy Theorist. Stop lumping in everything else not associated with 911, it gives them ammunition. Merely offer your QUESTIONS and say that intelligent unbiased inquiry is all you have and remind the detractors that this is what they should be doing in a democracy.



It's refreshing to read this Roscoe.
So seldom do people on 9/11 discussion boards get to the heart of the matter, what really counts.
An unbiased inquiry, nothing more, nothing less.

But simply stating this is not enough.
Concerted ACTION needs to be taken by all truther groups to ensure this occurs.



Posted by: MikeR Jan 5 2014, 12:21 AM

QUOTE (roscoe @ Jan 4 2014, 07:41 PM) *
Holograms etc are far too complicated and in danger of being exposed. Just use a real aircraft and go from there.


If there was a real aircraft (not AA11) hitting WTC1, why is the airplane image so illogically fuzzy?
Why then is the Hollywood cutout in the glass facade (when it finally does appear) so sharp and clear?

If that was ANY real aircraft hitting WTC2, why is the airplane image so illogically fuzzy in that utterly-
unconvincing plane-into-building dissolve?
Why is the Hollywood cutout (when it finally does appear) so sharp and clear?
Why no shattered airplane parts falling?
Where are all the tons of glass and steel facade filling out the screen at the moment of (zero) impact?
If the image seen approaching Tower 2 was a real plane, how did the arab-boxcutting flight-school dropout
pilot manage for the first time in aviation history to avoid inevitable total disintegrastion of the airframe,
at a still-measurable 150 MPH in excess of the maximum speed Boeing specifies for a 757?
Why were other images of the exact-same plane flying at the exact-same time in the exact-same airspace
flying at various different speeds but all less than half the speed of the top shot?

(You don't think the explanation could possibly have far more to do with the failure of various video
fakers to co-ordinate their efforts in the 5 hours the perpeTRAITOR paid them to get the shot$ on the
midday news? And nothing to do with what plane it was if it wasn't the plane they said it was?)

If it it as obvious to you as it is to many other sharp-eyed plane spotters that no Boeing-sized
airplane could possibly have hit the Pentagon, there is one plane that was a real jetliner:
obviously it was not flying on the regular route AA77.... that was officially canceled.
Clearly the interloping (Airforce Transport?) airplane was faked to fly a closed-circuit pattern, shooting
through the Hollywood fireball and continuing on its regular AirFlightTraining route at an altitude of
Pentagon roof +15 feet -zero ...

It wasn't UA93 which crashed at Shanksville, do we really need some other real airplane to form
the ground crater visible since year 1995 in USGS photos available online for no fee, in order to
create what sort of illusion of a faked plane crash in the same crater in year 2001? IYCWIM

4 faked airplanes but in only one case do we need a real plane as stand-in: no need to speculate
on how the military-secret version of David Copperfield might have arranged for the other
disappearing airplane illusions which were eye-witnessed

YES I will join in ongoing calls for an inquiry, but let's remember the excellent efforts of the
Toronto Inquiry.... even if the illuminati do want to suppress all scurrilous theory which detracts from
the perpeTRAITORs' quasi-religious insistence on preaching the Torrid Tale from Dubya's
revised version of the Apocrypha: the Story of the Goat and the Eleventeen Arab-Box-Cutters

In particular, before we let on about not understanding holographic projection (top-classified,
my lips are sealed) let's check once again Richard D Hall's very credi(ta)ble reconstruction of
the radar track of some unidentified device flying 400m away from, and parallel to, the
APPARENT flightpath of UA175

http://richplanet.net/911.php

MikeR

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 5 2014, 01:14 AM

Hi Mike. I'll attempt to answer as many questions as I can.

QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 4 2014, 11:21 PM) *
If there was a real aircraft (not AA11) hitting WTC1, why is the airplane image so illogically fuzzy?
Why then is the Hollywood cutout in the glass facade (when it finally does appear) so sharp and clear?


The image was so fuzzy because the image was so far away!
It's not like he was shooting from 100 feet away!
What would you expect from that distance?
Do you know exactly how many feet away he was?

QUOTE
If that was ANY real aircraft hitting WTC2, why is the airplane image so illogically fuzzy in that utterly-
unconvincing plane-into-building dissolve?
Why is the Hollywood cutout (when it finally does appear) so sharp and clear?


Again, I would imagine it was because of the distance involved.
I know the distance of Naudet from WTC1.
I don't know the distance of the cameraman from WTC2 when he shot that.
Do you?

The cutout is clear because the TV media shooting the hole were just a few hundred feet away!


QUOTE
Why no shattered airplane parts falling?
Where are all the tons of glass and steel facade filling out the screen at the moment of (zero) impact?


IF, and that's a big IF, the planes struck an unmodified WTC1/2, then yes, plane parts would be expected to fall to the ground.
It is my contention that WTC1/2 were modified before 9/11 to allow the planes to enter as if through butter.


QUOTE
If the image seen approaching Tower 2 was a real plane, how did the arab-boxcutting flight-school dropout pilot manage for the first time in aviation history to avoid inevitable total disintegrastion of the airframe, at a still-measurable 150 MPH in excess of the maximum speed Boeing specifies for a 757?


Real plane. Not the scheduled flight. No Arabs or any people in the plane. Special drone that could fly at those speeds.

QUOTE
Why were other images of the exact-same plane flying at the exact-same time in the exact-same airspace
flying at various different speeds but all less than half the speed of the top shot?


You would have to point out those videos and show how you know their speeds.


QUOTE
If it it as obvious to you as it is to many other sharp-eyed plane spotters that no Boeing-sized
airplane could possibly have hit the Pentagon, there is one plane that was a real jetliner:
obviously it was not flying on the regular route AA77.... that was officially canceled.
Clearly the interloping (Airforce Transport?) airplane was faked to fly a closed-circuit pattern, shooting
through the Hollywood fireball and continuing on its regular AirFlightTraining route at an altitude of
Pentagon roof +15 feet -zero ...


I read the above paragraph but couldn't see any questions.

QUOTE
It wasn't UA93 which crashed at Shanksville, do we really need some other real airplane to form
the ground crater visible since year 1995 in USGS photos available online for no fee, in order to
create what sort of illusion of a faked plane crash in the same crater in year 2001? IYCWIM


I agree. The crater was already there. Smart move by the perps!

QUOTE
In particular, before we let on about not understanding holographic projection (top-classified,
my lips are sealed) let's check once again Richard D Hall's very credi(ta)ble reconstruction of
the radar track of some unidentified device flying 400m away from, and parallel to, the
APPARENT flightpath of UA175

MikeR


Sorry Mike, but I have to disagree with you on this one too.
At first I was impressed with Richard Hall's research.
However recently for a few reasons, I had to jump Richard's ship.

For the time being I will just say I have evidence that a plane hit WTC2, not the typical evidence.

Richard's hologram theory falls apart on this simple point:

He contends there are two sets of radar readings.
The one to the left the civil readings, the one to the right the military readings.
He contends that there was a military stealth drone flying along the radar path to the right and beaming a hologram of a Boeing aircraft to its left.

As Lieutenant Columbo used to say,
"Oh sir, just one more thing... why is it that the RADES radar readings to the right, stop at just the exact moment of impact of the plane into the tower?"

That is quite some coincidence! smile.gif




Posted by: roscoe Jan 5 2014, 05:13 AM

I've said my piece on this.

Not to use real planes is just too complicated and fraught with potential problems.

A drone is a much more plausible explanation and we know that technology capable of this type does exist.

These two explosions are consistent with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETqjRyYWz7E of an underground explosion prior to the first plane hitting.

We need to make this no more complicated than that.

Any further PLANER/NO PLANER arguments just gives the ones suffering from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGbEJ3pXwWM&feature=player_detailpage an excuse not to look at this.

Posted by: MikeR Jan 5 2014, 01:44 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 5 2014, 05:14 PM) *
Hi Mike. I'll attempt to answer as many questions as I can.


The image was so fuzzy because the image was so far away! Camera construction was quite technically advanced in Y2001 ...
in another shot from the same video, the Twin Towers were sharp enough when viewed in a moving chopper
from 5 miles away, as the videographer was preparing the next fake, seconds before the "UA175 lookalike" GGI appeared


It's not like he was shooting from 100 feet away!
What would you expect from that distance? I'd expect the plane to be at least as sharp as the sharp fireball
Do you know exactly how many feet away he was?


Again, I would imagine it was because of the distance involved.
I know the distance of Naudet from WTC1.
I don't know the distance of the cameraman from WTC2 when he shot that.
Do you?
The lack of clarity has nothing to do with distance, nothing....
trust me.... I am a photographer as well as an architect :-)


The cutout is clear because the TV media shooting the hole were just a few hundred feet away!


IF, and that's a big IF, the planes struck an unmodified WTC1/2, then yes, plane parts would be expected to fall to the ground.
It is my contention that WTC1/2 were modified before 9/11 to allow the planes to enter as if through butter. The WTC1/2 were indeed modified,
but ONLY to the extent needed to cut through the columns in order to fake those profile cutouts



Real plane. Not the scheduled flight. No Arabs or any people in the plane. Special drone that could fly at those speeds.


You would have to point out those videos and show how you know their speeds.
Nah ... The easiest and most convincing resolution would be do it yourself, it's not difficult ...
many people have done it, the calcs are not rocket science you know.
Instructions are hardly needed, but if guidance is helpful, try it yourself, get some Youtube video tips.
The astronomical accuracy of a Rolex Oyster Chronograph is not needed I can assure you.

Check the series of videos starting with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBpTWYUgvcM
for an Inside Job look at what we are up against with questions about the true ID if any of U"UA175"

http://911logic.blogspot.co.nz/2006/10/911-tv-fakery-hunt-boeing-wtc-2.html isn't exactly the webpage
I was searching for but it gives a few more hints.... work from any video which allegedly shows the faked UA175 flying towards WTC2>
Time the distance the plane travels in 1 2 or 3 seconds.... yeah, core curriculum math probably isn't up to
the job, you'll need to go to University-level long multiplication with carry-over columns and all that other good
arithmetic crap we got taught before we were able e.g. to manually count the number of
electronic calculators on teacher's desk....

The 202-foot width of WTC1 and 2 is your constant dimension, your watch can even remain on your wrist
if that helps maintain a grip on the ale glass. Speeds of between 225 mph and 579 mph are clearly measured,
same plane, same few seconds of an alleged flight path, in the same airspace.

How many more times do we have to repeat the test, for you to be able to spell "IMPOSSIBLE"?

It's more than merely improbable, and it is ONLY possible if the thing to which our eyes are wide shut,
is in fact some sort of computer-generated image



I read the above paragraph but couldn't see any questions.


I agree. The crater was already there. Smart move by the perps!


Sorry Mike, but I have to disagree with you on this one too.
At first I was impressed with Richard Hall's research.
However recently for a few reasons, I had to jump Richard's ship.

For the time being I will just say I have evidence that a plane hit WTC2, not the typical evidence.

Richard's hologram theory falls apart on this simple point:

He contends there are two sets of radar readings.
The one to the left the civil readings, the one to the right the military readings.
He contends that there was a military stealth drone flying along the radar path to the right and beaming a hologram of a Boeing aircraft to its left.
Maybe I missed a point there... I was under the impression Mr Hall studiously refrained
from speculating about anything stuff which would be at risk of being classified under
the Military Secrets Act of 1873 Revised 2012 ...


As Lieutenant Columbo used to say,
"Oh sir, just one more thing... why is it that the RADES radar readings to the right, stop at just the exact moment of impact of the plane into the tower?"

That is quite some coincidence! smile.gif

Peter Falk's smart literary predecessor, Sherlock Holmes, was once asked by
Scotland Yard's Chief-Inspector Gregory (hired by Ealing Studios to cover 9/11 fallout)
"Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the fluctuation in the Whole-Earth magnetometer readout,
each spike being contemporaneous with the destruction of each Tower"
Gregory: "But the magnetometer was located 4000 miles away in Alaska?"
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

To which Dr Judy would quizzically add "Why was a huge hurricane the size of Katrina, hidden
from US Telly screens all week? What was Erin doing parked within landfall of New York
the very morning of 9/11/2001?
....and how was Erin steered 120 degrees off her course-to-disaster when she was
heading straight for Manhattan?

I suggest those last 2 paragraphs go a very long way to justify the huge importance
we should place on the Directed Energy Weapon that Judy so rightly insists on.
But Do NOT get distracted by asking what the DEW might have been:
the military will guard that secret to the death....

More than anything else, it is the faked airplanes that have distracted all of us
from asking the right questions


PS Incidentally, I did say MAGNETOMETER not seismometer.... the question is to do\
with a major shift in World Magnetism, not just a blip on an earthquake chart....

Posted by: MikeR Jan 5 2014, 02:06 PM

QUOTE (roscoe @ Jan 5 2014, 09:13 PM) *
I've said my piece on this.

Not to use real planes is just too complicated and fraught with potential problems.

A drone is a much more plausible explanation and we know that technology capable of this type does exist.

These two explosions are consistent with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETqjRyYWz7E of an underground explosion prior to the first plane hitting.

We need to make this no more complicated than that.

Any further PLANER/NO PLANER arguments just gives the ones suffering from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGbEJ3pXwWM&feature=player_detailpage an excuse not to look at this.


Don't take this personally, roscoe. ...it is perfectly understandable that you have used the word "complicated"
in this thread, and twice in one post is still perfectly within the Queesnberry Forum Rulez... BUT
the perpeTRAITOR totally relies on US falling for the simple (but false)
version of ANY aspect of How They Pulled Off 9/11

We completely miss the point when we allow ourselves to become so distracted that we FORGET
there are some hugely-complicated matters which will NEVER yield simple answers.

I mentioned Hurricane Erin as well as the 4000-miles remote evidence for a DEW.

I suggest that no inquiry is ever going to hear the military tell the world, even in closed court,
the classified-secret technicalities behind either complex aspect of their crime scene.

Nor are we going to find out anytime soon what causes massive steel girders and stanchions
to turn to dust before our very eyes while we watch the vids on the laptpp screen.

Most people's brains refuse pointblank to even believe that their eyes are looking at
solid materials turning to dust, because most brains are trained to be blind to
stuff that is patently ridiculous.

Why otherwise would most smart americans believe "Jeff Bauman" really had just
lost his Bombed leg at Boston .... even though he' is clearly seen picking the bloody prosthetic
up off the road where it got knocked .... all under faked circumstances where any
real victim would've died within 2 minutes from blood loss .... and we STILL
will not to accept that our government lies like troopers


IYCWIM

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 5 2014, 04:08 PM

I'd first like to repeat what I said ealier in this thread and what will soon become my mantra here at this site.

It's the BIG picture that counts!
We are all on the same side, IF we are genuine truthers.

It matters little if Sam believes A,B,C and D happened.
George believes B,C,D, and E happened.
John believes, C,D,E and F happened.
Or even if Peter believes, L,M,N and O happened!

What matters is that all involved want justice to be served.
And the only way that can occur is if an independent, unbiased inquiry is held on 9/11.

Most of our time and effort should be spent on ensuring that this inquiry is held, NOT debating whether this occurred on 9/11 or that occurred.

*It would be nice if you quoted properly. It would help fellow readers and myself when responding*

QUOTE
Camera construction was quite technically advanced in Y2001 ...
in another shot from the same video, the Twin Towers were sharp enough when viewed in a moving chopper
from 5 miles away, as the videographer was preparing the next fake, seconds before the "UA175 lookalike" GGI appeared


Which two shots are you comparing from the same video? I'm confused.
One fuzzy and the other sharp?

QUOTE
Nah ... The easiest and most convincing resolution would be do it yourself, it's not difficult ...
many people have done it, the calcs are not rocket science you know.

Check the series of videos starting with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBpTWYUgvcM


Oy vey!
This tells me a lot if you are pointing me to the nose-in nose-out video as a starting place!
Are you a Simon Shack disciple?
It will save me a lot of time and effort to measure the speeds of the aircraft if you say you are, up front.

QUOTE
He contends that there was a military stealth drone flying along the radar path to the right and beaming a hologram of a Boeing aircraft to its left.
Maybe I missed a point there... I was under the impression Mr Hall studiously refrained
from speculating about anything stuff which would be at risk of being classified under
the Military Secrets Act of 1873 Revised 2012 ...


Yes you did miss a point. A very big one.
Mr. Hall was very outspoken about his hologram theory.

QUOTE
"As Lieutenant Columbo used to say,
"Oh sir, just one more thing... why is it that the RADES radar readings to the right, stop at just the exact moment of impact of the plane into the tower?"

That is quite some coincidence! smile.gif

Peter Falk's smart literary predecessor, Sherlock Holmes, was once asked by
Scotland Yard's Chief-Inspector Gregory (hired by Ealing Studios to cover 9/11 fallout)

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the fluctuation in the Whole-Earth magnetometer readout,
each spike being contemporaneous with the destruction of each Tower"
Gregory: "But the magnetometer was located 4000 miles away in Alaska?"
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

To which Dr Judy would quizzically add "Why was a huge hurricane the size of Katrina, hidden
from US Telly screens all week? What was Erin doing parked within landfall of New York
the very morning of 9/11/2001?
....and how was Erin steered 120 degrees off her course-to-disaster when she was
heading straight for Manhattan?"


You are ignoring my question about the RADES readings stopping at impact.

You are throwing in other comments/questions, but deliberately avoiding answering my question.
Why?


Posted by: roscoe Jan 6 2014, 03:23 AM

Judy Wood calls Steven Jones, Webster Tarpley and David A Griffin GATEKEEPERS i.e. People who are put in place to divert the inquiry. As far as I'm concerned Judy Wood is the GATEKEEPER and it's a double bluff she's attempting. Don't fall for it.

Posted by: roscoe Jan 6 2014, 03:38 AM

QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 5 2014, 02:06 PM) *
Don't take this personally, roscoe. ...it is perfectly understandable that you have used the word "complicated"
in this thread, and twice in one post is still perfectly within the Queesnberry Forum Rulez... BUT
the perpeTRAITOR totally relies on US falling for the simple (but false)
version of ANY aspect of How They Pulled Off 9/11

We completely miss the point when we allow ourselves to become so distracted that we FORGET
there are some hugely-complicated matters which will NEVER yield simple answers.

I mentioned Hurricane Erin as well as the 4000-miles remote evidence for a DEW.

I suggest that no inquiry is ever going to hear the military tell the world, even in closed court,
the classified-secret technicalities behind either complex aspect of their crime scene.

Nor are we going to find out anytime soon what causes massive steel girders and stanchions
to turn to dust before our very eyes while we watch the vids on the laptpp screen.

Most people's brains refuse pointblank to even believe that their eyes are looking at
solid materials turning to dust, because most brains are trained to be blind to
stuff that is patently ridiculous.

Why otherwise would most smart americans believe "Jeff Bauman" really had just
lost his Bombed leg at Boston .... even though he' is clearly seen picking the bloody prosthetic
up off the road where it got knocked .... all under faked circumstances where any
real victim would've died within 2 minutes from blood loss .... and we STILL
will not to accept that our government lies like troopers


IYCWIM


I've been fully onboard with 911 truth since January 2002. Purely by accident I got spared the psychological onslaught on the day (I had an examination the following day and didn't watch the TV) so I wasn't as brainwashed as everyone else. I was able to look at this with a critical mind early on. I felt there was something as crooked as a bulldog's hind leg virtually from day one.

I watched Judy Wood's lecture and smelled what she was shoveling. At first I thought she had simply lost her marbles (it happens even to academics) but when she had a go at Steven Jones, Webster Tarpley and David A Griffin I immediately thought 'Hello!!!!!' - Disinformation agent.'

You know I've learned whilst I've been active in this.

The towers collapse?

What does it matter how they collapsed? No really. I spent years arguing about Gravitational energy, free fall etc etc. It doesn't matter how they collapsed. By banging our heads continuously on this part of the story we are missing the whole point.

WHO DID IT!!!!!!!

If the towers fell as NIST said then the argument still isn't over.

Strange energies and molten steel? This is a one off event and these may be some kind of strange phenomena, I don't know.

IT DOESN'T MATTER

What matters is

WHO DID IT.

Continually trying to argue about how is totally irrelevant.

Posted by: MikeR Jan 6 2014, 10:14 AM

QUOTE (roscoe @ Jan 6 2014, 07:38 PM) *
I've been fully onboard with 911 truth since January 2002. Purely by accident I got spared the psychological onslaught on the day (I had an examination the following day and didn't watch the TV) so I wasn't as brainwashed as everyone else. I was able to look at this with a critical mind early on. I felt there was something as crooked as a bulldog's hind leg virtually from day one.

I watched Judy Wood's lecture and smelled what she was shoveling. At first I thought she had simply lost her marbles (it happens even to academics) but when she had a go at Steven Jones, Webster Tarpley and David A Griffin I immediately thought 'Hello!!!!!' - Disinformation agent.'

Okay... so I didn't know she's a disinfo agent....
bit hard to tell from this far away from Ground Zero...but even a
DA is entitled to a sensible answer to a sane questions... and Judy's
Q about Hurricane Erin is as sane and sensible as they come...
so why does nobody seem interested? ... and so what if she does
lob a few shotz at cold-fusion-party-pooper SteveBoy,
his banal off-tract discussion invites her off-color humor?


You know I've learned whilst I've been active in this.

The towers collapse?

What does it matter how they collapsed? No really. I spent years arguing about Gravitational energy, free fall etc etc. It doesn't matter how they collapsed. By banging our heads continuously on this part of the story we are missing the whole point.

WHO DID IT!!!!!!!

If the towers fell as NIST said then the argument still isn't over.

Strange energies and molten steel? This is a one off event and these may be some kind of strange phenomena, I don't know.

IT DOESN'T MATTER

What matters is

WHO DID IT.

I wasn't going to let on what I know but,
okay, new year spirit and all that.... it was done by some
master-minded in Mossad. Okay?

Now, about the collapse.

If only we could all agree on the blatantly-obvious dustification
phenomenon, we wouldn't need to get so distracted about how
a fake Boeing can exceed VNe by such an impossible 40%.....would we?


Continually trying to argue about how is totally irrelevant.

Posted by: MikeR Jan 6 2014, 11:19 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 6 2014, 08:08 AM) *
I'd first like to repeat what I said ealier in this thread and what will soon become my mantra here at this site.

It's the BIG picture that counts!
We are all on the same side, IF we are genuine truthers.
No argument so far

It matters little if Sam believes A,B,C and D happened.
George believes B,C,D, and E happened.
John believes, C,D,E and F happened.
Or even if Peter believes, L,M,N and O happened!

What matters is that all involved want justice to be served.
And the only way that can occur is if an independent, unbiased inquiry is held on 9/11.

Most of our time and effort should be spent on ensuring that this inquiry is held,
one way, if not the best way, of ramping up pressure
for a proper independent inquiry is the constant presentation of
accurate, relevant information, info that can be verified,
info for which evidence and data can be uncovered and
placed before the public and the politicans and
other researchers


NOT debating whether this occurred on 9/11 or that occurred.

*It would be nice if you quoted properly. It would help fellow readers and myself when responding*
sorry if there's some convention here that I've inadvertently failed to follow??



Which two shots are you comparing from the same video? I'm confused.
One fuzzy and the other sharp? There is only one lot of shots
that I know of.... a fake airplane of incredibly (as in unfrigginbelievable) vagueness...
and a fireball with totally-uncorrespondingly-clear colors in a
fireball shot which is as credible as any Hollywood movie fireball effect...
and the two shots, the sharp fireball and the illogically-fuzzy non-airplane
don't belong in the same movie, didn't come from the same camera...




Oy vey!
This tells me a lot if you are pointing me to the nose-in nose-out video as a starting place!
Are you a Simon Shack disciple?
um, disciple? .... which church is this guy... I'm not into religion?
But what relevance is his name to the serious question I put to you, a question which
arises from measurements and timing I have repeated several times myself,
a question of how we reconcile the same plane on the same route in the'
same airspace being timed at 225 MPH in one scene and 579 MPH in the other.

The point here is NOT whether my "225" is within plus or minus 4% ....
my point is that you can measure one plane velocity in one scene
and time the same plane by the same method in the next shot, and
the velocity difference is of the order of double or treble....

Up front? I am a professional architect, I measure distances every day of my working life,
(although I must admit others in the office are better at timing by clocks than I am....)
I have a university degree which taught the few puny skills required to make
elementary airplane velocity measurements... but I'm not asking you to
believe a word I say, for the simple reason you can readily find 2 or 3
videos on our favorite vid channel an measure the airplane speeds yourself.

Dubya's Hallowed Disciples all said it was UA175 ... they lied.
They lied about the Pentagon Plane... they lied about UA93 and
AA11 wasn't in the sky at all that day.
Establish the four faked no-planes ... and you'll get your inquiry no prob.
Eliminate the effing phony planes and the truth becomes blatantly visible for all to see


It will save me a lot of time and effort to measure the speeds of the aircraft if you say you are, up front.

The Pinocchio's Nose episode is as revealing of What Really Happened
as the military magician's Pentagon facade dynamite failing dismally
when the Airforce plane flew through that fireball .... the perpeTRAITOR in bed
made so many elementary mistakes it's no wonder David Copperfield
disowned any responsibility in the 9/11 Illusion



Yes you did miss a point. A very big one.
Mr. Hall was very outspoken about his hologram theory.
Okay ... point well made, point well taken...
Mr Hall has updated his vid since the version I saw some]
months ago, a version which very pointedly stopped short
of addressing the question of what a presumably-military
decoy jet was doing flying parallel to the UA175 path...
and as for the RADES signal stopping at the so-called
point of impact, I can only assume (in absence of hearing
what Hall has to say) that if you were faking such a flight
you would naturally have your radar cease at the point of
the impact that you allege and which your phony evidence
would point to. I will check, you don't need any more of my
cynicism till then I guess .... appreciate your drawing this
to my attention though. :-)




You are ignoring my question about the RADES readings stopping at impact.

You are throwing in other comments/questions, but deliberately avoiding answering my question.
Why?
Just covered the why? ... but the questions about
Erin and the magnetometer readings are crucial, central to the whole
9/11 truth debate.... but who ever raises them? Most people
will ignore both matters because neither will fit conveniently
into any conventional debate on the topic.... just as with
Judy's endless questions about "petty details" which again
are all of huge significance, if only they would fall easily
into either the Arab=Hijack-theory OR into the Controlled Demolition
idea... but they're a million miles away, different planet...
so I am ridiculed as Judy Wood is ridiculed for asking
these inane questions that it would be easier just to bury.

I would suggest that Dr Judy Wood's distinction in the 9/11
debate is hidden in the curious but very sharp questions
she asks


Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 6 2014, 07:17 PM

QUOTE
Most of our time and effort should be spent on ensuring that this inquiry is held,
one way, if not the best way, of ramping up pressure
for a proper independent inquiry is the constant presentation of
accurate, relevant information, info that can be verified,
info for which evidence and data can be uncovered and
placed before the public and the politicans and
other researchers


No here is where we differ.
It is not our job to present any "accurate, relevant information, info that can be verified".
We'll be going in circles debating this for decades!

WE HAVE ENOUGH SOLID EVIDENCE ALREADY! Lord knows we do.

Once the inquiries are set up, LET THE TRAINED and QUALIFIED top lawyers and experts in their field present the evidence and call the witnesses.

QUOTE
*It would be nice if you quoted properly. It would help fellow readers and myself when responding*
sorry if there's some convention here that I've inadvertently failed to follow??


You still haven't figured it out. Please ask some forum admin to help you with this.
Right now it is a royal pain in the ass to quote your posts, as I am doing now.

QUOTE
Which two shots are you comparing from the same video? I'm confused.
One fuzzy and the other sharp? There is only one lot of shots
that I know of.... a fake airplane of incredibly (as in unfrigginbelievable) vagueness...
and a fireball with totally-uncorrespondingly-clear colors in a
fireball shot which is as credible as any Hollywood movie fireball effect...
and the two shots, the sharp fireball and the illogically-fuzzy non-airplane
don't belong in the same movie, didn't come from the same camera...


You have been fed a pile of 'you know what' from your saviour, Mr. Shack.

Look at the WTC1 crash video.
Watch it carefully starting with Chief Joseph Pfeifer on the street.

Notice how blurry the chief's face is?
Notice how blurry the fireman's face is next to him?
These people are *A FEW FEET* away from the frick'n camera!

Now watch the camera swing up to catch the plane hit the tower.

NOW WATCH THE CAMERA ***ZOOM IN*** to catch the fireball and the rest !!!

Get it? The zoom function on a camera!
No zoom; blurry plane.
Drastic zoom; clearer fireball.

QUOTE
Are you a Simon Shack disciple?
um, disciple? .... which church is this guy... I'm not into religion?
But what relevance is his name to the serious question I put to you, a question which
arises from measurements and timing I have repeated several times myself,
a question of how we reconcile the same plane on the same route in the'
same airspace being timed at 225 MPH in one scene and 579 MPH in the other.


Oh it is very relevant!

I have watched countless Shack videos. After doing my thorough research I saw all the errors he was making in his arguments. Many blatant, 'school-children type' errors.

If you give me one or two links to proof the plane was traveling at different speeds I'll watch them.
Otherwise I won't waste my time trying to do calculations.

QUOTE
Up front? I am a professional architect, I measure distances every day of my working life,


I have three university degrees: B.Sc., B.Mus., B.Ed.
I did my fair share of measuring too.

QUOTE
Dubya's Hallowed Disciples all said it was UA175 ... they lied.


I agree.

QUOTE
They lied about the Pentagon Plane...


I agree.

QUOTE
they lied about UA93


I agree.

QUOTE
and
AA11 wasn't in the sky at all that day.


I agree.

QUOTE
Establish the four faked no-planes ... and you'll get your inquiry no prob.
Eliminate the effing phony planes and the truth becomes blatantly visible for all to see


Yes, the four OCT planes did not hit targets.
But two OTHER planes did hit WTC1/2.
(I may give you proof later.)

QUOTE
I can only assume (in absence of hearing
what Hall has to say) that if you were faking such a flight
you would naturally have your radar cease at the point of
the impact that you allege and which your phony evidence
would point to. I will check, you don't need any more of my
cynicism till then I guess .... appreciate your drawing this
to my attention though. :-)


You are welcome!
You don't really have to check anything here.

The transponders were switched off.
Despite this we still were able to get two sets of radar for the WTC1/2 strikes!

They didn't "naturally have" their "radar cease at the point of impact".
These readings were obtained *without the consent* of the aircraft flying!

"THEY" didn't have the ability stop the radar at the point of impact!


QUOTE
Erin and the magnetometer readings are crucial,


I agree, but this is off topic.


Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 6 2014, 07:24 PM

QUOTE (roscoe @ Jan 6 2014, 02:38 AM) *
I watched Judy Wood's lecture and smelled what she was shoveling. At first I thought she had simply lost her marbles (it happens even to academics) but when she had a go at Steven Jones, Webster Tarpley and David A Griffin I immediately thought 'Hello!!!!!' - Disinformation agent.'


I wouldn't necessarily consider her a dis-info agent.
Actually I don't think she is.
She just has strong opinions about what happened that differ from the rest.



QUOTE
You know I've learned whilst I've been active in this.

What does it matter how they collapsed? No really. I spent years arguing about Gravitational energy, free fall etc etc. It doesn't matter how they collapsed. By banging our heads continuously on this part of the story we are missing the whole point.

WHO DID IT!!!!!!!


Absolutely.



QUOTE
Strange energies and molten steel? This is a one off event and these may be some kind of strange phenomena, I don't know.



I'm not like you. Intellectually and intuitively I know there is no physical explanation for molten steel flowing underground based upon fires on the upper floors and collapsed buildings.


QUOTE
IT DOESN'T MATTER

What matters is

WHO DID IT.



Agreed!

QUOTE
Continually trying to argue about how is totally irrelevant.



Agreed!

Posted by: roscoe Jan 7 2014, 02:40 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD_vwzjdTi4

A friend of mine told me recently that as a soldier at the British withdrawal from Palestine his column was attacked.

BY SPITFIRES OF THE ISRAELI AIRFORCE THAT THE BRITISH HAD GIVEN THEM.

Posted by: MikeR Jan 8 2014, 08:43 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 7 2014, 11:17 AM) *
No here is where we differ.
It is not our job to present any "accurate, relevant information, info that can be verified".
We'll be going in circles debating this for decades!

WE HAVE ENOUGH SOLID EVIDENCE ALREADY! Lord knows we do.


We can't even agree which of the evidence is solid and which is fracked

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 7 2014, 11:17 AM) *
Once the inquiries are set up, LET THE TRAINED and QUALIFIED top lawyers and experts in their field present the evidence and call the witnesses, whatever gives you solid hope for an impartial outcome of any hearing?
The perpeTRAITOR has limitless cash.... it can buy any outcome it could ever want, no price is too high.
Do you have no idea what is the real problem the Whole Wide World is up against?
They own the globe.... forget that fact only at your peril


The Qui Tam Case was submitted by well trained top qualified experts, and it was accepted
by the High Court. The Supreme Court however, as expected, still ignored solid evidence
and made a decision to obey der ubermeistereren

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 7 2014, 11:17 AM) *
You still haven't figured it out. Please ask some forum admin to help you with this.
Right now it is a royal pain in the ass to quote your posts, as I am doing now.

A mere car-driver finds piloting this forum software is a right royal pain, too.
Is he doin' any better tonite?

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 7 2014, 11:17 AM) *
You have been fed a pile of 'you know what' from your saviour, Mr. Shack.


I'm not familiar with Mr Shack... sorry, but you'll have to elucidate, if it's relevant

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 7 2014, 11:17 AM) *
Look at the WTC1 crash video.
Watch it carefully starting with Chief Joseph Pfeifer on the street.

Notice how blurry the chief's face is?
Notice how blurry the fireman's face is next to him?
These people are *A FEW FEET* away from the frick'n camera!

Now watch the camera swing up to catch the plane hit the tower.

NOW WATCH THE CAMERA ***ZOOM IN*** to catch the fireball and the rest !!!

Get it? The zoom function on a camera!
No zoom; blurry plane.
Drastic zoom; clearer fireball.


Good point, well taken .... but now I've replayed
the plane image, my attention is attention again
to a huge question I can't find answered anywhere....
did you get it?
Quick timing of the virtual CGI without a Rolex indicates
a real "AA11" would've been traveling at 1000 MPH
Even more impossibly over-VNe than the "UN175" GCI

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 7 2014, 11:17 AM) *
I have watched countless Shack videos. After doing my thorough research I saw all the errors he was making in his arguments. Many blatant, 'school-children type' errors.


Yeah, you started on the nose-out problem: my retarded mind still grabs the aweful thought
that the perpeTRAITOR's hire chopper strayed off-course? Where did I go wrong?

I see Ace Baker's top video on the topic has been taken off YT
for the usual phony copywrite excuse, the pathetic apology they peddle whenever
the Perps ass needs a shotload of cover

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 7 2014, 11:17 AM) *
If you give me one or two links to proof the plane was traveling at different speeds I'll watch them.
Otherwise I won't waste my time trying to do calculations.


Save time at this link: the all-important speed calc has been done for us ad infinitum
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/speed/
The slow-speed shot of "UA175" has dropped off my Rolodex, so revert instead
to the even-more significant question of the measurable velocity of
the "AA11" CGI

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 7 2014, 11:17 AM) *
I have three university degrees: B.Sc., B.Mus., B.Ed.
....


Congrats indeed, Sir... let me know when you can Take Five and teach me the mysterious science
latent in Alkan's "Quasi Faust", esp. where the left hand introduces the 2nd part of the tricky fugue....
Or d'ya reckon the present topic is challenge enough to keep all hands on the yoke? whistle.gif

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 7 2014, 11:17 AM) *
---

Yes, the four OCT planes did not hit targets.
But two OTHER planes did hit WTC1/2.
(I may give you proof later.)


Any OTHER plane hitting a building is total distraction....but any decoy plane, e.g. the Pentagon kite,
now that's a bird of different color

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 7 2014, 11:17 AM) *
The transponders were switched off.
Despite this we still were able to get two sets of radar for the WTC1/2 strikes!

They didn't "naturally have" their "radar cease at the point of impact".
These readings were obtained *without the consent* of the aircraft flying!

"THEY" didn't have the ability stop the radar at the point of impact!


I confess I haven't followed the transponders: my bigoted mind
raises yet another distraction-alert question, even in this context.

I did check the Hall video again, yes he has totally updated it since I
last watched. I note the military radar transmits every 12 seconds...
and yes, this time he does indeed spell out the previous hint, of
creating a holographic image of "UA175".

Only one real problem: a hologram image suffers from the same problem
and OTHER real airplane presents us with:

If the was some OTHER plane/device/image/holohoax or whatever
to act the part of "UA175" in the drama, why are there still a whole
lot of video shots with no image at all showing in the exact
location location location where we are later told there was
a real live Boeing being flown by a cracked test pilot
totally-misguided remotely by insha'Allah?

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 7 2014, 11:17 AM) *
I agree, but this is off topic.

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 18 2014, 10:27 PM

Sorry for the late reply Mike.


QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 8 2014, 07:43 PM) *
A mere car-driver finds piloting this forum software is a right royal pain, too.
Is he doin' any better tonite?


Yes much better. It seems you have mastered the art of proper quoting on P4T. smile.gif


QUOTE
I'm not familiar with Mr Shack... sorry, but you'll have to elucidate, if it's relevant


It's funny you say that, because you have already posted links to his work (nose in nose out). smile.gif
Mr. Simon Shack is the official 9/11 CGI proselytizer. He believes ALL 9/11 video images are fake, including the collapse of the WTC towers.

QUOTE
Good point, well taken .... but now I've replayed
the plane image, my attention is attention again
to a huge question I can't find answered anywhere....
did you get it?
Quick timing of the virtual CGI without a Rolex indicates
a real "AA11" would've been traveling at 1000 MPH
Even more impossibly over-VNe than the "UN175" GCI


Yes I got it.
Only one reading shows a marked discrepancy from the official jet speeds.
That is hardly convincing evidence!

QUOTE
Yeah, you started on the nose-out problem: my retarded mind still grabs the aweful thought
that the perpeTRAITOR's hire chopper strayed off-course? Where did I go wrong?


Ace Baker also adopted Shack's CGI theories.
Baker took on Steve Wright in a Hardfire debate hosted by Ron Wieck.
For most of the debate they focused on the nose-in-nose out shot.

Baker completely missed the plane approaching from the south!!!
This is from a fellow who has studied and put together a complex series of videos.
Quite mind boggling.
There are several videos available of the WTC2 plane approach.
The Youtube poor quality video, in which you can barely see the plane approaching and other much better quality videos in which the plane is quite visible.

Baker also failed to address the engine (nose-out) shooting out from the north of the tower in all the other videos shot that day. The nose-in-nose-out phenomenon is an optical illusion. I fell for it briefly myself, so don't feel bad.

What I do feel bad for though are those who cling to this nonsense years later.

In case you don't know, Baker, at a loss to explain the engine shooting out the south side, has resorted to saying some form of cannon must have accomplished that! He's serious too. sad.gif

QUOTE
Only one real problem: a hologram image suffers from the same problem
and OTHER real airplane presents us with:

If the was some OTHER plane/device/image/holohoax or whatever
to act the part of "UA175" in the drama, why are there still a whole
lot of video shots with no image at all showing in the exact
location location location where we are later told there was
a real live Boeing being flown by a cracked test pilot
totally-misguided remotely by insha'Allah?


Huh?
Please give me links for the "whole
lot of video shots with no image at all "

Thanks!


Posted by: roscoe Feb 24 2014, 05:42 AM

The main argument from the BOXCUTTER CONSPIRACY THEORISTS is that this is the shock wave from the the aircraft hit.

This shot appears to be from half way down Park Row. Approx 550 meters direct from the BASE of the North Tower. The shock of the plane hitting would need to travel from the 92nd floor of the tower down 350 meters. So the shock wave would need to travel 900 meters in order to shake the camera. If you watch the woman in the grey top, she stops behind the man's leg when she hears the plane, slightly before the camera shake. the plane would pass on the North side only 450 meters from her position at its nearest point. Whilst it is true that a pressure wave would travel through a solid faster than air it is never twice as fast.

We need to nail this with some figures.

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