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 )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Photography Buffs, Please Help Out Here, or "What's Wrong with this Picture?"

paulmichael
post Feb 25 2014, 06:41 PM
Post #41





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



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 25 2014, 05:34 PM) *
Please read all of my follow-up replies.

To repeat: the whole approach by doing up angles is grossly inferior and downright wrong as done above!

P.M.


Ladies and Gentlemen:

Here's a recent article that offers some pertinent insight: How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations.

An excerpt:
"namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet, itself."
P.M.

This post has been edited by paulmichael: Feb 25 2014, 06:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 25 2014, 07:37 PM
Post #42





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



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 25 2014, 11:41 AM) *
QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 25 2014, 11:34 AM) *

Please read all of my follow-up replies.

To repeat: the whole approach by doing up angles is grossly inferior and downright wrong as done above!

P.M.


Ladies and Gentlemen:

Here's a recent article that offers some pertinent insight: How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations.

An excerpt:
"namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet, itself."
P.M.


I hope this ciation-of-your-reply&reply-it-yourself is not attempt to imply anybody here being covert agent infiltrating this site to manipulate, control, deceive, warp discourse and destroy reputations in doing so compromise the integrity of the internet, itself.
What a pathetic agency would do that in the Alternative Theories section anyway... doh1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 25 2014, 08:25 PM
Post #43



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 25 2014, 11:41 PM) *
Ladies and Gentlemen:

Here's a recent article that offers some pertinent insight: How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations.

An excerpt:
"namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet, itself."
P.M.


Rght, let's get in to the nitty gritty here. The only person "warping" any discussion here is you. Anybody who even questions NPT are now shills?

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 25 2014, 05:26 PM) *
TM

NP1Mike provided an extensive list of witnesses to an aircraft. Response? Some tired cryptic yarn that basically says that they were all stooges.

I provide multiple images and videos. Response? Hollywood special effects. Even though most images and videos have named authors.

I question the validity of the prospect that the MSM had to be in on it, along with the "fake" witnesses and "fake" authors/images/videos. Response? Sweet FA.

I provide evidence that TV communications were affected to explain the "fade to black" argument (and the real question should be wtf caused that). Response? Sweet FA.

I provide an alternative explanation for the "nose out", which involves a penetrative warhead that matches what can be seen. Response? Sweet FA.

I provide an alternative as to how the building could have been penetrated, an example of a modified aircraft (747) that looked exactly the same on the exterior but could carry double the weight and fly at the same speed. Response? Sweet FA.

I provide a visual example of how an object travelling at 700fps, travelling its own distance in a sixth of a second can appear to "disappear". Response? Sweet FA.

I provide evidence that debris of some sort can be seen falling from the impact side of the south tower and that debris was caught both in audio and video in real time just after the impact. Response? Sweet FA.

I provide evidence that the south tower swayed at the time of impact. Response? The video is fake or "special explosives" were used to make ot appear that there was an impact!

That's the wonder of the NPT theory. Every argument can be made by simply using the word "fake". No need for research. Just play on words. That's what I mean by "mental masturbation".


Start debating and stop yapping.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 25 2014, 10:06 PM
Post #44





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 23 2014, 03:26 PM) *
TM

Here's your own "chilled out" post to me where you put me in the same ballpark as all of the shills I've been fighting for years, just for having questioned NPT.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804800


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

This here is just satire OSS, pure satire, and of course not to be taken too seriously.

Further down and more seriously, i implored you not to mix with this unsavory mob,
meaning of course that it would be far wiser for you not to turn up to this mock NPT
funeral, arranged by the OSH's, Loyalists and others of same ilk. ('They' would have
had you over a barrel!):

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

QUOTE
Read also in the same link where you say that there were "four planes" seen that day
but go on to defend NPT!


It cannot be denied that 4 planes were seen that day. It's an established fact.Therefore
NPT must by sheer necessity be associated with something "else". This is unavoidable,
as otherwise we have to go into the "ridiculous" .... and thus be laughed at!!! Perish
the Thought.
Therefore, as far as i'm concerned, NPT can only be associated exclusively with the
questions regarding the actual impact sites. I think that none of the planes observed
impacted any of the sites. You think that only two sites (WTC) were impacted by planes.
Again, "you chose horse #10, and i chose #7".

QUOTE
And you accused me directly of having said this


No not "directly", only by "association", and of course your "masturbation" comment didn't
help!

QUOTE
Again, bollocks. How can I accuse you of any of those when I say that you're straight up??

NPT as it's being discussed here is mental masturbation. Just look at the "debate" on it these past few days.


It's probably a good thing you didn't make that clear from the start. At least a few points
got sorted here because of that, which i'm happy with.

QUOTE
NP1Mike provided an extensive list of witnesses to an aircraft. Response? Some tired cryptic yarn that basically says that they were all stooges.

I provide multiple images and videos. Response? Hollywood special effects. Even though most images and videos have named authors.

I question the validity of the prospect that the MSM had to be in on it, along with the "fake" witnesses and "fake" authors/images/videos. Response? Sweet FA.

I provide evidence that TV communications were affected to explain the "fade to black" argument (and the real question should be wtf caused that). Response? Sweet FA.

I provide an alternative explanation for the "nose out", which involves a penetrative warhead that matches what can be seen. Response? Sweet FA.

I provide an alternative as to how the building could have been penetrated, an example of a modified aircraft (747) that looked exactly the same on the exterior but could carry double the weight and fly at the same speed. Response? Sweet FA.

I provide a visual example of how an object travelling at 700fps, travelling its own distance in a sixth of a second can appear to "disappear". Response? Sweet FA.

I provide evidence that debris of some sort can be seen falling from the impact side of the south tower and that debris was caught both in audio and video in real time just after the impact. Response? Sweet FA.

I provide evidence that the south tower swayed at the time of impact. Response? The video is fake or "special explosives" were used to make ot appear that there was an impact!

That's the wonder of the NPT theory. Every argument can be made by simply using the word "fake". No need for research. Just play on words. That's what I mean by "mental masturbation".


Yes, there's no denying you're making an excellent fight for your course. It's very impressive
indeed.

I completely lack your research skills. I'm no academic and haven't got a "scientific" mind at
all so don't look at things in absolute details, almost as through a microscope.
I find instead 'pleasure' in the overall view - in the harmonies, in the absolute 'accuracies', in
the vistas and in the perspectives and the "True pictures" this gives me. If something doesn't
quite 'gel' in what i 'see', it is then in this way immediately noticed, as it stands out with such
contrast as to be easily spotted.
This could perhaps be the reasons why i on a few occasions don't always see the same as you!

Cheers and peace










This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Feb 25 2014, 10:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 25 2014, 10:17 PM
Post #45





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



I flatly refuse to continue the debate regarding lines, angles, east/west/north/south offsets, et cetera. There! I said it!

"Why?" you ask.

Well, I admit that I am not eminently qualified to do so.

I am not a genius Ph.D. in Mathematics.

I rate as only gifted on the I.Q. scale, and all that I hold is a mere Bachelor's degree.

While I took enough Mathematics courses in college to qualify me to be a non-certified high school Math teacher in New York City when non-certified teachers were being recruited there and while I received straight "A's" in all of my Math courses, I must admit that have never attended a graduate-level Math course, so if you feel that this makes me out to be inadequate, then so be it.

So, here's the deal. Instead of my continuing to implore photography buffs for their expert input here, I am going to start another thread to attract Math geniuses to help out. I'll call that thread: "Genius Ph.D. Math Buffs, Please Help Out Here... or "What's Wrong With tumetuestumefaisdubien?"

We'll see with whom the Math experts side: with tumetuestumefaisdubien in his analysis or with me with my critique of that analysis.

I am not afraid to bring on the experts. Are you?

BRING IT ON!

P.M.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 26 2014, 04:20 AM
Post #46





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (FirstUsedBooks @ Feb 23 2014, 05:05 PM) *
No, I'm not. Neither the spandrels nor the floors presented much in the way of lateral resistance.


They would have presented a lot regarding the outer wings and stabilizer, but presented
far far more in the way of 'horizontal' resistance.

QUOTE
Imo the biggest fail for the NPT has already been mentioned in this thread (iirc), which is the sway of the buildings reported by numerous survivors.


You don't think the explosions could have some influence?

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 26 2014, 05:26 AM
Post #47





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 23 2014, 05:09 PM) *
Thanks for your response TM. Yes, I am beginning to get an idea of the way you think.

The onus is on _you, to _prove it was planted!


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...21357&st=40

QUOTE
re: the speed of the nose-out piece.
Can you please give me the speed of the piece?


no. I'll leave that to you or others who are far more savvy than me in that department.

QUOTE
You also say something that sounds very strange to me.
You are saying that the "subsequent explosion" could never cause the piece to emerge at the speed it exhibits.

Who ever said that the explosion caused the piece to emerge at its speed?


Well it certainly wasn't me, of course.

Some people think it was an engine coming smoothly out through a ca. 400mm wide window
carried by the momentum of the alleged plane. But judging from the directional path of the
alleged plane, it seem to me that this engine part would have hit the western wall further down
near the southern wall. But as you know i don't think there was any plane, so for me it's a moot
point.
Perhaps the 'savvy person' could overlay a scaled plane on a WTC2 floor plan and exactly pinpoint
where the alleged starboard engine would have hit the perimeter wall, given the accurate flight
path? Just a suggestion, that's all!

QUOTE
1) Have you ever considered that you have this completely backwards?

2) Not an explosion causing the piece to emerge, but rather a piece breaking through and causing an explosion?


1) No.

2) this makes no sense to me, so you'll have to elaborate on this, please!

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Feb 26 2014, 05:27 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Feb 26 2014, 06:04 AM
Post #48


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



QUOTE
Perhaps the 'savvy person' could overlay a scaled plane on a WTC2 floor plan and exactly pinpoint
where the alleged starboard engine would have hit the perimeter wall, given the accurate flight
path?


im not endorsing what these allege/purport, but you will find them relevant:

https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulat...Run12/index.htm
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulat...ase4/index.html



***


my 2cents in this debate -

penetration explained: milliseconds before plane meets building, inside - behind the facade - multiple concrete floor pans, and at least some number of columns inside the building are dropped, clearing way for plane to penetrate the thin exterior. once inside, the plane itself is rigged to explode - this to avoid it being a solid object meeting the core, an impact which would have swayed the building much more substantially than was seen. solid plane meeting core columns at that speed might even tilt the entire upper part of the building and break it off or force the entire tower to lean dangerously from the force of the solid blow. the more "solid" the plane - as in fortified or structurally strengthened - the more direct energy it will impart on the solid core of the building, meaning a greater risk of a catastrophic sway or lean.

evidence for preimpact demo: flash seen milliseconds prior to penetration is of an explosion happening inside the building. my theory proposes that this happened at multiple floors, so i admit i cant explain why only one flash - at about nose level of the plane - can be seen. why the hot spot there become visible and not the others required per my theory, i dont know. but as ive explained before*, i dont think the plane could penetrate so seamlessly IF the concrete floor pans were in the way.

other evidence: "edna cintron" - though the name is in doubt, i believe the woman caught (on video and in at least one pic) hanging on for dear life on a precipice, is proof that there is no floor behind her. in fact in the larger versions of that pic you can see the floorless cavern behind her rather clearly, though you cant tell how far down the hole goes. whats clear is that if she could go anywhere, she would. she is stuck there hanging on precariously at the edge of a 1000 foot fall. if there was anywhere to retreat to, she would. she cant because the floors ARE missing.

more: the "nose out" is actually a fuselage/cockpit shaped explosion, because thats what blew up. i propose the plane penetrated the exterior unimpeded by the concrete floor pans and unimpeded by the columns on at least the impact side. to avoid the full brunt of the horizontal inertia from being exerted directly on the core, the plane - rigged with explosives throughout - explodes, igniting the fuel in the wide spray, but initially the high velocity cockpit explosion (not yet deformed or crushed by hitting anything major inside the building) explodes outward giving the "nose out" appearance. you can see its a wave of something that in milliseconds becomes the giant fireball - it is an explosion resulting from the cockpit blowing apart and imo thats why it keeps that shape.

hint of columns missing: before the "collapse" begins, the tower begins to lean heavily and rotate toward what i guess was a "weak" side. perhaps too many columns were dropped and that side began to sag with the weight above it. or during the triggered demolition, the absence of columns is what gave way to the tilt thats seen in the videos, so many were missing that it affected the upper portion's direction of "collapse".



*Some Say Aluminum Planes Can't Penetrate Steel, How about pumpkins?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774440
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774495
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774522
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774528
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774826



***


wether empty or boarded*, planes did take off and at least for a while they kept in touch with atc, and then these planes disappeared. thus the perps/executers proved that they could make planes disappear, but they also showed that they could makes planes appear that day, as there are multiple eye and ear witnesses to "commercial" type of planes at all 3 locations. now hitting tall targets like the towers, without having to bother enlisiting living participants to have to die in flight, in other words using remote control crashing into the two towers was an achieveable task with minimal chance of failure at least where lining up and hitting the targets was concerned, and so they did it. where 77 and 93 are concerned, the mission is much more complex where actual flying is concerned and requires imo a living breathing experienced pilot, and that they did. they had these pilots onboard planes, and had them do their aerobatic stunts over the necessary locations (as witnessed by dozens of eyewitnesses). so there is no doubt that actual planes flew over these locations, as such, the need to fake the tower impacts isnt really there. why bother with the complex scheme of video fakery, when lining up two planes with 1000 foot tall structures is doable? the pentagon manuever is insanely difficult even for an experienced commercial pilot, and they managed to pull that off with an actual physical plane on location. the towers are easy to hit without pilots and the perps can get maximum shock and awe from the second impact, enough to weaken and blind the sheeple into slavery, so why go through the logistical difficulty of faking it?

also, by now ive spoken to 3 separate people from brooklyn who claim they saw the plane that day (from brooklyn). they dont have any reason to lie, they wait tables, ride motorcycles, smoke weed, and one of them spends alot of time playing chess in various parks in nyc. they are normal people. the event was far away from them, but in varying degrees of clarity they all recall seeing a fast moving flying object headed into the tower (only one saw it enough to specifically call it a plane) and then seeing the giant fireball.




*"boarded" - there is what i deem to be a credible account by a Tim Bateman (links below), an AA employee at dulles, who recalls seating Mary Jane Booth (aa employee who is listed as a vicitim onboard "aa77") on to a plane. if true, and to me it seems it is, then a plane was indeed boarded at dulles and on it was at least one person who is now "gone".

http://ww2.fairfaxtimes.com/cms/archivestory.php?id=140451
http://404audio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=...ba10a04#p232409 (post by "sheridan")

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 26 2014, 09:55 AM
Post #49





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



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 25 2014, 03:17 PM) *
I flatly refuse to continue the debate regarding lines, angles, east/west/north/south offsets, et cetera. There! I said it!

Good, sounds determined.

QUOTE
"Why?" you ask.
Well, I admit that I am not eminently qualified to do so.
I am not a genius Ph.D. in Mathematics.

Looks like that. But anyway who needs a Ph.D. in math to see a difference of two perspective angles or cardinal directions? Isn't it rather a highschool stuff? Did the the dumbing-down of the general population advanced so much since my childhood it now requires a Ph.D. qualification for such things?

QUOTE
I rate as only gifted on the I.Q. scale, and all that I hold is a mere Bachelor's degree.
While I took enough Mathematics courses in college to qualify me to be a non-certified high school Math teacher in New York City when non-certified teachers were being recruited there and while I received straight "A's" in all of my Math courses, I must admit that have never attended a graduate-level Math course, so if you feel that this makes me out to be inadequate, then so be it.

Poignant rolleyes.gif
No offense intended, but is this the clash of civilizations or a close encounter of whatever kind?

QUOTE
So, here's the deal. Instead of my continuing to implore photography buffs for their expert input here, I am going to start another thread to attract Math geniuses to help out. I'll call that thread: "Genius Ph.D. Math Buffs, Please Help Out Here... or "What's Wrong With tumetuestumefaisdubien?"
We'll see with whom the Math experts side: with tumetuestumefaisdubien in his analysis or with me with my critique of that analysis.
I am not afraid to bring on the experts. Are you?

I wonder what makes this people believe that when proved unable to fly Cessna 172 they would do any better with a B757. dunno.gif
Only I'm afraid here is that for online psychanalysise me or calling math geniuses into arms to help telling the difference between two angles that for such dog&ponny show will not be sufficient motivation and attendance. But maybe I'm wrong, people love vaudevilles after all.

QUOTE
BRING IT ON!

Haven't you brought on enough already?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 26 2014, 09:59 AM
Post #50





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



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 25 2014, 05:41 PM) *
Ladies and Gentlemen:

Here's a recent article that offers some pertinent insight: How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations.

An excerpt:
"namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet, itself."
P.M.

Ladies and Gentlemen: BEWARE!

Never, ever assume that three or more screen names are, in fact, representing three or more real and different people. There may be only ONE person behind all of those multiple screen names.

This is to simulate conversations among people of the same mind and is used to make it seem like the majority opinion is superior to and trumping a minority opinion.

The agencies alluded to above have such a history and reputation that they need not make any special efforts to recruit psychopaths because, at this time in the scheme of things, psychopaths are naturally attracted to employment opportunities at such agencies.

Such psychopaths come with certifiable multiple personalities that drive the aforementioned conversations, and with multiple styles of writing and with very dissimilar screen names, even literary forensic experts may have a hard time recognizing the fact that only one person, not many, is behind so many posts of the same positions and opinions.

If you have a bit of trouble digesting all of this, then ask yourself, just how can a psy-op be envisioned by planners to have any chance of success without the use of such psychos?

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 26 2014, 10:03 AM
Post #51





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (paranoia @ Feb 24 2014, 09:04 AM) *
im not endorsing what these allege/purport, but you will find them relevant:

https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulat...Run12/index.htm
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulat...ase4/index.html



***


my 2cents in this debate -

penetration explained: milliseconds before plane meets building, inside - behind the facade - multiple concrete floor pans, and at least some number of columns inside the building are dropped, clearing way for plane to penetrate the thin exterior. once inside, the plane itself is rigged to explode - this to avoid it being a solid object meeting the core, an impact which would have swayed the building much more substantially than was seen. solid plane meeting core columns at that speed might even tilt the entire upper part of the building and break it off or force the entire tower to lean dangerously from the force of the solid blow. the more "solid" the plane - as in fortified or structurally strengthened - the more direct energy it will impart on the solid core of the building, meaning a greater risk of a catastrophic sway or lean.

evidence for preimpact demo: flash seen milliseconds prior to penetration is of an explosion happening inside the building. my theory proposes that this happened at multiple floors, so i admit i cant explain why only one flash - at about nose level of the plane - can be seen. why the hot spot there become visible and not the others required per my theory, i dont know. but as ive explained before*, i dont think the plane could penetrate so seamlessly IF the concrete floor pans were in the way.

other evidence: "edna cintron" - though the name is in doubt, i believe the woman caught (on video and in at least one pic) hanging on for dear life on a precipice, is proof that there is no floor behind her. in fact in the larger versions of that pic you can see the floorless cavern behind her rather clearly, though you cant tell how far down the hole goes. whats clear is that if she could go anywhere, she would. she is stuck there hanging on precariously at the edge of a 1000 foot fall. if there was anywhere to retreat to, she would. she cant because the floors ARE missing.

more: the "nose out" is actually a fuselage/cockpit shaped explosion, because thats what blew up. i propose the plane penetrated the exterior unimpeded by the concrete floor pans and unimpeded by the columns on at least the impact side. to avoid the full brunt of the horizontal inertia from being exerted directly on the core, the plane - rigged with explosives throughout - explodes, igniting the fuel in the wide spray, but initially the high velocity cockpit explosion (not yet deformed or crushed by hitting anything major inside the building) explodes outward giving the "nose out" appearance. you can see its a wave of something that in milliseconds becomes the giant fireball - it is an explosion resulting from the cockpit blowing apart and imo thats why it keeps that shape.

hint of columns missing: before the "collapse" begins, the tower begins to lean heavily and rotate toward what i guess was a "weak" side. perhaps too many columns were dropped and that side began to sag with the weight above it. or during the triggered demolition, the absence of columns is what gave way to the tilt thats seen in the videos, so many were missing that it affected the upper portion's direction of "collapse".



*Some Say Aluminum Planes Can't Penetrate Steel, How about pumpkins?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774440
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774495
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774522
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774528
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774826



***


wether empty or boarded*, planes did take off and at least for a while they kept in touch with atc, and then these planes disappeared. thus the perps/executers proved that they could make planes disappear, but they also showed that they could makes planes appear that day, as there are multiple eye and ear witnesses to "commercial" type of planes at all 3 locations. now hitting tall targets like the towers, without having to bother enlisiting living participants to have to die in flight, in other words using remote control crashing into the two towers was an achieveable task with minimal chance of failure at least where lining up and hitting the targets was concerned, and so they did it. where 77 and 93 are concerned, the mission is much more complex where actual flying is concerned and requires imo a living breathing experienced pilot, and that they did. they had these pilots onboard planes, and had them do their aerobatic stunts over the necessary locations (as witnessed by dozens of eyewitnesses). so there is no doubt that actual planes flew over these locations, as such, the need to fake the tower impacts isnt really there. why bother with the complex scheme of video fakery, when lining up two planes with 1000 foot tall structures is doable? the pentagon manuever is insanely difficult even for an experienced commercial pilot, and they managed to pull that off with an actual physical plane on location. the towers are easy to hit without pilots and the perps can get maximum shock and awe from the second impact, enough to weaken and blind the sheeple into slavery, so why go through the logistical difficulty of faking it?

also, by now ive spoken to 3 separate people from brooklyn who claim they saw the plane that day (from brooklyn). they dont have any reason to lie, they wait tables, ride motorcycles, smoke weed, and one of them spends alot of time playing chess in various parks in nyc. they are normal people. the event was far away from them, but in varying degrees of clarity they all recall seeing a fast moving flying object headed into the tower (only one saw it enough to specifically call it a plane) and then seeing the giant fireball.




*"boarded" - there is what i deem to be a credible account by a Tim Bateman (links below), an AA employee at dulles, who recalls seating Mary Jane Booth (aa employee who is listed as a vicitim onboard "aa77") on to a plane. if true, and to me it seems it is, then a plane was indeed boarded at dulles and on it was at least one person who is now "gone".

http://ww2.fairfaxtimes.com/cms/archivestory.php?id=140451
http://404audio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=...ba10a04#p232409 (post by "sheridan")


Thanks for your links and input paranoia, but what you gave as a link was ´elevations´!
I was suggestion 'a floor plan'. And we are talking about WTC2 at the moment, not
WTC1.

Here are just a few comments to part of your post:

"....multiple concrete floor pans, and at least some number of columns inside the building are dropped ...."

What about the ceiling lights? Wouldn't it have looked rather odd if a few days before 9/11, someone
had taken a photo or video of the towers showing that both impact areas were covered in total darkness,
while floors above and below were illuminated - and which subsequently became available to the public!
A Coincidence perhaps?? ....nah.

"....other evidence: "edna cintron" - though the name is in doubt, i believe the woman caught (on video
and in at least one pic) hanging on for dear life on a precipice, is proof that there is no floor behind her ...."

Long time ago i superimposed a scaled 767 (with the measurements only, and a ruler) on to my computer
screen, and found that the 'floor' dear 'Edna' was standing on, would have been hit by the bottom of the
nacelle of the alleged plane. wouldn't mind if some computer 'genius' would repeat this experiment with
some absolutely accurate graphics to see if i was right or not! ....Please - someone??

"....more: the "nose out" is actually a fuselage/cockpit shaped explosion, because thats what blew up. ...."

and further":

"....it is an explosion resulting from the cockpit blowing apart and imo thats why it keeps that shape. ...."

You're joking right? in fact, way back on "Above Top Secret" an OSH'er maintained stubbornly it was a dust
cloud we were all seeing. Funny bloke he was!

"....who recalls seating Mary Jane Booth (aa employee who is listed as a vicitim onboard "aa77" ...."

Isn't she the one 'whatshisname' later married after his wife died on the alleged plane?
Are you saying that Mary Jane Booth and 'whatshername' is one and the same woman?

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 26 2014, 10:23 AM
Post #52



Group Icon

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



Nope, still no debate going on here.

QUOTE
What about the ceiling lights? Wouldn't it have looked rather odd if a few days before 9/11, someone had taken a photo or video of the towers showing that both impact areas were covered in total darkness, while floors above and below were illuminated - and which subsequently became available to the public!


Yea, couldn't risk that TM! Better to blow the building up sans aircraft in plain day while the building next to it is being watched by millions, then send in the troops of fake witnesses, photographers, videomakers and a scripted MSM rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
justaskin
post Feb 26 2014, 01:06 PM
Post #53





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 28-August 12
Member No.: 6,979



I have a question for the Twin Towers/NPT folks: from the perp's point of view, why bother? What would any of the no planes scenarios accomplish that could not have been accomplished (much easier, with many fewer things to potentially go wrong) by using a couple of boneyard/surplus aircraft fitted with remote control/homing, extra fuel/pyrotechnics, etc?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 26 2014, 02:54 PM
Post #54



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (justaskin @ Feb 26 2014, 06:06 PM) *
I have a question for the Twin Towers/NPT folks: from the perp's point of view, why bother? What would any of the no planes scenarios accomplish that could not have been accomplished (much easier, with many fewer things to potentially go wrong) by using a couple of boneyard/surplus aircraft fitted with remote control/homing, extra fuel/pyrotechnics, etc?


From another thread on this

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 04:49 PM) *
All 4 events of 9/11 had to be tightly controlled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It makes no sense.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 26 2014, 07:12 PM
Post #55





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



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 26 2014, 04:26 AM) *
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...21357&st=40

no. I'll leave that to you or others who are far more savvy than me in that department.


I am a little disappointed to read this.
After all, it was you who suggested that the nose-out piece was traveling so fast, not me.

I don't believe it; that is why I asked you for proof.
When bold statements such as yours are made, it is always prudent to have backup proof in case you are called on it. It seems you were just talking off the top of your head.


QUOTE
... But judging from the directional path of the
alleged plane, it seem to me that this engine part would have hit the western wall further down
near the southern wall.



I think you've got your walls mixed up a bit TM?
The western wall? Huh?
The southern wall? Huh?

QUOTE
(Me)
"1) Have you ever considered that you have this completely backwards?

2) Not an explosion causing the piece to emerge, but rather a piece breaking through and
causing an explosion?"


1) No.

2) this makes no sense to me, so you'll have to elaborate on this, please!


It seemed to me you were suggesting that an explosion inside the tower caused the engine to be propelled out the north end of the tower into the street.

I was suggesting the opposite; an engine breaking through the north side and creating an explosion of the wall by doing so.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 26 2014, 09:48 PM
Post #56





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 24 2014, 10:12 PM) *
I am a little disappointed to read this.
After all, it was you who suggested that the nose-out piece was traveling so fast, not me.

I don't believe it; that is why I asked you for proof.
When bold statements such as yours are made, it is always prudent to have backup proof in case you are called on it. It seems you were just talking off the top of your head.


I wrote:
"The indeterminable piece (incomprehensibly called the 'engine' by many) coming out of the tower
with great speed, following the 'nose-out' configuration, could never have been caused by the
subsequent explosion that appears. The velocity of the piece is far too great for that. And with that
speed, if genuine, it should actually and in fact have come out well before the 'nose-out'."

Proof of what, NP1Mike, and what is it you don't believe?? Are you suggesting that judging from the
trajectory of this piece it's actually coming out rather slowly? And that i'm "just talking off the top of
my head" by seeing it otherwise?

QUOTE
I think you've got your walls mixed up a bit TM?
The western wall? Huh?
The southern wall? Huh?


UPS! Thanks for the correction.
Hope it was just my Danish brain momentarily getting confused by looking at the 'world' from the
opposite end of the globe, than what it had been used to in the past! Or it could be the red wine
of course. Sorry for this silly and thoughtless mistake.

QUOTE
It seemed to me you were suggesting that an explosion inside the tower caused the engine to be propelled out the north end of the tower into the street.


No, i said "The indeterminable piece", because that is what it was! 'An engine' is just what some
people "imagine", or "assume" it to be!

QUOTE
I was suggesting the opposite; an engine breaking through the north side and creating an explosion of the wall by doing so.


If you look at the facade where this piece would have come out, you'll see that there's no damage
to the columns on both sides of the exit window frame, except scorch marks from the explosion of
course.
I still don't understand how the alleged engine could have caused 'an explosion of the wall'??

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 26 2014, 10:21 PM
Post #57





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 24 2014, 01:23 PM) *
Nope, still no debate going on here.


You should talk!! I've been waiting 4 long years for some kind of 'debate' on my thread,
"Life after Death". Over 81.000 clicks and still not a word. Try beating that, Mate? wink.gif

QUOTE
Yea, couldn't risk that TM! Better to blow the building up sans aircraft in plain day while the building next to it is being watched by millions, then send in the troops of fake witnesses, photographers, videomakers and a scripted MSM


Paranoia is of the view that 6-7 floors have been removed from both towers, to allow the
alleged planes to penetrate the perimeter wall. Hence my reference to 'ceiling lights'.

What are you talking about OSS? Are you agreeing with paranoia?

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Feb 26 2014, 10:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 26 2014, 11:10 PM
Post #58





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



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 26 2014, 08:48 PM) *
I wrote:
"The indeterminable piece... coming out of the tower
with great speed,


I asked about the great speed you were referring to.
The speed to me, looks slower than the speed of the jet.


QUOTE
Are you suggesting that judging from the
trajectory of this piece it's actually coming out rather slowly? And that i'm "just talking off the top of
my head" by seeing it otherwise?


Yes, actually.
I could measure its exact speed if necessary.
But at this point I don't think it is required.

QUOTE
If you look at the facade where this piece would have come out, you'll see that there's no damage
to the columns on both sides of the exit window frame, except scorch marks from the explosion of
course.
I still don't understand how the alleged engine could have caused 'an explosion of the wall'??


I see a hole large enough for the engine to have fit through in the corner.

By explosion of the wall, I mean it hit the wall, causing the wall to break apart (hence explode).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 27 2014, 03:32 AM
Post #59





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 25 2014, 02:10 AM) *
I asked about the great speed you were referring to.
The speed to me, looks slower than the speed of the jet.


I agree. It looks slower than the speed of a jet to me too.


QUOTE
I see a hole large enough for the engine to have fit through in the corner.

By explosion of the wall, I mean it hit the wall, causing the wall to break apart (hence explode).


Have you got a photo showing where you think your engine came out from?

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Feb 27 2014, 03:33 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 27 2014, 06:15 AM
Post #60



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 27 2014, 03:21 AM) *
You should talk!! I've been waiting 4 long years for some kind of 'debate' on my thread,
"Life after Death". Over 81.000 clicks and still not a word. Try beating that, Mate? wink.gif


What has "life after death" got to do with this topic??
I've posted the counterarguments against NPT repeatedly, and as with JREFers, it's like trying to get blood from a stone.


QUOTE
Paranoia is of the view that 6-7 floors have been removed from both towers, to allow the
alleged planes to penetrate the perimeter wall. Hence my reference to 'ceiling lights'.

What are you talking about OSS? Are you agreeing with paranoia?

Cheers


IIRC, paranoia is of the view that floors were dropped as the aircraft struck the building. I'm of the opinion that the aircraft was a bunker buster or penetrative warhead type device. I've posted videos showing the similarities.

My point on your "ceiling lights" remark is that you're insinuating that this would have been a risky move yet the less risky option for you is "better to blow the building up sans aircraft in plain day while the building next to it is being watched by millions, then send in the troops of fake witnesses, photographers, videomakers and a scripted MSM" laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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 December 2019 - 01:01 AM