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 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Photography Buffs, Please Help Out Here, or "What's Wrong with this Picture?"

paulmichael
post Feb 22 2014, 07:11 AM
Post #1





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




I am having problems with the following photo:



A lesser cropped version of this photo can be found at elapsed time of 2:12 of the above cited Youtube submission.

Now, I know that there are very "fast" cameras on the market that can capture a sharp, high quality photo of a race car going by on the order of 200 MPH, but I think that, even so, the photographer has to aim his camera down the race track as the car approaches, and as that car goes by, the photographer has to swiftly pan his camera with the car and snap the picture.

The photo in question above captures debris coming out of the WTC South tower quite clearly, but wouldn't the explosive force that created that debris have sent it shooting away at more than 200 MPH?

Here' s the big question: by the time the fireball expanded to the point that we see in the photo, wouldn't the explosive propelling force of the explosion have already passed, and along with that force having passed, wouldn't the debris have already been shot out of the range of the camera's lens before the photo could be snapped? Wouldn't the photographer have already have been shot through the lens and through his eye by high speed shrapnel before he could have taken this picture?

Just look at the angle at which this photo was shot, and you can easily conclude that the photographer would have been very much in harm's way from a spray of debris being shot out of WTC 2 faster than a speeding bullet. He would have been done in before he got his shot or within a split second thereafter IF THIS PHOTO WAS NOT BOGUS.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 22 2014, 07:45 AM
Post #2





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



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 22 2014, 11:11 PM) *
I am having problems with the following photo:


I have no problem whatsoever with your photo PM ...
only wish I could remember the name of the Hollywood movie
that actual fireball overlay was lifted from way back in the Last Century.

I'm darned sure there was No Plane in that movie either.... laughing1.gif

MikeR

This post has been edited by MikeR: Feb 22 2014, 07:47 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 22 2014, 08:27 AM
Post #3





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



QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 22 2014, 06:45 AM) *
I have no problem whatsoever with your photo PM ...
only wish I could remember the name of the Hollywood movie
that actual fireball overlay was lifted from way back in the Last Century.

I'm darned sure there was No Plane in that movie either.... laughing1.gif

MikeR


And you have to wonder why any photographer, amateur or professional would have had his camera trained on the South Tower in such a way to capture what must have happened really fast [allegedly happened, that is] when all of the action at that time was at the North Tower.

Here's the thing: in a court of law, once a witness is caught in a lie, he is deemed to have been "impeached" meaning ALL of his testimony is considered to be false.

Once, a facet of the attack on the WTC is found to be false, is it not logical and reasonable to deem the whole enchilada to be false?

I hate to be boorish repeating, "If you are going to be a liar, then you'd better have a good memory." You should remember that the devil is in the details and you must not let even the most seemingly minor detail escape your attention as a loose end needing tying up, because, to compound matters: "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive." (Confidential to You Know Who You Are: I suggest that you take these words back to your leader... your commander-in-chief.)

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 22 2014, 08:50 AM
Post #4





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



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 22 2014, 12:11 AM) *
The photo in question above captures debris coming out of the WTC South tower quite clearly, but wouldn't the explosive force that created that debris have sent it shooting away at more than 200 MPH?

200mph?

Very roughly speaking given the shot angle and assuming the photographer was at the street level, he would be at least 300m from the NE corner of the tower, somewhere around the Broadway/Fulton St., while the debris at the moment of the shot given the known dimensions of the tower we can compare to is less than 60 meters from the tower wall, so the photographer would be >360 meters from the debris.
So even if the debris would maintain such speed all the way in the photographer's direction, which I think is rather very unlikely, it would take couple of seconds for it to make the 360+ meters. (200mph = 89.4 m/s)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 22 2014, 09:04 AM
Post #5





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



QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 22 2014, 06:45 AM) *
I'm darned sure there was No Plane in that movie either....


OK, if there was no plane, then there was no flaming jet fuel at the WTC on 9/11.

This means that the person who appeared on the "Oprah" show and who was made out to be a severe burn victim due to flaming jet fuel, not high up in the WTC tower, but at the lobby level, was TOTALLY BOGUS.

Way back in 2011, I posted my take on Oprah's bogus 9/11 guests in several Internet forums, and, while my posts have gotten quite a few views, there wasn't a single reply to them. Nada, zero, zippo, zilch.

What is it with Oprah? Why is it that no one dare cross Oprah? She seems to be more immune to criticism than the Pope, and let me tell you, that, while criticizing the Pope happens, it is a very, very, touchy subject. Is Oprah Winfrey considered to be the Queen Goddess of the Universe, way, way above reproach more so than the Pope? Do people fear her and fear offending the vast multitudes of her adoring fans? If I had posted anything critical of John Gotti, I certainly would have elicited more of a respond.

You can factor out the episodes of "Oprah" that featured bogus 9/11 guests, and I will still say that no one has used celebrity status more than Oprah Winfrey, throughout all of human history, to bring down the moral tone of this whole planet.

Responses? (Probably not.)

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goprisko
post Feb 22 2014, 11:11 AM
Post #6





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



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 22 2014, 08:04 AM) *
OK, if there was no plane, then there was no flaming jet fuel at the WTC on 9/11.

This means that the person who appeared on the "Oprah" show and who was made out to be a severe burn victim due to flaming jet fuel, not high up in the WTC tower, but at the lobby level, was TOTALLY BOGUS.

Way back in 2011, I posted my take on Oprah's bogus 9/11 guests in several Internet forums, and, while my posts have gotten quite a few views, there wasn't a single reply to them. Nada, zero, zippo, zilch.

What is it with Oprah? Why is it that no one dare cross Oprah? She seems to be more immune to criticism than the Pope, and let me tell you, that, while criticizing the Pope happens, it is a very, very, touchy subject. Is Oprah Winfrey considered to be the Queen Goddess of the Universe, way, way above reproach more so than the Pope? Do people fear her and fear offending the vast multitudes of her adoring fans? If I had posted anything critical of John Gotti, I certainly would have elicited more of a respond.

You can factor out the episodes of "Oprah" that featured bogus 9/11 guests, and I will still say that no one has used celebrity status more than Oprah Winfrey, throughout all of human history, to bring down the moral tone of this whole planet.

Responses? (Probably not.)

I'll be most happy to respond to each and all of you..................

The photo in question is of an LPG blevy. The yellow orange color of the flame front gives that away.

Airliners carry quite a lot of fuel, but all of it is Jet-Kerosene. A blevy of Kerosens can occur given the following:

1. The fuel must be superheated to it's critical temperature in a confined space; ie a tank.

2. The tank ruptures catastropically

3. An ignition source is present

In the case of wing tanks striking a building, the fuel is at ambient temperature, and pressure. In other words the fuel is cold.

The tank rupture is caused by the wing strking the building, most likely along it's entire length, within a few milli-seconds.

This concusive force disperses the fuel in streamers and droplets, of course. But the fuel is cold, and jet fuel, unlike gasoline has no light ends
which means little or no vapor.

The engines provide the ignition source, of course.

So, what you should have seen were streamers of flaming fuel trailing lots of black smoke, and red-orange in color.

Given the lack of vapor, you should not have seen a cloud of flame.

Indeed, it is likely that dispersal of the cold fuel would exceed the speed of the flame front, and much of the fuel escaped without ignition.

Now, to your interest in the survival of the photographer.

Igniton of the cold fuel from the wing tanks, would not have created an appreciable pressure wave, most certainly not of sufficient force to drive
debris at high velocities.

Concussion of the aircraft structure with the building would have, in accordance with conservation of momentum, carried the debris onto the peripheral
beams, and into the building between them. Milli-seconds would have been spent in decelerating this material. Any brisance from flaming fuel would have
created an asymmetric debris field, not a spherical one, due to this.

Further, collapse of the fuselage takes time, expends energy, and reduces the impact velocity of the distal structure. So, the empennage should
have been seen in the photo, brightly illuminated by the flame front, and should have been observed to continue it's travel into the building, at
an exponentially decreasing rate.

Given the time resolution of the photo, and the proximity to the point of impact, and provided the footage was continuous, impact of the fuselage with the building
should have been captured, together with footage showing collapse of the forward fuselage, shearing of the wings from the fuselage, possible shearing of the
empennage from the distal fuselage, swinging of the wing from aft swept to possibly a forward sweep, followed by streamers of flaming fuel.

None of this is visible.

So, what can we say about this video??

It is a hoax...............

Just as 9/11 was a hoax. as attested to by the planes in question continuing in service for many years afterward, eventually lying in the wreckers yard.

INDY

P.M.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Feb 22 2014, 11:12 AM
Post #7





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



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 22 2014, 08:04 AM) *
OK, if there was no plane, then there was no flaming jet fuel at the WTC on 9/11.

This means that the person who appeared on the "Oprah" show and who was made out to be a severe burn victim due to flaming jet fuel, not high up in the WTC tower, but at the lobby level, was TOTALLY BOGUS.

Way back in 2011, I posted my take on Oprah's bogus 9/11 guests in several Internet forums, and, while my posts have gotten quite a few views, there wasn't a single reply to them. Nada, zero, zippo, zilch.

What is it with Oprah? Why is it that no one dare cross Oprah? She seems to be more immune to criticism than the Pope, and let me tell you, that, while criticizing the Pope happens, it is a very, very, touchy subject. Is Oprah Winfrey considered to be the Queen Goddess of the Universe, way, way above reproach more so than the Pope? Do people fear her and fear offending the vast multitudes of her adoring fans? If I had posted anything critical of John Gotti, I certainly would have elicited more of a respond.

You can factor out the episodes of "Oprah" that featured bogus 9/11 guests, and I will still say that no one has used celebrity status more than Oprah Winfrey, throughout all of human history, to bring down the moral tone of this whole planet.

Responses? (Probably not.)

P.M.


No plane? No fireball? What was all that stuff that many cameras (video and still) captured then?

I can't believe there are still people out there trying to maintain the no plane theory.

If it wasn't a plane then what made the exterior steel columns bend inward? What caused the tower to sway after the fireball?

If you are going to maintain that there was no plane then the burden is upon you to support this contention. You will have to address at least the following:

1. Video evidence
2. Audio evidence
3. Eyewitnesses
4. Debris from engines and landing gear scattered to the north of WTC2 and south of WTC1
5. Radar tracks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shallel
post Feb 22 2014, 11:14 AM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 42
Joined: 13-November 07
Member No.: 2,476



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 20 2014, 11:04 AM) *
OK, if there was no plane, then there was no flaming jet fuel at the WTC on 9/11.

This means that the person who appeared on the "Oprah" show and who was made out to be a severe burn victim due to flaming jet fuel, not high up in the WTC tower, but at the lobby level, was TOTALLY BOGUS.

P.M.


From page 129 of Secrets of Hollywood Special Effects By Robert E. McCarthy, we find techniques for creating special effect fireballs (on google books), using containers of gasoline or diesel fuel, flash packs and det cord. No plane required.

Whatever exploded in the basement blew out all the windows in the lobby, crinkled up elevator doors, dropped marble panels off the walls, and drained the sprinkler systems.
It also created burn victims. No plane required.

You don't mess with Oprah because she has a second row of teeth and can dislocate her jaw and eat your head.

Have a nice day!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 22 2014, 12:20 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

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



Why start another thread on this when you've left a trail of unanswered counterarguments in the other one PM?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 22 2014, 03:37 PM
Post #10





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



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 22 2014, 07:50 AM) *
200mph?

Very roughly speaking given the shot angle and assuming the photographer was at the street level, he would be at least 300m from the NE corner of the tower, somewhere around the Broadway/Fulton St., while the debris at the moment of the shot given the known dimensions of the tower we can compare to is less than 60 meters from the tower wall, so the photographer would be >360 meters from the debris.
So even if the debris would maintain such speed all the way in the photographer's direction, which I think is rather very unlikely, it would take couple of seconds for it to make the 360+ meters. (200mph = 89.4 m/s)


Thank you for responding, but you have focused on the very least important aspect of the original post. I just put the issue of the safety of the photographer forth as a little food for thought especially since someone else in another thread stated that in a scant 15 minutes the first responders got everyone who may have been on the streets clear of the WTC and out of harm's way.

The safety of the photographer is really a non-issue because he was never on site on 9/11.

A pre-9/11 stock photo of the WTC South tower was used. Id' bet that the image was rotated a bit to disguise it from the original and for a bit of a more dramatic effect. The fireballs and smoke were superimposed on it, and a splay of debris was superimposed upon that.

Let's not make such an issue of a conjectured 200 MPH speed of debris (all of this is hypothetical because the underlying subject matter is bogus, anyway). Let's downgrade that speed to, say, 100 MPH. Even at this lower speed, the debris would have been out of the frame of the photo by the time the [alleged] fireballs expanded to the points depicted in the photo in question.

I have a revision to what I stated in my prior reply above. I stated that all the action was at the North Tower up to the time of the [alleged] fireballs portrayed above, so, with that being the case, why should a photographer have had his camera trained up to a high point of the South Tower to capture what was a very unexpected and fleeting shot?

THERE WAS A LOT MORE ACTION AT STREET LEVEL RIGHT ON CHURCH STREET RIGHT BEFORE WHERE THE PHOTOGRAPHER WOULD HAVE BEEN STANDING: emergency vehicles, flashing emergency lights, first responders scrambling around, hordes of people streaming out of the WTC. WHY NOT FOCUS ON ALL OF THAT TO IMMORTALIZE IT IN PHOTOS?

The photo is bogus.

P.M.

This post has been edited by paulmichael: Feb 22 2014, 03:59 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 22 2014, 03:41 PM
Post #11





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



QUOTE (kawika @ Feb 23 2014, 03:12 AM) *
If you are going to maintain that there was no plane then the burden is upon you to support this contention.



Did I miss YOUR burden of proof to support your presumed contention
that the plane was/planes were for real?

The floor is yours, mate.... prove your point....
without mentioning the word "obvious", please
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 22 2014, 03:54 PM
Post #12





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 22 2014, 11:20 AM) *
Why start another thread on this when you've left a trail of unanswered counterarguments in the other one PM?


You want a counterargument?

OK, here it is.

I write off all of the rot in question as being similar to the portrayal of a nobody in a cable TV documentary of a few years ago which was intended to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories.

That guy stated that he and his colleagues examined and examined the ruins of WTC 7, and they found no evidence of explosive demolition.

How I remember history is that engineers very shortly after 9/11 requested an opportunity to examine the ruins of WTC 7 to determine exactly what caused its "collapse."

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani flatly refused stating that things had to be cleaned up fast, fast, fast so that the area of lower Manhattan could return to normal ASAP.

FURTHERMORE: I write off all of that rot like I wrote off the content of the HBO DVD entitled "9/11 In Memoriam," which could have been produced by anyone with a keyboard and an overactive imagination.

You know people who lie, lie and lie making up their own reality at whim have an upper hand inasmuch as they can put the never ending burden of rebuttal, rebuttal, rebuttal upon others until they are blue in the face. I'd be a fool to fall into this trap, and if I did, then people would be right to blast me: "GET A LIFE."

And, onesliceshort, you are a fine one to chide me about a lack of counterargument. Think, think back to the past about one of your famous replies to one of my famous posts.

P.M.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 22 2014, 07:55 PM
Post #13





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



QUOTE (Shallel @ Feb 22 2014, 10:14 AM) *
Whatever exploded in the basement blew out all the windows in the lobby, crinkled up elevator doors, dropped marble panels off the walls, and drained the sprinkler systems.
It also created burn victims. No plane required.

Let me make it perfectly clear: Oprah had as a guest a woman who was supposedly burned by flaming jet fuel in the tower lobby that burst as a fireball out of an elevator shaft. This had nothing to do with burns that allegedly resulted from a bomb blast in the basement.

Oprah and her production/research staff failed to research the tower's set up of express and local elevators and skylobbies before allowing this "guest" to appear. See: Wtc Elevators & Oprah's Failure.

QUOTE (Shallel @ Feb 22 2014, 10:14 AM) *
You don't mess with Oprah because she has a second row of teeth and can dislocate her jaw and eat your head.

Ooops! Just what I was afraid of. It seems that I violated a sacred cow. So, how do I go about breaking the curse?

P.M.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 22 2014, 10:31 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

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



PM

This is the "debate" section of the forum but you refuse to debate?

All of the irrelevant drivel you posted about the counterarguments posted in the other thread and comparing them to duhbunker style crap is dishonest.

And my position on WTC7 is well documented and researched in this forum.

I'm not going to haul all of those arguments in here again. If you don't want to debate you shouldn't have started this. If you want to trade back and forth childish insults I can also hold my own but NPT, nor your tired old circular rant bollocks are worth my time.

And I believe that our last conversation before NPT was in your (unhinged) woman hating thread? I honestly can't remember and really don't give a rat's ass.

Later.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 23 2014, 01:24 AM
Post #15





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



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 22 2014, 08:37 AM) *
Thank you for responding, but you have focused on the very least important aspect of the original post. I just put the issue of the safety of the photographer forth as a little food for thought especially since someone else in another thread stated that in a scant 15 minutes the first responders got everyone who may have been on the streets clear of the WTC and out of harm's way.

"least important"? "food for thought"?
I just helped you out as you asked - from the nonsense that "you can easily conclude that the photographer would have been very much in harm's way from a spray of debris being shot out of WTC 2 faster than a speeding bullet" (a 200 mph "speeding bullet" you mean? laughing1.gif) and I think answered your question whether the photographer would "have been shot through the lens and through his eye by high speed shrapnel before he could have taken this picture" or not
...and suddenly it is "least important"?
Isn't a bit of politeness sometimes better than demagoguery?

QUOTE
The safety of the photographer is really a non-issue because he was never on site on 9/11.

Provide us please with proof for your claim he was never on the site.

QUOTE
A pre-9/11 stock photo of the WTC South tower was used. Id' bet that the image was rotated a bit to disguise it from the original and for a bit of a more dramatic effect. The fireballs and smoke were superimposed on it, and a splay of debris was superimposed upon that.

How much $ you bet on that the "image was rotated a bit to disguise it from the original"?
Provide us please with proof theat the "fireballs and smoke were superimposed on it, and a splay of debris was superimposed upon that".

QUOTE
Let's not make such an issue of a conjectured 200 MPH speed of debris (all of this is hypothetical because the underlying subject matter is bogus, anyway). Let's downgrade that speed to, say, 100 MPH. Even at this lower speed, the debris would have been out of the frame of the photo by the time the [alleged] fireballs expanded to the points depicted in the photo in question.

Nonsense. It was sunny day, so standard 1/1000s shuter easily could be used with standard film. The shot view is around ~100m wide. Neither at 200mph and surely not at 100mph could a debris moving at such speeds pass out of the frame. In fact at a speed 200mph and shutter speed 1/1000s the debris would not move more than 9 centimeters! ...which more or less would correspond to the motion blur in the picture when we imagine how big the debris in fact is (likely pieces of the outer wall aluminium cladding several meters long and ~40 cm wide).

QUOTE
I have a revision to what I stated in my prior reply above. I stated that all the action was at the North Tower up to the time of the [alleged] fireballs portrayed above, so, with that being the case, why should a photographer have had his camera trained up to a high point of the South Tower to capture what was a very unexpected and fleeting shot?

Find who made the picture and ask him, find out what he answers and whether it makes sense or not. That's what's called serious research.

QUOTE
THERE WAS A LOT MORE ACTION AT STREET LEVEL RIGHT ON CHURCH STREET RIGHT BEFORE WHERE THE PHOTOGRAPHER WOULD HAVE BEEN STANDING: emergency vehicles, flashing emergency lights, first responders scrambling around, hordes of people streaming out of the WTC. WHY NOT FOCUS ON ALL OF THAT TO IMMORTALIZE IT IN PHOTOS?

You think the photographer was at the Church street?
I recommend you to compare the photo to the view in GE using WTC complex high resolution model - you can download among piles of other mapped 911 data here.

QUOTE
The photo is bogus.

Is it only me who has the feeling that so far only what was shown here being bogus were some of your claims?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shallel
post Feb 23 2014, 01:29 AM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 42
Joined: 13-November 07
Member No.: 2,476



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 21 2014, 12:31 AM) *
PM

This is the "debate" section of the forum but you refuse to debate?

All of the irrelevant drivel you posted about the counterarguments posted in the other thread and comparing them to duhbunker style crap is dishonest.

And my position on WTC7 is well documented and researched in this forum.

I'm not going to haul all of those arguments in here again. If you don't want to debate you shouldn't have started this. If you want to trade back and forth childish insults I can also hold my own but NPT, nor your tired old circular rant bollocks are worth my time.

And I believe that our last conversation before NPT was in your (unhinged) woman hating thread? I honestly can't remember and really don't give a rat's ass.

Later.


Sorry, It's been a while and the aluminum and barium may be getting to me, but if you'll humor me, what exactly are the arguments for planes?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 23 2014, 03:18 AM
Post #17





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



QUOTE (Shallel @ Feb 22 2014, 06:29 PM) *
what exactly are the arguments for planes?

I would think kawika already listed them here, so why ask OSS.
I would also add:
6. the photographic evidence showing the character of the towers outer walls damage which not only in my opinion is rather consistent with large aircrafts impacting them at high speeds.
Of course one can claim it's all faked. But then the burden of plausible proof it is all faked is upon the one claiming it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 23 2014, 08:08 AM
Post #18





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



If there were no problems with videos and pictures of planes soaring, fireballs, and towers disintegrating, then why did all of these totally disappear from the televised media on (and about), of all occasions, the tenth anniversary of 9/11?

All that was broadcast on T.V. at that time was the last plume of dust from the WTC that arose at street level.

YOU'VE BEEN SCAMMED. DEAL WITH IT.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 23 2014, 11:57 AM
Post #19



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Shallel @ Feb 23 2014, 06:29 AM) *
Sorry, It's been a while and the aluminum and barium may be getting to me, but if you'll humor me, what exactly are the arguments for planes?


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

Edit added: what pisses me off is that there's solid physical evidence that there's an alleged piece of debris from the Pentagon aircraft that doesn't match at all with the alleged Boeing 757 that was seen flying on a course that can't line up with the physical damage

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10811356

...and we're still discussing unprovable "theories".

What's wrong? Not interesting enough?

Holograms, hoardes of "loose ends" taking photos and videos to be later faked, entire (whore) media outlets trying to cover up a precise real time, military precision fake shoot live to millions, "nod and a wink" witnesses. All participants knowing full well that the south tower was simply blown up?

Proof that a modified aircraft made to look like a Boeing 757 and staged damage isn't exciting enough?

NPT is mental masturbation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 24 2014, 06:33 AM
Post #20





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



QUOTE
NPT is mental masturbation


OK Mr. OSS wiseguy, draw your sword, this is now getting personal.

You and i have seen the same videos the same photos, over and over again, year after year.
Viewed and participated in diverse blogs and forums going round and round with the same
arguments and discussions ad nauseum.

Lets go back to the beginning, back to the first TV clips 9/11.

You and i saw a fast plane glide effortlessly through a steel facade and disappear, followed by
big explosions.
Given the circumstances, you saw this as a perfectly natural and likely occurance taken place,
whereas i saw the same as completely unnatural and unlikely. My mind couldn't reconcile what
i saw with anything approaching a real live event.
Again i couldn't see how a big plane flying around 800 km/h. can disappear into a 64x64 meter
space, be blown to smithereens, and in no time (or within the blink of an eyelid) transformed
into instant confetti. Rather than 'instant', i prefer, at least in this case, some resemblance of
a 'sequence of event' kind of thing to have seen to be happening!
This is the only difference that separates us. You chose horse #10, and i chose horse #7. No
big deal really.

But then you decided to take the high ground, and in the process letting me know that your
viewpoint should unquestionable and uncritically be taken as superior to my own. I thought,
Fair enough, OK, everybody to their own, i suppose.

Subsequently though, things started to heat up. The time came for you to let all know that
now NP's (yours truly) was to be considered nothing but either shills, disinfos, infiltrators,
blathering idiots, sunstein stooges, saboteurs of the so-called 'truth movement', or what not!
It became time to withdraw back behind the now magically and instantly created barricades
(by who knows who), and simply keep a low profile for fear of being shot to pieces by this
"superior" force you so well represent!

But on top of it all, i,m now also accused of doing "mental masturbation"!! Enough is enough.

Let it be known then, that i have never thought or spoken ill of you, and never have i been
condescending toward you dear OSS. On the contrary, as instead, i have in fact praised you
to high heaven for the enormous work you have done by the exhaustive research you have
undertaken through the years; and therefore let my 'singing' Prince valiant sword hit you at
least right there.

OSS, whatever we send out will inevitably come back to us. We will all reap the good we do
as well as the bad we do. Nothing can make us avoid this simple fact.
You have probably never visited my thread "Life after Death" next down, but if you have,
you'll know that it's still alive and kicking, even though i haven't been active there for the last
couple of months or more. Every day the visitor count is clicking, and is now over 81.000.
This is very rare, as normally a thread 'dies' when no one could be bothered to post in there
anymore.

Because of this, i think i can now claim absolute success in proving conclusively that we all
survive death.This means that both you and i will one day get to know the full story of what
really happened on 9/11, etc. etc.; or whether your 'horse' won, or mine!

Until that time arrives, i think you really should just chill out, hoping that all that vitriol you
have sent out don't come back and bite you in your butt - because that would surely hurt!!

(The name "truth movement" is merely an aberration or an abstraction. At best it's just a
name given to groups of people trying by many different and varied roads to find the truth
about an event that "mysteriously" has taken place.
At least they all have ONE thing in common: They all want, and try, to find this TRUTH, and
that can never be a bad thing).

Hope you, OSS, will become just a little bit more 'kind' toward us deviates in the future;
whether as "ONE of a kind" or just plain as in "kindness" ......it doesn't really matter one bit!

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: 20th September 2019 - 02:20 AM