IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Explosion Recorded On A Camera Before The Tower Is Struck

MikeR
post Jan 5 2014, 02:06 PM
Post #21





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



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 Willy Rodriguez testimony 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 Cognitive Dissonance 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

This post has been edited by MikeR: Jan 5 2014, 02:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 5 2014, 04:08 PM
Post #22





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



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?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roscoe
post Jan 6 2014, 03:23 AM
Post #23





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 12-August 11
Member No.: 6,132



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roscoe
post Jan 6 2014, 03:38 AM
Post #24





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 12-August 11
Member No.: 6,132



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.

This post has been edited by roscoe: Jan 6 2014, 03:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jan 6 2014, 10:14 AM
Post #25





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



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.


This post has been edited by MikeR: Jan 6 2014, 10:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jan 6 2014, 11:19 AM
Post #26





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



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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 6 2014, 07:17 PM
Post #27





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



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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 6 2014, 07:24 PM
Post #28





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



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roscoe
post Jan 7 2014, 02:40 AM
Post #29





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 12-August 11
Member No.: 6,132



Missing Links

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.

This post has been edited by roscoe: Jan 7 2014, 02:45 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jan 8 2014, 08:43 PM
Post #30





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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 18 2014, 10:27 PM
Post #31





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



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!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roscoe
post Feb 24 2014, 05:42 AM
Post #32





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 12-August 11
Member No.: 6,132



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.

This post has been edited by roscoe: Feb 24 2014, 05:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th October 2019 - 07:17 PM