Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Alternative Theories _ Photography Buffs, Please Help Out Here

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 22 2014, 07:11 AM


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.

Posted by: MikeR Feb 22 2014, 07:45 AM

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

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 22 2014, 08:27 AM

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.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 22 2014, 08:50 AM

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)

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 22 2014, 09:04 AM

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.

Posted by: goprisko Feb 22 2014, 11:11 AM

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.


Posted by: kawika Feb 22 2014, 11:12 AM

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

Posted by: Shallel Feb 22 2014, 11:14 AM

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!


Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 22 2014, 12:20 PM

Why start another thread on this when you've left a trail of unanswered counterarguments in the other one PM?

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 22 2014, 03:37 PM

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.

Posted by: MikeR Feb 22 2014, 03:41 PM

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

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 22 2014, 03:54 PM

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.


Posted by: paulmichael Feb 22 2014, 07:55 PM

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: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22109

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.


Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 22 2014, 10:31 PM

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.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 23 2014, 01:24 AM

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 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html 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 http://911maps.wordpress.com/.

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?

Posted by: Shallel Feb 23 2014, 01:29 AM

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?

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 23 2014, 03:18 AM

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

I would think http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=22613&view=findpost&p=10811503 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.

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 23 2014, 08:08 AM

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.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 23 2014, 11:57 AM

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.php?showtopic=18356&view=findpost&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.

Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 24 2014, 06:33 AM

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

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 24 2014, 07:41 AM

Tamborine man:

Thank you very much for your participation in the thread that I started.

I very much enjoyed and appreciated your contribution.

You are very eloquent. I like your style.

I'd like to focus on the following excerpt from your reply:

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 24 2014, 05:33 AM) *
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!

Let's think logically.

The only people who can make any kind of attempt to sabotage the so-called "Truth Movement" are those who are staunch adherents to the official government line or those whose stance is one step away from the official government line, in other words, those who would like to drill into your psyche that there were fireballs at the WTC shooting forth a splay of debris that included bits and pieces of aircraft parts even if this means resorting to representations of drones, aircraft swaps and the like.

Let's all put on our thinking caps. THE GOVERNMENT WOULD LIKE IT IF YOU'D BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE AIRCRAFT ON SITE ON 9/11 ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. So, if there is any controversy out there, this is how the government would prefer it to be.

P.M.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 24 2014, 11:28 AM

TM

Obviously you haven't been following the "discussion" in the other thread.

QUOTE
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.


Utter bollocks TM. You know for a fact that I debate fairly and only point to evidence that's acceptable to truthseekers.

And this is rich coming from somebody that compared me to that shill "Snowcrash" for daring to question NPT.

QUOTE
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!


For a man of God, that's a whole heap of lies in one paragraph TM. Please quote me where I've used these words of NPT advocates. Not individuals like Jeff Hill.

And, for the record, do you know why I started the thread I linked to? It was in response to Jim Fetzer trying to use a play on words to link the work of Pilotsfor911truth and CIT to NPT and out of respect for people like yourself at this forum who I know are straight up.

I started off with a blank slate and the more I dug the more I realized that NPT is a dead end.

What's funny is that you make false accusations against me, while disturbed individual "Paul 'woman hater' Michael" indirectly accuses me (and others) and makes insinuations about me (and others) as being a shill, and you skip on over it.

Got it.

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 24 2014, 03:03 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 22 2014, 07:50 AM) *
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.


The more I examine the photo in question and the sharp, upwards angle used to capture the WTC South Tower, the more I come to the conclusion that the photographer of this, what was a pre-9/11 stock photo, was not on Church Street.

But he certainly was not on Broadway (too far east) nor on Fulton (too far north).

Nor was this guy at street level.

That photo had to have been snapped by a photographer on the roof of WTC 4... fat chance of this happening on 9/11.

See map at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg

Moving on...

I previously wrote:
QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 24 2014, 06:41 AM) *
The only people who can make any kind of attempt to sabotage the so-called "Truth Movement" are those who are staunch adherents to the official government line or those whose stance is one step away from the official government line, in other words, those who would like to drill into your psyche that there were fireballs at the WTC shooting forth a splay of debris that included bits and pieces of aircraft parts even if this means resorting to representations of drones, aircraft swaps and the like.

Let's all put on our thinking caps. THE GOVERNMENT WOULD LIKE IT IF YOU'D BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE AIRCRAFT ON SITE ON 9/11 ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. So, if there is any controversy out there, this is how the government would prefer it to be.

P.M.


The government has another motive to prefer things this way. If what cut the aircraft-shaped holes in the WTC was done by some new technology, then perhaps they want to keep this under wraps as something top secret.

From where would such new technology originate? Well, most likely from a superpower. Who are the top two superpowers: the U.S. and Russia, that's who. (Israel is yet another possibility, I will admit).

If you have read quite a few of my prior posts, I've been raising a red flag that Russia definitely should not be ruled out as possible suspect for having played a major role in 9/11.

If it comes out pretty definitively that something like a directed energy weapon was used on 9/11, then people may start to suspect that the origin of this weapon was Russia where it is rumored that Vladimir Putin is now the richest man in the world with an estimated net worth of $70,000,000,000. Hmmmm, nice accomplishment for a guy who previously was a career KGB agent, and now, voila, he has investment acumen that outshines Warren Buffet.

See: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22590&hl=
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22558&hl=
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22107&hl=

P.M.

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 24 2014, 10:00 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 24 2014, 05:33 AM) *
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.


You know what TM?
I was like you. I said to myself, no way on earth could that plane penetrate the tower like that!
For a time I was even a no-planer.

But then I started to do some heavy duty research. When I say heavy, I mean it.
No one helped me out. I dug and dug and dug.

And when I found several pieces of evidence that showed irrefutable proof that a plane struck WTC2, I had no choice left but to figure out how the plane could have penetrated the tower.

This required more research, but it wasn't difficult to figure it out in the end.

What looked initially like a complete impossibility, turned out to be very possible.











Posted by: FirstUsedBooks Feb 24 2014, 10:39 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 24 2014, 06:00 PM) *
You know what TM?
I was like you. I said to myself, no way on earth could that plane penetrate the tower like that!
For a time I was even a no-planer.

But then I started to do some heavy duty research. When I say heavy, I mean it.
No one helped me out. I dug and dug and dug.

And when I found several pieces of evidence that showed irrefutable proof that a plane struck WTC2, I had no choice left but to figure out how the plane could have penetrated the tower.

This required more research, but it wasn't difficult to figure it out in the end.

What looked initially like a complete impossibility, turned out to be very possible.

I see it not as a plane slicing through steel, but rather a massive object pushing some prefab sections of rather thin (believe it was 1/4" at this height) steel out of its way.

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 24 2014, 10:48 PM

QUOTE (FirstUsedBooks @ Feb 24 2014, 09:39 PM) *
I see it not as a plane slicing through steel, but rather a massive object pushing some prefab sections of rather thin (believe it was 1/4" at this height) steel out of its way.


Exactly!
But no one tapped me on the shoulder and said this is how it occurred.
I had to figure it out on my own.

It was the pushing (not slicing) and also a bit of help probably by various floors not being finished (cement etc.)

Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 25 2014, 06:31 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 22 2014, 02:28 PM) *
TM

Obviously you haven't been following the "discussion" in the other thread.


I have to a certain degree, but what does that matter, OSS?

I was obviously only replying to your use of "Mental masturbation" - as i quoted!

QUOTE
Utter bollocks TM. You know for a fact that I debate fairly and only point to evidence that's acceptable to truthseekers.


Had you not used that term, i would not have replied to your post.

QUOTE
And this is rich coming from somebody that compared me to that shill "Snowcrash" for daring to question NPT.


I have never compared you to "snowcrash", OSS. The difference between you two would be like 'day' and 'night'.

If i 'seemingly' have (can't remember), it would of course have been with a blink in the eye and the tongue firmly

planted in cheek, probably as a 'mild' provacation! I'm surprised you can think i could sink THAT low!!

QUOTE
For a man of God, that's a whole heap of lies in one paragraph TM. Please quote me where I've used these words of NPT advocates. Not individuals like Jeff Hill.


Are you telling me that NP's have never been called or been 'accused' of these terms, OSS? And that you DON'T

entertain the same sentiments? Come on - honestly?

We are all 'men' of God, OSS. You included. You, as everyone else, got Thought and Will. You got free Will. You

got a conscience. You got consciousness. You got self-awareness. You got memories, skills, talents, abilities and

and a "Heart". Do you really seriously "think" that all these 'concepts' derive from a tiny little physical particle

coming from a "big bang", and that we can find said particle containing these concepts somewhere in the physical

brain? Heaven forbid such naivety and foolishness!

QUOTE
And, for the record, do you know why I started the thread I linked to? It was in response to Jim Fetzer trying to use a play on words to link the work of Pilotsfor911truth and CIT to NPT and out of respect for people like yourself at this forum who I know are straight up.


Well you didn't "exempt me" from being 'prone' to "mental masturbation", did you!

QUOTE
I started off with a blank slate and the more I dug the more I realized that NPT is a dead end.


I also started with a blank slate ......and have not yet ever come across anything that even roughly

could convince me of the presence of planes. It could possibly happen one day i suppose , who
knows, but i'm not about to hold my breath.

QUOTE
What's funny is that you make false accusations against me, while disturbed individual "Paul 'woman hater' Michael" indirectly accuses me (and others) and makes insinuations about me (and others) as being a shill, and you skip on over it.


Of course have i not made "false accusations" against you dear OSS. What rubbish.

Your 'beef' with PM has nothing to do with me, so please leave me out. But i certainly could imagine

that a "retort" would be found in there - somewhere ....yes?

QUOTE
Got it.


No. Not quite yet, i'm afraid.

Me challenging you to a duel, and me possessing the 'singing' sword, should have alerted you to the

fact that my post not necessary should have been taken with "deadly seriousness". But you just cannot

help yourself, can you OSS? Of course i'm not "really" after you, so lighten up man. Have a Kit-Kat!

Cheers

PS!
Hi Paul Michael,
Thank you for your very kind words earlier. That was much appreciated!

Cheers

Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 25 2014, 07:48 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 23 2014, 01:00 AM) *
You know what TM?
I was like you. I said to myself, no way on earth could that plane penetrate the tower like that!
For a time I was even a no-planer.

But then I started to do some heavy duty research. When I say heavy, I mean it.
No one helped me out. I dug and dug and dug.

And when I found several pieces of evidence that showed irrefutable proof that a plane struck WTC2, I had no choice left but to figure out how the plane could have penetrated the tower.

This required more research, but it wasn't difficult to figure it out in the end.

What looked initially like a complete impossibility, turned out to be very possible.


Hi NP1Mike,

I got no problem seeing it from your point of view, or OSS's and others, but i have to be true to
myself first of all. Personally, i truly don't really 'see' what you guys are seeing.
Sorry about that.

'I' found f.ex. a piece of fuselage with 'windows' on top of one of the buildings. It was obviously
planted there.

'I' found a tire embedded in a perimeter wall section outside St.Nicolas church. It was obviously
planted there.

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'.

This is just a small sample, but enough i hope for you to get an idea of the way i think!

Cheers

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 25 2014, 07:50 AM

QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 24 2014, 08:03 AM) *
That photo had to have been snapped by a photographer on the roof of WTC 4

No way. nonono.gif


The underlying image is a GE simulation of the WTC2 view from the NE corner of the WTC4 roof using fine WTC model. From the comparison is immediately clear that the photographer must have been considerably more east/north from the WTC towers than at the WTC4 roof.

Again - see WTC model for download http://911maps.wordpress.com/.

The perspective angle difference 10° is pretty enough to mean well over hundred of meters POV position difference both in eastward and northward directions (from the WTC4 NE corner POV) and falsification of another your guessjob conjecture this time that the picture was taken from the WTC4 roof - which only shows us what's the degree of your credibility.

Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 25 2014, 07:55 AM

QUOTE (FirstUsedBooks @ Feb 23 2014, 01:39 AM) *
I see it not as a plane slicing through steel, but rather a massive object pushing some prefab sections of rather thin (believe it was 1/4" at this height) steel out of its way.


Hi FUB,

You're forgetting the spandrels and the concrete floors, which would have
caused a huge resistance to the wings and stabilizer.

Cheers

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 25 2014, 11:04 AM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 25 2014, 06:50 AM) *
No way. nonono.gif


The underlying image is a GE simulation of the WTC2 view from the NE corner of the WTC4 roof using fine WTC model. From the comparison is immediately clear that the photographer must have been considerably more east/north from the WTC towers than at the WTC4 roof.

Again - see WTC model for download http://911maps.wordpress.com/.

The perspective angle difference 10° is pretty enough to mean well over hundred of meters POV position difference both in eastward and northward directions (from the WTC4 NE corner POV) and falsification of another your guessjob conjecture this time that the picture was taken from the WTC4 roof - which only shows us what's the degree of your credibility.


First of all, it is difficult to tell if the red line, which goes across the east face (Church St. side) of the South tower in the OP photo in question and which is part of the angle [alleged] to be 112 degrees, actually runs parallel to a tower floor.

Secondly, it is even more difficult, even impossible, by the way the corresponding line on the GE simulation was drawn over what is likewise a high floor but which is not enlarged like the OP photo in question, to tell if *that* line making up the 92 degree angle actually runs parallel to a tower floor.

I don't know if your red lines are drawn properly. I don't have a protractor to check the accuracy of the measurements of your angles, and I am not inclined to buy one. You say the GE model is a fine one, but how am I supposed to know how accurate it is? Is it as accurate as the UL report that confirmed that the towers were brought down by fire, even though by their own experiment on a two story recreation of the towers those floors did not fail when subjected to even higher temperatures that were alleged at the towers on 9/11?

What I will say is that my eyeballing of your own presentation here has me even more convinced of my assertions as to the position of the photographer and far less convinced of your assertions.

Try again.

P.M.

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 25 2014, 12:26 PM

TM

I honestly can't be arsed.

Reread your post to me, then your own. My comments still stand.

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.php?showtopic=21992&view=findpost&p=10804800

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

And you accused me directly of having said this

"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!"

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.

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".

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 25 2014, 01:04 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 25 2014, 06:50 AM) *
No way. nonono.gif

The underlying image is a GE simulation of the WTC2 view from the NE corner of the WTC4 roof using fine WTC model. From the comparison is immediately clear that the photographer must have been considerably more east/north from the WTC towers than at the WTC4 roof.

Again - see WTC model for download http://911maps.wordpress.com/.

The perspective angle difference 10° is pretty enough to mean well over hundred of meters POV position difference both in eastward and northward directions (from the WTC4 NE corner POV) and falsification of another your guessjob conjecture this time that the picture was taken from the WTC4 roof - which only shows us what's the degree of your credibility.


Afterthought:

It's amazing that someone would emphatically attempt to wreck my credibility when his own analysis is very, very defective because it is very, very incomplete.

tumetuestumefaisdubien's analysis, as presented in his reply # 29 above, if done properly and accurately, would only establish a left/right (south/north) relative displacement for the photographer, if such a displacement did, in fact, exist.

To establish a fore/aft (west/east) displacement to Broadway, then tumetuestumefaisdubien would have had to draw VERTICAL lines down the representations of the South Tower and continue those lines along the ground at street level. This was not done. The photographer was NOT established as being on Broadway by tumetuestumefaisdubien's analysis.

tumetuestumefaisdubien, in attempting to damage my credibility, has destroyed his own credibility.

Too bad.

P.M.

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 25 2014, 01:32 PM

Another afterthought:

The are three axes in three dimensionality.

tumetuestumefaisdubien's approach to an analysis would have done more to indicate the vertical elevation of the photographer than anything else.

However, the lines would have had to be drawn at the VERY SAME FLOORS of the two tower depictions, and angles would have to be measured accurately there, for anything valid to come out of that analysis.

I have worked quite a few years in the vicinity of the WTC. I've looked up to the towers from near and afar.

The photo in question was taken ON CHURCH ST.

P.M.

Posted by: FirstUsedBooks Feb 25 2014, 02:05 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 25 2014, 03:55 AM) *
Hi FUB,

You're forgetting the spandrels and the concrete floors, which would have
caused a huge resistance to the wings and stabilizer.

Cheers

No, I'm not. Neither the spandrels nor the floors presented much in the way of lateral resistance. The floors were 4" of lighweight aggregate concrete, very friable, supported on thin steel trusses. Of course as the plane advanced into the building the floors and columnar box steel panels and the spandrels and copper piping and desks and filing cabinets and everything else would have had a profoud effect on the plane, shredding the aluminum, but we're talking about point of entry, a mass of about 115 tons exerting a kinetic energy of about 4.6 billion ft lbs force (6.25M Kilojoules).

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. Silhouette-carving cutter charges, even if of a more explosive compound than thermate, are not going to account for that sway, and nor will an explosive charge at a subground level on the interior columns.

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 25 2014, 02:09 PM

Thanks for your response TM. Yes, I am beginning to get an idea of the way you think.

Of course one has to be true to oneself first!
It goes without saying.

To be taken seriously however, one must do more than simply say "It was obviously planted there."
(fuselage/tire).
Anyone can make a blanket dismissal like that.

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

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

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?

It is the first time I have ever heard of this.

Have you ever considered that you have this completely backwards?

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


Posted by: paulmichael Feb 25 2014, 02:33 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 25 2014, 06:50 AM) *
The underlying image is a GE simulation of the WTC2 view from the NE corner of the WTC4 roof



Readers;

You know, anyone can type up any fiction that he can conjure up in his imagination at the swift rate of 60 to 100 words per minute and post it in a flash in a forum like this.

Then the backbreaking, time-consuming onus will be on you to refute it, and, of course, if your refutation has flaws in it, then people will jump down YOUR throat..

The same holds true of sophistic analyses.

tumetuestumefaisdubien uses the words "underlying image" in his analysis in his reply # 29.

The angular perspectives of the two depictions of the South Tower are, admittedly, significantly off

tumetuestumefaisdubien states that the GE simulation was done from the perspective of a point at the NE corner of the roof of WTC4.

This is an absolutely wrong approach to things.

It would have been much better to NOT start with a point of origin on the roof of WTC 4.

The proper way to do things would have been to manipulate the three dimensional image of the WTC until it could be precisely overlayed on the original post's photo in question.

THEN YOU WOULD ASK OF THE GE PROGRAM WHAT IT DETERMINED TO BE THE POINT OF PERSPECTIVE FOR THAT RESULT. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

The whole approach by doing up angles is grossly inferior and downright wrong as done above!

P.M.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 25 2014, 05:13 PM

QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 25 2014, 06:04 AM) *
It's amazing that someone would emphatically attempt to wreck my credibility when his own analysis is very, very defective because it is very, very incomplete.

No it isn't. The angle comparison is sufficient for establishing relative (to the WTC4 NE corner POV) distance of the photographer from the tower.

QUOTE
tumetuestumefaisdubien's analysis, as presented in his reply # 29 above, if done properly and accurately, would only establish a left/right (south/north) relative displacement for the photographer, if such a displacement did, in fact, exist.

Again, the relative difference of the two perspective angles is enough to establish that the photographer was considerably more NE from the tower corner (yes that was the point from where I determined using the perspective angle difference that the photographer must have been over 100m further from the tower in both eastern and northern direction than is the NE corner of the WTC4) than if he would be anywhere at the WTC4 roof.

QUOTE
To establish a fore/aft (west/east) displacement to Broadway, then tumetuestumefaisdubien would have had to draw VERTICAL lines down the representations of the South Tower and continue those lines along the ground at street level.

No, I don't need to do anything like that. The relative perspective angle comparison at the rectangular building is absolutely enough.

QUOTE
This was not done. The photographer was NOT established as being on Broadway by tumetuestumefaisdubien's analysis.

Only what I was establishing using the picture was that the photographer definitely wasn't at the WTC4 roof as you've claimed. That he must therefore have been somewhere around Broadway/Fulton street crossing is just implicite here.

QUOTE
tumetuestumefaisdubien, in attempting to damage my credibility, has destroyed his own credibility.

If you believe something, it doesn't mean it is true. Damage your credibility you can only yourself if you will continue with implausible claims. -If you don't have protractor (I have it and used it) and you are "not inclined to buy one" doesn't it look quite funny to try dabble into perspective proofs?
And just a note to your I hope last selfridiculing reply to my post: Method of science is about falsification not confirmation - so if you claim the photographer was at the WTC4 roof I naturally have looked how it would look from there, compared view from NEmost possible point on the WTC4 roof to the photograph you question here and I've immediately found the perspective angles resulting from the WTC4 roof POV absolutely clearly imply that the photographer must have been in any case considerably more NE than anywhere at the WTC4 roof. You can rabbit on over several other posts, but it will change nothing on this very simple fact.
You can of course try falsify it - which means download the model (which clearly is sufficiently exact for the purpose), draw the lines parallel to the floors using quite very sufficient texture hints in the pictures, use the protractor, find the angles... but I really doubt you would get to significantly different results than I did.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 25 2014, 06:18 PM

QUOTE (FirstUsedBooks @ Feb 25 2014, 07:05 AM) *
No, I'm not. Neither the spandrels nor the floors presented much in the way of lateral resistance. The floors were 4" of lighweight aggregate concrete, very friable, supported on thin steel trusses. Of course as the plane advanced into the building the floors and columnar box steel panels and the spandrels and copper piping and desks and filing cabinets and everything else would have had a profoud effect on the plane, shredding the aluminum, but we're talking about point of entry, a mass of about 115 tons exerting a kinetic energy of about 4.6 billion ft lbs force (6.25M Kilojoules).

I confirm that came to very similar number.
In nutshell it was 100+ ton of airplane and its contents exerting the force on <40 ton of the outer 0.25" steel wall panels (connected to the rest of the structure by mere 84 bolts) at and around the aircraft impact crossection of <40 m2.
That the outer wall and the concrete floors behind in less than 1/4 second completely shreded the aluminium plane and its contents as a giant sieve? Yes, but it cannot rested undammaged when we consider that the momentum of the plane was more than twice high than the inertia of the impacted wall panels just bolted to the rest of the structure. The floors behind moreover were exerting statical inward force on the outer wall, hanging on it inside, so in fact facilitating the outer wall panel dislocation and the aircraft penetration into the building.
In the past I was also considering the NPT theories, but only until the point I overcame my laziness, made my own calculations and came to results which leave me with little doubt that the B767s would be able to penetrate the WTC outer walls (40% area of which anyway were just windows) .
Only what bothers me until now is the speed of the alleged "UA175" over 500kts - confirmed by the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K-WjsHa_2k based on the videos (which I years ago asked Achimspok to create for P4T and which btw shows all the examined videos show same airpath - so if fakes they would need to come from one single source) and multiple radar records. Such speed looks to me quite impossible for a civilian B767 to be achieved near sea level, because it would imply parasite drag equivalent to drag at over 1 Mach speed at cruising altitude. That's why I don't wonder some people even among aviation professionals have hard time to believe a B767 was even there. But surely it wouldn't be for the reason that the plane somehow wouldn't be able to get throught the WTC outer wall. I don't doubt it would be - without much problem at such speeds.

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 25 2014, 06:34 PM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 25 2014, 04:13 PM) *
No it isn't. The angle comparison is sufficient for establishing relative (to the WTC4 NE corner POV) distance of the photographer from the tower.


Again, the relative difference of the two perspective angles is enough to establish that the photographer was considerably more NE from the tower corner (yes that was the point from where I determined using the perspective angle difference that the photographer must have been over 100m further from the tower in both eastern and northern direction than is the NE corner of the WTC4) than if he would be anywhere at the WTC4 roof.


No, I don't need to do anything like that. The relative perspective angle comparison at the rectangular building is absolutely enough.


Only what I was establishing using the picture was that the photographer definitely wasn't at the WTC4 roof as you've claimed. That he must therefore have been somewhere around Broadway/Fulton street crossing is just implicite here.


If you believe something, it doesn't mean it is true. Damage your credibility you can only yourself if you will continue with implausible claims. -If you don't have protractor (I have it and used it) and you are "not inclined to buy one" doesn't it look quite funny to try dabble into perspective proofs?
And just a note to your I hope last selfridiculing reply to my post: Method of science is about falsification not confirmation - so if you claim the photographer was at the WTC4 roof I naturally have looked how it would look from there, compared view from NEmost possible point on the WTC4 roof to the photograph you question here and I've immediately found the perspective angles resulting from the WTC4 roof POV absolutely clearly imply that the photographer must have been in any case considerably more NE than anywhere at the WTC4 roof. You can rabbit on over several other posts, but it will change nothing on this very simple fact.
You can of course try falsify it - which means download the model (which clearly is sufficiently exact for the purpose), draw the lines parallel to the floors using quite very sufficient texture hints in the pictures, use the protractor, find the angles... but I really doubt you would get to significantly different results than I did.


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.

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 25 2014, 06:41 PM

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: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

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.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 25 2014, 07:37 PM

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: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

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

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 25 2014, 08:25 PM

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

Here's a recent article that offers some pertinent insight: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

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.

Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 25 2014, 10:06 PM

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.php?showtopic=21992&view=findpost&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









Posted by: paulmichael Feb 25 2014, 10:17 PM

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.


Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 26 2014, 04:20 AM

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

Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 26 2014, 05:26 AM

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.php?showtopic=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

Posted by: paranoia Feb 26 2014, 06:04 AM

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/simulation/phase3/Run12/index.htm
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase4/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.php?showtopic=17718&st=25&p=10774440&#entry10774440
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=25&p=10774495&#entry10774495
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774522&#entry10774522
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774528&#entry10774528
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774529&#entry10774529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=100&p=10774826&#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=232409&sid=482f139d4607062a479b83a0aba10a04#p232409 (post by "sheridan")


Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 26 2014, 09:55 AM

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?

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 26 2014, 09:59 AM

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

Here's a recent article that offers some pertinent insight: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

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.

Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 26 2014, 10:03 AM

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/simulation/phase3/Run12/index.htm
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase4/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.php?showtopic=17718&st=25&p=10774440&#entry10774440
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=25&p=10774495&#entry10774495
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774522&#entry10774522
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774528&#entry10774528
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=50&p=10774529&#entry10774529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17718&st=100&p=10774826&#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=232409&sid=482f139d4607062a479b83a0aba10a04#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

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 26 2014, 10:23 AM

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

Posted by: justaskin Feb 26 2014, 01:06 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?

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 26 2014, 02:54 PM

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.


Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 26 2014, 07:12 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 26 2014, 04:26 AM) *
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=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.


Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 26 2014, 09:48 PM

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

Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 26 2014, 10:21 PM

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

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 26 2014, 11:10 PM

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).

Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 27 2014, 03:32 AM

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

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 27 2014, 06:15 AM

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

Posted by: JimMac Feb 27 2014, 09:48 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLW0jKKRXMo

This male voice is Kevin Cosgrove. He was stuck in the tower while calling. He kept trying to get some support from the emergency services, but they did not be really helpful except try to calm him down. There are some other 911 tapes from two callers in the towers, that have been exhibited since the Moussaoui Trial. I uploaded the full tape so you can hear the whole call, even if it sounds long, you could guess it would even sound longer to that guy.

Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 27 2014, 10:02 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 25 2014, 09:15 AM) *
What has "life after death" got to do with this topic??


"Life after Death" has nothing to do with this topic, of course.
It would be clear to all fair minded people though, that i was obviously responding to your comment i quoted, namely:

OSS: "Nope, still no debate going on here." (See your post #52).

My comment was clearly friendly meant. Your response above was clearly hostile and disingenuous.

QUOTE
I've posted the counterarguments against NPT repeatedly, and as with JREFers, it's like trying to get blood from a stone.


Yes, and i know them all almost by 'heart'. You know my views and i know yours. What is there to further 'debate'?

QUOTE
IIRC, paranoia is of the view that floors were dropped as the aircraft struck the building.


Paranoia wrote:
"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."

And,

".... i dont think the plane could penetrate so seamlessly IF the concrete floor pans were in the way."

I speculated that paranoia perhaps was getting his idea from the "Let's Roll Forum" who believe the
towers were gutted to a certain extent. I could be wrong about that of course, but paranoia haven't
corrected me yet, so lets see if that happens!

QUOTE
My point on your "ceiling lights" remark is that you're insinuating that this would have been a risky move ....


I'm not "insinuating" anything of the kind!! Where on earth are you getting this utter rubbish from??

QUOTE
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


You're dreaming up idiotic stuff again, and then present it with a silly smiley as if it's something i've said!!!! Gee whiz ....

It's noted that you don't quote me verbatim, and obviously so you can put your own spin on whatever written, spiced
of course with derision and ridicule. Why you would want to adopt the dirty tricks of the the govt loyalist site'ers, now baffles me no end???

Cheers

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 27 2014, 11:40 AM

I don't know whether you're misreading my posts or simply being hysterical TM.

I'll reply to this thread again when one of the points raised by me re NPT is addressed. Until then, I'm stepping out of here. I'm getting pissed at the constant insults from yourself while ignoring other insults (simply because they are in the NPT camp) directed at me and others who've been on this forum supporting eachother for years, fighting the good fight.

I expected more from you.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 27 2014, 05:19 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 26 2014, 11:15 PM) *
I'm of the opinion that the aircraft was a bunker buster or penetrative warhead type device. I've posted videos showing the similarities.

Here I'm a bit lost. So I address here one of your points with some questions and notes.

How a bunker buster or penetrative warhead punch an imprint similar to a big jetliner shape into a skyscraper facade?
And anyway what would one need a bunker buster or penetrative warhead for? To get through the rows of windows and the http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html the outer wall panels were likely made from (connected to rest of the wall structure just by the 84 bolts and pulled inward by the weight of the floors and their load)? Besides the problem with the many dozens of square meters hole dimensions wouldn't be penetrative warheads a bit overkill? Aren't two big jet engines, three pieces of its landing gear and wings filled with jetfuel for a transcontinental flight (so having considerable forward momentum likely http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~johnm/Three-Lightbursts/Flammable767.JPG) all that plus the 168 seats, whole row of dozens of fuselage frames hammering one after another in a swift destruction sequence lasting less than quarter second, oxygen tanks, APU...rest of the plane and its contents, together 115+ tons moving at several hundreds knots speed enough to punch the hole which then thousands of people have seen with their own eyes and billions on the TV? Or in other words when it comes to the WTC2 which is the topic here: Wouldn't a B767 plane apparently able to fly and make precision maneuvres at 500 kts at near sea level altitude be more than enough for accomplishing such job?*
I always thought the bunker busters are to get through heavy reinforced concrete fortification several feets thick (for it they have the heavymetal tips with certain geometry) so I would be a bit amazed somebody would use the same to get through the rows of windows and the 6 milimeter structural steel around. Wouldn't it be a bit cracking a nut with a sledge-hammer or as we say here hunting sparrows with a cannon?

--------
* In fact the logic of the whole thing tells me that rejecting NPTs in fact directly implies that if there was indeed a B767 like plane there impacting the WTC2 as shown by the numerous videos, at the speeds implied by them and by the multiple radar records, it very likely must have been a well reinforced military version with unrestricted flight envelope, which not only would be likely able to penetrate the WTC outer wall, but even without any hypothetic bunkerbusters and penetrative warheads would imply primary principal suspect of the 911 attacks because one really hardly can imagine anybody else in CONUS teritory than the certain biggest establishment there (with acronym consisting from the initial vowel and consonants in the name Usama) could have such truly miraculous plane (already when it comes to its flight cappabilities) at its disposition ...and that's also maybe why the NPT's are such an evergreen -because it distracts from pointing to the very certain and most ominous direction - already marked by the cui bono question answer - which naturally almost everybody avoids to point to, because it literally can mean all from harrasment to death, and, frankly, you would need a whole pact of multiple nuclear superpowers on DEFCON1 like alert just to have any chance to succesfully challenge it - and succesfully I mean without inflicting nuclear WWIII on yourself, your fellow truthers and everybody else...after all the most likely primary motivation of the whole operation was indeed an attempt to start accomplishment of the compellence doctrine - to make such challenge impossible - at least without superior extraterrestrial technologies and/or supernatural powers.
Although now is already clear that the attempt was not only unsuccessful, led to severe unanticipated consequences and have undermined both western economy and spirit, but in fact led in reaction to it to such a paradigm shift in Eurasia that an accomplishment of such doctrine is no more ever possible in both military and moral sense and most likely will gradually lead to marginalization of USA and EU if they don't radically avert multiple major runaway malicious tendencies in its policies which went full blown after 9/11.
What still looked in 1990s that a kind of a partial world government would be achievable to face global challenges in globalized world and with the west in leading position, looks now - just a bit over decade later - as an absolute utopia. The elited maybe believe that every crisis can be used to advance an agenda using chaos theory. But what it they screwed up big time? What it could take to find a remedy? What could challenge such hideous, pervasive and deadly corruption?

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 27 2014, 06:46 PM

QUOTE
Wouldn't a B767 plane apparently able to fly and make precision maneuvres at 500 kts at near sea level altitude be more than enough for accomplishing such job?


Fair point Tume. Maybe I worded my opinion wrongly.

QUOTE
it very likely must have been a well reinforced military version with unrestricted flight envelope, which not only would be likely able to penetrate the WTC outer wall


I should have said that when people question the penetration of the WTC2 facade that there are alternative methods. Even if the nosecone and frame were composed of stronger alloys (for example), penetration would be almost guaranteed. We know that given the ridiculous high speed at sea level that the aircraft had to have been modified, that given the accuracy of the two hits, there was more than likely a guidance system, so why not make the penetration a certainty, you know?

There was definitely a strange feature of the impact before the engines had struck the facade pointing to such a reinforcement.

The "nose out" claim also resembles the effects of a penetrative warhead (maybe "warhead" isn't the right term?)

Edit added: my 2 cents on this issue

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992&view=findpost&p=10804776

QUOTE
The elited maybe believe that every crisis can be used to advance an agenda using chaos theory. But what it they screwed up big time? What it could take to find a remedy? What could challenge such hideous, pervasive and deadly corruption?


As long as they have the media, politicians and everybody within the "security services" in their pockets, coupled with the gullible masses, the elitists can adapt to any situation, IMHO.

"Thesis + antithesis = synthesis"

The f*ckers have been doing it for centuries.

Posted by: Tamborine man Feb 27 2014, 08:58 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 25 2014, 02:40 PM) *
I don't know whether you're misreading my posts or simply being hysterical TM.

I'll reply to this thread again when one of the points raised by me re NPT is addressed. Until then, I'm stepping out of here. I'm getting pissed at the constant insults from yourself while ignoring other insults (simply because they are in the NPT camp) directed at me and others who've been on this forum supporting eachother for years, fighting the good fight.

I expected more from you.


You misquote and misrepresent me.

With mildly simulated indignation i protest at the gross "injustice".

You turn it completely around feigning yourself to be the victim.

And i end up becoming the "hysterical" villain!!

No wonder i daily despair over the state of this crazy world ......

Cheers

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 28 2014, 11:51 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 27 2014, 11:46 AM) *
I should have said that when people question the penetration of the WTC2 facade that there are alternative methods. Even if the nosecone and frame were composed of stronger alloys (for example), penetration would be almost guaranteed. We know that given the ridiculous high speed at sea level that the aircraft had to have been modified, that given the accuracy of the two hits, there was more than likely a guidance system, so why not make the penetration a certainty, you know?

We can agree there definitely needed to be a guidance of some kind - after all to hit the two targets with such precision and especially in the 2nd case with such breakneck approach wouldn't be easy and happen by accident.
But wouldn't the penetration be possible even with a normal civilian B767 at lower speeds?
If you actually calculate how much the outer wall panel would weight if made from the 6mm steel you come to 2.6 ton and even if it would be say 1cm steel you still come to 4.3 tons. If you then look at the https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/Run11/NorthFaceWTC1.jpg and http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/wtc2gash0jh.jpg holes and estimate how much of the steel was dislodged by the impact then for example at the WTC1 the plane impact crossection completely obliterated whole (2) or substantial parts of other (4) such panels and severely dammaged 9 other. So even if we would take into account all the 15 panels as whole and expect it was the 6mm steel it would be still just 39 tons of steel against 115+ tons of the plane at its high speed impact crossection and around. Of course the plane would be cut&shattered into pieces by the "giant steel sieve" of the outer wall, but I would bet all of it which would be in the way of the engines, landing gears and substantial part of the wings with the fuel tanks giving it high inertia through relatively small crossection would get obliterated because the weight of it would be too small to have sufficient inertia for arresting the penetration. The 6mm steel in the way simply would get deformed and broken (not "cut") at the impact points and where the engines or landing gears would impact it they would likely obliterate whole the panels ripping it from the bolt connections or at least bend or break away substantial parts of them. It was not heavily fortified bunker, it was a relatively light steel structure and 38% area of it were just windows (so there the impacting parts of the plane would not meet any resistence whatsoever, just add to the inertia of the connected parts around meeting the colums and flanges, before breaking apart).

QUOTE
There was definitely a strange feature of the impact before the engines had struck the facade pointing to such a reinforcement.

What strange feature? You mean the infamous flashes?
In any case I would think that the first having some substantial inertia there hitting the wall would be the nose gear. And I would bet it would easily break through if striking a 6mm steel box column. Then you have there the main crew oxygen bottle at the right side of the E&E compartment and portable oxygen bottle on the forward side of the bulkhead in the cockpit. Wouldn't you think any of them would violently explode and burn all around white hot if hitting something at hundreds of knots?

QUOTE
The "nose out" claim also resembles the effects of a penetrative warhead (maybe "warhead" isn't the right term?)

It maybe resembles it but there is http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/TheHoleThatWasNotThere.jpg and definitely not of a diameter which would be implied by the "nose out" dimensions.
There are two distinct burned spots with dislodged aluminium cladding there and inbetween, at the left side with one column visibly bent. This definitely doesn't look to me like consistent with a penetrator warhead impact. On the other hand couldn't this two spots be the points where the remains of the jet engines after passing the building impacted the opposite wall? To me it looks likely.

QUOTE
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992&view=findpost&p=10804776

Even Blu-109 - and that's one of the bigger penetrator bombs - has only 37cm diameter, how many of them you would need to make the big holes at the entry side? Wouldn't you expect something like blu-109, able to penetrate feets of reinforced concrete, be able to do more damage on the other side than just bent one column?

QUOTE
As long as they have the media, politicians and everybody within the "security services" in their pockets, coupled with the gullible masses, the elitists can adapt to any situation, IMHO.

I would be not so sure. How they adapt to situation whole the high energy consuming technological civilization of the west runs out of the resources and at the same time other superpower (SCO/CSTO) emerges, without any doubt already cappable to absolutely deny access to any further resources from Eurasia except the ones on Arabian peninsula they have been already developed?
OK, they could go nuclear to overcome this problem and there definitely are possibilities to become fully independent on the overseas energy resources, such plans were there since 1960s and politically promoted at least from the Nixon's energy independence project in the 1970s. But so far it looks the elited using the Club of Rome rigged environmental/eugenic/malthusian agenda paid by fossil robberbarons did exactly the oposite. And as decades went the plans from the 1970's aren't viable anymore, because the resources of the U235 powering the past and contemporary generation nuclear plants are depleting even faster than fossil fuels. So it is no more a viable option even in just mid-term prospect and that's why I'm mainly against building of more 3rd generation LWR/PWR nuclear powerplants - they are still quite dangerous and there maybe isn't enough fuel for them anyway. One clearly needs thorium based 4th generation nuclear with closed cycle for overcoming the problem in the long run, and my informations from the field tell me that this was known by tops in the US civilian nuclear research at least since the end of 1960s! But now and in fact since years only China, and to lesser extent also Russia, India and Czech Republic are seriously doing some R&D on the thorium 4th generation (all because they have vast resources of it) - and all this countries except Czech Republic are already more or less outside western-empire power projection. It is paradox, because initially the pioneer of the 4th generation was USA (also having vast resources of thorium), but unfortunately all promissing projects in this field were killed one after another already since the beginning of 1970s using the Club of Rome rigged environmentalist/eugenic/malthusian ideology and even then contemporary nuclear technologies development was more or less completely stalled - there for example wasn't any nuclear powerplant projected and built in USA since the beginning of 1980s! Now the US under auspices of Haliburton drills like crazy for shale gas, but there is real danger that this can irreparably polute and destroy underground water resources and render so whole vast areas practicaly unhabitable, while the possible energy extracted this way could cover the energy needs for well less than decade according to sober estimates of minable shale reserves there. It's maybe nice boom now that it makes the natgas prices drop, and certain pockets again stuffed, but how long will it last, how much damage is done and especially how much more time is lost before somebody will start to take the general fossil peak threat really seriously and take off for solutions viable in long run? Good to note that development of every new technology into commercial stage takes considerable time together with implementing it into existing infrastructure. Wouldn't it be already too late for saving the western technological civilization from economic catastrophe when theyTM eventually wake up?

QUOTE
The f*ckers have been doing it for centuries.

They do, but only since less than 70 years they have technologies cappable to completely destroy life on this planet and use it as ultimate deterrent of taking any action against their corruption.

Posted by: paranoia Mar 1 2014, 01:33 PM

TM - im not sure i understand what you mean about the lights - why would they have to stop working? the entire towers were rigged yet lights and other electrical stuff was working there that day. im not sure why you suppose the lights have to be turned off... the connections of the floors to the facade and to the core would not be visible and would likely be hidden behind drywall and/or ceiling tiles. given the way the concrete (of the floors) later blew apart, my guess is that the floors were rigged along entire horizontal lengths with low explosives, this above ceiling tiles but below the floor of the next story above. the coming undone ("pulverization") of the concrete floors was part of the full collapse sequence. as far as my pre-impact demo theory goes, only the connections of these floor pans to the building would need to be "undone" and the floors/pans could more or less just pancake down seconds before nose of plane meets glass, so long as the floors were out of the way of the plane.

i do not subscribe to the theory that the towers were empty or "hollow", though i would not object to the suspicion of there being unoccupied spaces in the towers that were supposed to be filled by commercial tenants. but where my preimpact demo theory is concerned it would help but the towers do not need to be gutted, though after it of course, multiple floors across a wide and tall space would indeed be gone and thus "gutted". but the same way that access was gained to the entire structure enough to rig it with the necessary explosives for a full collapse (without somehow being detected or caught by tenants and or security), is the same access needed to make sure a certain number of floors fall out of the way of the plane so that it can fully penetrate. this means that under the guise of "construction" demo-riggers rigged these and all the other floors for a proper full-scale top down demo. but at some of these higher floors some kind of remotely detonated devices were added that were set off precisely and accurately by some sort of trigger on the plane itself. in this very precisely timed demo sequence only the necessary floors would fall out of the way (while some but not all columns are left standing, so the upper floors dont squash down).

i believe the reason for this preimpact demo is to make certain that the plane does FULLY penetrate and none of it, possibly a huge chunk of its rear, ends up falling down in to the street. i believe that the plane was not the actual craft it was purported to be and this is why they needed it to disappear completely. also, to help sell their collapse theory - that the plane/fuel caused the building to fully crumble - they needed a full penetration. if the plane did not go in fully and a huge chunk fell outside, more people would be skeptical of the collapses, suspicious that the damage is not severe enough to justify or cause a complete "collapse". not to mention of course, an empty tail section of plane, void of required passengers, would also lead to some serious doubt even by the sheeple. so the plane had to disappear. think about it, how many plane parts were found in the debris? even with a crash and jet fuel explosion, minus a couple smaller parts the entire plane stayed inside the building, it did not come out the other side. so very near to the top of the debris pile, there should have been some plane parts. horizontal sections of skin, chunks of the wing, the wheels and tires, struts, etc., the stronger parts of the plane would have deformed but should have been found relatively intact near the top of the heap. im not saying there wasnt a plane, im saying it was blown to insignificant bits, bits so small they could only be made by high explosives, and not by a plane crash alone.

imo there is a good chance the plane was modified, perhaps specifically even fortified. but the more solid the plane, especially if meeting with the floorpans, the more resistance (slower or slowed penetration) and more substantial horizontal motion of the tower at impact, so substantial that imo it could be disastrous to the precision of the demo sequence needed later for "collapse". if the plane was stronger it would push the tower to the point of either breaking the top off, or tilting the entire tower into a significant lean. its not just a matter of strenghtening a plane for penetration, the rest of the action/reaction needs consideration. if the plane as a solid mass meets the building at parts where it stands as a solid mass, there would be some penetration but mostly alot of friction, and a whole lot of horizontal sway or push. something's got to give to dissipate the velocity of the forward moving plane mass. the plane HAS TO break up, if not it will meet core and push the vertical columns hard horizontally. some sway - barely discernible to the naked eye - did take place, but imo that sway is not representative of any sort of substantial high speed solid mass meeting stable solid mass. thus i believe that the building was hollowed to allow plane to enter, then the plane itself was rigged to explode. i realize of course that the alternative is the plane was sliced into horizontal sections by blunt-ended floors, and this break up was sufficient enough so that the tower only moved/swayed a few inches/feet instead of yards. a sword can cut through a watermellon and a pumpkin through a van's exteriors - sure, but can a plane, especially one with fortified nose/wings/etc. get sliced by something so blunt and wide as floor pans and columns? i say not. somehow the plane was solid enough to fully get past the exterior for the entire length of its fuselage without slowing down, yet came to a stop instead of slicing clear through the building, right? and it came to a stop with minimal horizontal exertion on the building. this is impossible unless the plane breaks up fully in a very short space of time (milliseconds) once inside. it has to be whole to make it in past the tail past the facade, then shatter/fragment or risk meeting the core row of columns as a still intact mass that is an airplane. i get where no planes theory comes from, because seeing the crash is a mindfuck, a physical impossibility - that is unless whats behind that facade is nothing but air, then it makes sense. evan fairbanks (woo alert!) was the first to describe it as a "hangar", to him it appeared that somehow the building was hollowed out and let the plane just seamlessly melt into it. i agree, if the inside is hollowed out, the facade is easy enough to penetrate. that is if you can find a plane and fly it into the towers.

to that end - there is evidence of actual planes being present at all 3 locations, thus the perps had access to planes - fact. as such, crashing into the towers was an accomplishable task, done with relative ease and minimal investment, and even minimal complicity when compared to cgi'd fakery. add to that the fact that i've met 3 people who say they saw the plane, 1 whom i can count on as a worthwhile witness (due to the duration of their sighting), and for me at least there isnt any doubt that the 2nd crash was real. yes, visually the crash seems impossible, but for me there is a more plausible explanation than video fakery.


regarding the nose out, what's less debateable (imo), is that what you see is an explosion. is it the shape of a cabin/cockpit? to me yes. is it an actual cabin/cockpit, i actually used to think so, but now i dont. i believe it matches the shape of one but it is an explosion - massive pressure expanding in a rapid pace. had the plane met with anything inside, then out of the opposite end of the tower fuel should spray out, partially impeded by glass, and that fuel would likely ignite into a muted fireball. but the cockpit shaped explosion should not be there if the plane broke up due to impacting elements inside the building. the nose out fits with the idea that the plane was in more or less the same shape inside as it was out, that is until it was exploded, which happened pretty late. the nose of the plane managed to almost pop out the other side, which would prove something was wrong inside the towers (lots of shit was missing that should have changed the shape of not only the cockpit but the fireball).


re: mary jane booth: i dont believe she was married to anyone related to 9/11. she was an AA employee who worked at dulles for decades, and on 9/11 she was allegedly headed to a "credit union employees" gathering in las vegas. the reason i brought her up is that for me there was always the question of did a plane actually get boarded that day at dulles? nevermind who all was on it, but was there any witness account to establish (or at least suggest) that a plane existed and was boarded? then i happened to read about Tim Bateman and the fbi having grilled him. he is reported as having physically boarded mj booth on to a plane (aa77 allegedly). looking for more info about his account i found a random post at an audio forum where bateman's ex-roommate recounts what bateman had told him when he finally got home that day. to me the post sounds credible, and credibly corroborates the allegation that bateman indeed walked mj booth on to a plane and said goodbye to her and presumably the doors to that plane were shut and bateman walked away. so i cite his account as evidence that indeed a plane existed and this lady who for all intents and purposes is not around anymore (at dulles at least), is gone. of course i readily admit i never met mj booth in person ever, and sure, the entire tale could be made up, back story at an audio forum and all. we all have our bs detectors and for me, the above stated events are facts. the lady existed, this guy saw her board, and she's no longer around...

anyway, booth wasnt really related to this topic, i only brought her up as a footnote for when i asserted the possibility of the existence of a "boarded" plane. mind you, in a way im forced to mention it because many who believe in fakery of video, also believe in the simulation of human entities as well. and to them when someone like me speaks in such sure terms about real victims, then im either a shill or a not-yet enlightened blind man who hasnt discovered the real truth. likely my beliefs about the realness of planes probably earns the same suspicion or pity by fakery believers, but what can one do? what really is the point? ive honestly tired of the debate, and dont even know why im typing. everyone's beliefs are so strong, yet their competence so varying, its seems we will always be divided on this side of the fence. the crooks did it, got away with it, and are working from the behind the curtain as they always have. the main facilitators, bush cheney and company are (mostly) gone but the hidden hand operates still. the republic got hijacked, lines were drawn globally, blood spilled and continues to spill, at home in the cozy usa and abroad in the not so comfy rest of the world... and here we sit arguing about bullshit like "nose outs". bleh...

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 2 2014, 05:21 AM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Feb 27 2014, 04:33 PM) *
TM - im not sure i understand what you mean about the lights - why would they have to stop working?


Thank you very much for the clarification paranoia, and for your post of course.
Very informative and some very good points to think about!

Will come back later with a few comments.

Cheers

Posted by: Tamborine man Mar 4 2014, 08:56 AM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Feb 27 2014, 04:33 PM) *
TM - im not sure i understand what you mean about the lights - why would they have to stop working? ....


I speculated that you thought that both the floors and the trusses were removed from the floors,
so therefore no place to hang the ceiling lights! (It was not really that seriously meant anyway)!
More seriously though:

QUOTE
....my guess is that the floors were rigged along entire horizontal lengths with low explosives, this above ceiling tiles but below the floor of the next story above. the coming undone ("pulverization") of the concrete floors was part of the full collapse sequence. ....


Your above 'guess' could definitely have some (much!) merit to it, and certainly not to be 'sneezed' at.

QUOTE
....i do not subscribe to the theory that the towers were empty or "hollow", though i would not object to the suspicion of there being unoccupied spaces in the towers that were supposed to be filled by commercial tenants. ....


That was probably the answer i was "fishing" for in the first place, so thanks for that clarification.


QUOTE
....i believe the reason for this preimpact demo is to make certain that the plane does FULLY penetrate and none of it, ....


Unfortunately, i don't share your view re. plane impact. I think 9/11 was 'created' in the year
1911 as part of a broader scenario. Later, somebody picked up this 'astral creation', ran with
it and passed it on. Through 'some' in the Reagan administration it later developed to become
part of the PNAC "manifesto" in 1997, (although not mentioned by that 'name' in the document,
of course). The rest, as they say, is 'physical' history.

QUOTE
re: mary jane booth: i dont believe she was married to anyone related to 9/11.


You're right of course.
"Assumed" you were talking about Lady Evelyn Booth, the woman Ted Olson married after
his wife Barbara Olson allegedly died in the alleged crash.
Should have checked her name before commenting. me lazy ....& bad!

Cheers

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