Debunkers Respond To Dennis Cimino, A Few Comments Copy & Pasted Options

[amazed!]

Well put Rob.

Jim

I don't question the evidence you cite, I question the conclusions you draw from that evidence.

I accept that video fakery must have happened because so many people more knowledgeable than I make that claim.

But video fakery or not, there is EVIDENCE that at least 1 Boeing was present in Manhattan that day and struck the tower.

[onesliceshort]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

You know what? Brian Good and Chris Sarns used to play wordgames with me for weeks on end. They never liked nitty gritty details either and liked to have all eventualities covered no matter how illogical.

The witnesses saw a "plane" according to you but the images and videos are fake?

Edit:

I'm still trying to digest this...

As i said earlier, i didn't trust Hazerkhani, or Carmen Taylor. Nor did i trust Fairbanks or the Naudet brothers. Besides these people, all other videos of the supposed impact, that came to light later on, could very well be genuine. I got no thought about them. Jim Fetzer would probably say the same thing - perhaps!

The later videos I posted were of a plane in flight and impact. I made the same effort in identifying witnesses who saw the plane in flight and who are documented/accessible.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Mar 27 2012, 11:29 AM

[jfetzer]

Well, let me see what I can do with this. The position your are attributing to me is not my
position but an exaggerated caricature. In reference to "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'",
I adduce proof that all four of the crash sites were fabricated, but in very different ways, and I
offer evidence, some of which has been established by Pilots and is featured on its home page:

(1) Flight 93 was not deregistered by the FAA until 28 September 2005 and, as Pilots has shown,
was in the air on 9/11 but was far removed from its alleged crash site at Shanksville, PA, where,
if Pilots have done their research properly, was actually over Urbana, IL, at the time. I advance
observations by reporters and photographic proof that no plane crashed in Shanksville on 9/11.

(2) Flight 11 was not even scheduled for departure that day, according to BTS records. That it
did not hit the North Tower is substantiated by a time-sequence of frames from the Naudet Bros.
video and that there are four impact points, which turn from an extended "Z" into an elongated
"V". There is no wind turbulence and the damage to the facade displays additional anomalies.

(3) Flight 77 was also not scheduled for departure that day, according to BTS records. The FDR
data that Pilots received corresponds to a plane on a different approach that appears to have
flown toward the building but then swerved over it, as the trucker buddy of a friend of mine in
JFK research advised me. The proof that no plane hit the building is abundant and compelling.

(4) Flight 175 was not deregistered by the FAA until 28 September 2005 and, as Pilots has shown,
was in the air on 9/11 but according to Pilots, was far removed from its alleged effortless entry into
the South Tower, was in violation of Newton's laws, and over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time. Is is not
"theory" to conclude that it cannot have been entering the South Tower if it was over Pittsburgh.

This is the "bare bones" of the NPT, which maintains that none of the planes that, according to the
official account, actually crashed at their alleged "crash sites". Diffferent forms of fakery appear to
have been used at each site, where the interesting cases are Flight 11 (simulated by what seems to
have been an arrangement of four UAVs) and Flight 175 (simulated by a sophisticated hologram).

Since Flight 175 is the most hotly contested, let me immediately observe that, if Flight 175 WAS
over Pittsburgh at the time, then some other "plane" had to have been captured by the videos,
but since they have been advanced a proof of the official account, we are therefore encountering
some kind of video fakery, which is the use of videos to convey false impressions (about 9/11).

The argument for the use of a hologram is derived as follows. The impossible entry would only
have been impossible for a real plane but not for the image of a real plane. The use of CGIs or
of video compositing would have affected the broadcast images, but not what the eyewitneeses
reported. The more weight we give to the witness reports, the stronger the case for a hologram.

None of the witnesses need to have been lying. They reported seeing "a plane", which, since it
was performing feats that no real plane could perform, cannot have been a real plane. It follows
that they were were reporting observing what they took to be a real plane, but it was not in fact
a real plane, because a real plane would have crumpled on impact, etc., but there was no impact.

I do not understand why, when I have explained this many times now, so many of you are going
out of your way to misrepresent my position. That it has to have been a hologram is reinforced
by the considerations that it has no strobe lights (as John Lear observed), it casts no shadow (as
Ben Collet has noticed), and its left wing disappears and then reappears (as my 4th video shows).

While it is true that a "real plane" could have traveled as fast as this one at that altitude, it could
not have been a standard Boeing 767, which makes this video fakery, once again. Remember the
admonition of Sherlock Holmes when he observed, "When you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth!" That fits Flight 175 to a "t"!

As I said. Wordsmithery.

A) all video and images are of a "hologram"

Or

B) all video and images are fake. And those who authored or put their name to them are plants.

C) all verified and documented witnesses saw a "hologram" or are liars/plants.

D) because it's been proven that an alleged standard 767 flew way over its limitations, the only conclusion to be drawn is that it was a "hologram" and that there is no possible way that a modified aircraft was used.

E) because the ACARS data and those who are documented as interpretting it conflicts with the alleged aircrafts' placements at time of alleged crashes, they must be "holograms" and not the result of data/radar manipulation or planeswapping/military op.

Just tell me if I am right so far Jim.

[rob balsamo]

Jim's posts are now on indefinite mod preview requiring approval due to his continued evasions of my posts.

Jim, none of your further posts will be approved here if you continue your evasion of my posts.

Welcome to my house.

Show some respect, or I show you the door.

[GroundPounder]

premise:
While it is true that a "real plane" could have traveled as fast as this one at that altitude, it could
not have been a standard Boeing 767,

conclusion:
which makes this video fakery, once again.

i'm ok w/ your premise. i'm not ok w/ your conclusion.

i've just never heard of a hologram showing up on radar...i write science fiction, but that would require some real work on my part.

'The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible.' ~Mark Twain

[tit2]

I placed below two videos of the attack of the south tower, a picture of the damage of the north tower and another image showing a large column of black smoke coming from the impact zone of the twin towers. In both videos one sees and one hears the sound of the aircraft approaching the south tower, and at the impact of this aircraft, one sees a classical jet fuel explosion. The damages, in the image of the north tower, match perfectly the shape of the aircraft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iGYVh7HZo8

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/...wtc1holenew.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archiv...11_1984343c.jpg

All these elements, which prove that the twin towers were hit by aircrafts are absent for the pentagon attack. In particular, the images of the explosion on the Pentagon seem to show a detonation of explosives, not a jet fuel explosion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcQBp264CME

Yet if a technology using holograms and other means was used to imitate perfectly the impact of a plane and its consequences on the Twin Towers, the same technology should have been used to imitate, similarly, the impact of an aircraft on the pentagon, which is not the case. In reality the twin towers were hit by large aircrafts, while for the attack on the Pentagon, many witnesses have only reported the sound of explosives detonation at the time of the alleged impact of the aircraft. What is normal because unlike the twin towers, it wasn't probably possible to run electronically, without a pilot in the cockpit, a large military aircraft, at high speed, on the first floor of the Pentagon.

[jfetzer]

Rob has written to me and posted that I am not going to be allowed to continue participating in this forum unless I respond to his posts. Frankly, I have never heard of any such requirement, but since I have implicitly replied to him several times, let me be more explicit here. In my opinion, Rob has displayed misunderstanding of (what I take to be) NPT and has offered several faulty analogies and bad reasons for rejecting it as I shall explain. Rob's objections are in bold.

Jim, for someone who claims to have done such an extraordinary amount of research on this topic, you may want to revisit the actual data.

What I have said (based upon Pilots own study) is that a standard Boeing 767 could not have attained the speed shown in the videos of Flight 175 heading toward the South Tower. Indeed, Pilots study confirms:

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.

Furthermore, you are basing your whole theory on your belief that an airliner is comparable to an empty coke can.

Since the comparison to an empty coke can is only an analogy and far from "my whole theory", Rob has missed the boat, big time! My "whole theory" is based upon the physical impossibility of physical objects (other than microscopic particles) to violate Newton's laws of motion, that the "plane" shown in the videos does just that, which means that we are observing physically impossible events.

The comparison of a Boeing 767--or any commercial carrier--to an empty coke can, moreover, is clearly more defensible than comparing it to a full can of coke, so I am a bit taken aback by this complaint. The fuselage of an airline is made of aluminum, as is an empty can of coke. An airplane has a definite structure, but so does a can of coke. That they are similar in some respects, however, is not enough.

Analogies are faulty when the entities being compared, say, A and B, which are supposed to be sufficiently similar to warrant the further inference that, because A has properties a, b, c, and d, since B has properties a, b, and c, it therefore (or probably) also has property d. But analogies are faulty when there are more differences than similarities or few but crucial differences or such arguments are taken to be conclusive.

For a full can of coke to be a suitable comparison, an airliner would have to be full of water, say, rather than mostly air. There are many faulty comparisons, so perhaps Rob can enlighten me as to why he believes that his comparison to a can full of coke is appropriate. This strikes be as rather bizarre, since, while there are some similarities, this would be a crucial difference that undermines the analogy.

I would also observe that the same is true of the Sandia experiment. Interestingly, I understand that plane was full of water. Notice, in particular, that the Sandia plane has its velocity drop to zero and is blown apart in every direction. Neither occurred to Flight 175 as it is represented in these videos, which means that this comparison is also faulty, in this case because there are more differences than similarities between them.

Jim, an airliner is nothing like an empty coke can. And to compare a transport category airplane to such, is not only disingenuous to yourself, but intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

I have heard many comparisons to an empty coke can. There is nothing "disingeuous" or "dishonest" about it, which I find to be an extraordinary and completely unwarranted allegation. If anything should be obvious here, it is that I believe everything that I write. I may be wrong on some points, but I cannot be dishonest. I think this is another conceptual confusion on your part, Rob, of which you have displayed several.

One was the response to my remark about "performing feats that no real plane could perform" in reference to the videos of Flight 175. I was clearly talking about a plane of that kind, a Boeing 175, which meant that your counter-example (of an F-14 "Tomcat") was beside the point. You were deliberately misinterpreting my remark, which may or may not have displayed "intellectual dishonesty" on your part.

In addition, in response to my repeated explanations about NPT--and even asking you to explain what you mean by "NPT", you have repeatedly rejected it on the basis of having friends who observed "a plane" en route to the South Tower. And that seems to remain your position to this day, since you have given no indication of understanding that NPT, as I define it, is consistent with those witness reports.

You and Aldo seem fixated on positions that others have advanced and to have ignored the position that I have spelled out here and carefully defined. As I have explained, what those witnesses reported seeing must have looked like a plane, but could not be a real plane, since no real plane could have entered the South Tower in violation of Newton's laws without crumpling, its wings falling off, and such.

Another faulty analogy would be compare a commercial carrier as comparable to a bullet. But a bullet is a solid lead object, not an open aluminum tube. Your introduction of a full can of coke strikes me as moving in the direction of a comparison with a bullet, which I should hope you an appreciate is completely wrong. I
really don't see what traction you are gaining by denying the appropriate analogy with an empty coke can.

I am also puzzled at your apparent ignorance of Newton's laws. According to the third law, the impact of a plane moving at 500 mph on a stationary building would be the same as that of a building moving at 500 mph hitting a stationary plane. Surely you can appreciate that the effects on this second scenario would be
devastating. But the effects on the first scenario would be precisely the same as the effects on the second.

Now tell us what "560 mph at 35,000 feet" is equivalent speed at 700-1000 MSL.

Let me know if you need help with the math.

This apparently is an effort by Rob to demonstrate his superiority at calculating differences in air speed at different altitudes. No doubt, he is better at that than am I. The question that arises is whether any of my arguments depend upon such a transformation. If it is not the case that the cruising speed of a Boding 767 at 35,000' is 560 and that that speed would be impossible at 700-1,000', then it's relevant; otherwise, not.

@Robert S

Please learn how to use the quote function. It really isn't that difficult.

To answer your question, I dont recall if they specified a type aircraft. It's been nearly 10 years since we had our crew room pow-wow's regarding the events which took place on 9/11. But they did see aircraft hitting the WTC.

[amazed!]

Jim

Hoping that you will acknowledge Rob's posts, and thus be able to respond to this....

As is such a common case on the internet, I think perhaps semantics or unprecise language is part of the problem.

I thought years ago the NPT term had been further specified: NPT meaning no Boeings at WTC, because ANYBODY who pays attention knows there was no Boeing at either Shanksville or Pentagon.

As for you point about 4 UAVs in formation striking the tower, that seems beyond ludicrous to me. Formation flying requires alot of skill, AND good visual on the lead ship. I'm no expert on UAVs, but that seems totally impossible.

I could entertain the hologram thing, IF ONLY somebody could show me where such equipment exists to have such a real-looking hologram projected into the space of Manhattan. It seems honest debate would require at least a nibbler on where on earth such equipment exists, with perhaps examples of what its images look like.

You present two VERY long shots here.

[mrmitosis]

While it is true that a "real plane" could have traveled as fast as this one at that altitude, it could
not have been a standard Boeing 767, which makes this video fakery, once again.

Which person on this thread has said it was a standard 767?

Remember the admonition of Sherlock Holmes when he observed, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth!"

Before contemplating the improbable, let alone eliminating the impossible, how about addressing the obvious? You set a low bar for post-tertiary academic standards, Jim. If I were one of your philosophy students, I'd be demanding a refund.

[kawika]

I can't debate the plane entering the building seamlessly, but others have explained that this is possible.

I'll grant you the lack of fuel explosion at the entry point, but that too may be a physics problem. I find it very curious. Comparing the Tower with steel and glass openings is not the same as the Pentagon with a mostly masonry wall.

The place I am totally baffled is how this CGI image gets projected correctly into numerous vantage point cameras, both film and digital. How does Evan Fairbanks' video align itself with the background and with other photographers over in Brooklyn?

How could the long distance (5 miles out) helicopter footage take into account every aspect?

A lot of people use the moon hoax as an example, but that was a single image projected on TV sets. Nobody witnessed the event for comparison.

If all of the photographers who captured a plane headed for WTC2 and all the witnesses who testified they saw it strike WTC2 were faking it, what is their incentive? How were they compensated? When? Who gave them their script and when did they rehearse their lines? How would they know what questions would be asked of them?

You see the trouble this causes? There are an awful lot of difficult questions to ponder before I can accept any CGI theory.

What I find more compelling is the incomplete nature of the video records with their conspicuous edits right where the action gets interesting. How come there are no SW views of the impact at WTC2?

At this point I have to stick with the non-commercial plane being remotely controlled explanation. Holograms are just too hard to comprehend.

[23investigator]

@Robert S

Please learn how to use the quote function. It really isn't that difficult.

To answer your question, I dont recall if they specified a type aircraft. It's been nearly 10 years since we had our crew room pow-wow's regarding the events which took place on 9/11. But they did see aircraft hitting the WTC.

Dear Mr Balsamo

I know how touchy you are about this, believe me it has not been done deliberately, in fact every effort has been made to avoid it, perhaps you could point out what has been done wrong, to avoid upsetting you again.

It would have been nice to have received your response directly, not 'plugged' on the bottom of another person's post.

There is no connection with that person in the least, in fact, caution has been taken not to become embroiled in what is going on around the person's views.

Nonetheless, it would be good to know your 'pilot colleagues' views about what aircraft they considered hit the South Tower, the North Tower too, if they happened to witness that.

Robert S

[Tamborine man]

Which person on this thread has said it was a standard 767?



Before contemplating the improbable, let alone eliminating the impossible, how about addressing the obvious? You set a low bar for post-tertiary academic standards, Jim. If I were one of your philosophy students, I'd be demanding a refund.

mrmitosis,

no one in this thread, absolutely no one, has said that it was a standard 767.

It is the perps and the 'loyalists' who are maintaining that the plane was a hijacket UA175. Again - it's not us!

Cheers

[onesliceshort]

@Robert

I usually hit the "preview" button (beside "post") to see if the post has turned out okay.

Guys,

I think the main sticking point for genuine NPT advocates is the actual impact pattern itself. How the extremities actually penetrated the face of the buildings. Jim Fetzer's argument hinges on the "impossibility" of an aircraft interacting with the building as has been seen in the videos.

Maybe that should be the main focus so we can put our "doots" down?

@tit2

As for the Pentagon, I agree that the OCT impact scenario, the comparison to Manhattan is like chalk and cheese. Not just because of the rebar/kevlar concrete, but because the alleged aircraft was supposedly in a tilt and the extremities neither entered nor marked the decorative layer of facade nor were on the lawn.

[rob balsamo]

If it is not the case that the cruising speed of a Boding 767 at 35,000' is 560 and that that speed would be impossible at 700-1,000', then it's relevant; otherwise, not.

Jim,

560 mph/486 knots at 35,000 feet, is the equivalent of 259 knots at sea level.

I would expect an "empty coke can" to smash against steel at such a low speed.

In comparison,

590mph/510 knots at sea level (the actual speeds reported based on Radar) is the equivalent of 956 knots/1,100 mph/Mach 1.59 at 35,000 feet.

I would expect an airliner to pass through 1/4" steel effortlessly. Especially one that may have been modified for such an operation.

You have been taken off mod preview. Thanks for addressing my points.

[jfetzer]

One dimension of the "official account" of 9/11 is that the North Tower was hit by Flight 11, which was a Boeing 767, and that the South was hit by Flight 175, which was also a Boeing 767. The government has never said anything about these planes being other than standard Boeing 767s, which were supposed to have been 767-200s. Since Boeing 767s could not have entered the towers in the fashion shown in the videos--as I explain in "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'", including both the footage of the "hit" on the North and the South Towers--the use of those videos as substantiating the official account is an instance of video fakery, when that term is defined (as I define it) of being a use of videos to convey a false impression of the events of 9/11. Please note that no real aircraft--Boeing 767-200 in a military or "special" version--could perform the feats of the planes shown in these videos. The "impossible speed" could have been overcome by a standard Boeing 767-200, as Pilots has established by one of its studies, where the fact that an F-14 "Tomcat", for example, could have flown faster at that altitude does not refute the fact that no Boeing 767-200 could have done it, where the videos are supposed to be films of flights by Boeing 767-200s. The points I am making are as refutations of the "official account" but also apply to variations advanced here.

Which person on this thread has said it was a standard 767?

Before contemplating the improbable, let alone eliminating the impossible, how about addressing the obvious? You set a low bar for post-tertiary academic standards, Jim. If I were one of your philosophy students, I'd be demanding a refund.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 28 2012, 12:43 AM

[jfetzer]

Rob,

I think you are not taking into account that Flight 175 was intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses that were anchored at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns and filled with 4-8" of concrete, where each such floor represented an acre of concrete and steel. Even if you were right about the potential for the flight you describe to pass through 1/4" steel, it could not have overcome the massive horizontal resistance created by these eight (8) floors. It would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, where seats, bodies and luggage fell to the ground, none of which happened. I would invite you to return to "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'" and review the diagram that I provide. Imagine the consequences of a Boeing 767 encountering just one of these floors in flight.

Jim

Jim,

560 mph/486 knots at 35,000 feet, is the equivalent of 259 knots at sea level.

I would expect an "empty coke can" to smash against steel at such a low speed.

In comparison,

590mph/510 knots at sea level (the actual speeds reported based on Radar) is the equivalent of 956 knots/1,100 mph/Mach 1.59 at 35,000 feet.

I would expect an airliner to pass through 1/4" steel effortlessly. Especially one that may have been modified for such an operation.

You have been taken off mod preview. Thanks for addressing my points.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 28 2012, 12:51 AM

[jfetzer]

Many students have observed that these "cookie-cutter-like-cut-outs" are cartoonish. Indeed, if you take a close look--even at the frame with which my article, "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'" beings, you will see that the plane is half-way into the building, yet no external damage is visible. As I explain elsewhere, in the case of the North Tower, the parallel cut-out was even extended in footage to make it look better in the eyes of the perps. But a real plane impacting with the towers would have created damage that would have been far more concentrated toward the center, where the relatively flimsy wing-tips would not have cut the steel. What you are viewing is a fantasy from beginning to end. And I believe that exposing this charade would do more to awaken the American public to the fabrication of 9/11 than 1,000 repetitions of the controlled demolition of WTC-7, which has been elegantly presented in "This is an orange" by Anthony Lawson.

@Robert

I usually hit the "preview" button (beside "post") to see if the post has turned out okay.

Guys,

I think the main sticking point for genuine NPT advocates is the actual impact pattern itself. How the extremities actually penetrated the face of the buildings. Jim Fetzer's argument hinges on the "impossibility" of an aircraft interacting with the building as has been seen in the videos.

Maybe that should be the main focus so we can put our "doots" down?

@tit2

As for the Pentagon, I agree that the OCT impact scenario, the comparison to Manhattan is like chalk and cheese. Not just because of the rebar/kevlar concrete, but because the alleged aircraft was supposedly in a tilt and the extremities neither entered nor marked the decorative layer of facade nor were on the lawn.

This post has been edited by jfetzer: Mar 28 2012, 01:00 AM

[23investigator]

@Robert

I usually hit the "preview" button (beside "post") to see if the post has turned out okay.

Guys,

I think the main sticking point for genuine NPT advocates is the actual impact pattern itself. How the extremities actually penetrated the face of the buildings. Jim Fetzer's argument hinges on the "impossibility" of an aircraft interacting with the building as has been seen in the videos.

Maybe that should be the main focus so we can put our "doots" down?

@tit2

As for the Pentagon, I agree that the OCT impact scenario, the comparison to Manhattan is like chalk and cheese. Not just because of the rebar/kevlar concrete, but because the alleged aircraft was supposedly in a tilt and the extremities neither entered nor marked the decorative layer of facade nor were on the lawn.

Dear 'onesliceshort'

That is my normal practice.
When I have not been able to get the quote as Mr Balsamo prefers it, I have just had to be prepared, to accept his wrath.

Your point on the 'extremities', is very valid I believe.
Having placed a drawn profile of a Boeing 767 200, over the gash shown in a photograph of the south face of the South Tower, it brings forward a consideration.

In the NIST report no such procedure was carried out, the only presentation being a very 'conveniently positioned' drawn profile over an 'equally convenient' drawn representation of the gash in the building.

Proper consideration reveals if a Boeing 767 200 was involved, only a relatively small portion of it entered the building.

The ambiguity of the NIST report covers this elsewhere.
Suggesting, not all of the aircraft they say was involved, entered the building.
Yet in other portions of the report, elaborate drawings and representations are used, to show how the aircraft became sliced allowing all of it to enter the building.
The main concentration of this being consideration of the wings, which of course the fuel was carried in.
The fuel required to explain the massive 'hydro carbon', explosion shown in video and photographs.

The horizontal stabilizers and the very large vertical stabilizer, just dismissed in the ambiguity of contratradicting statement.

Robert S

[paranoia]

Com'on people be real now, please!

If NPT simply means that none of the 'official' planes crashed at either locations, then I'm certainly also a NPT adherent and supporter.

Please try to use your imagination to the fullest. Regarding second tower, we see on all videos a plane slicing into the building effortlessly.
No resistance by the steel columns nor the steel spandrel plates or the concrete floors behind the plates is offered to any of the weaker
parts of the airplane, such as the wingtips and the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. None whatsoever.

But if that's not enough, next we come to the truly bizarre and totally mad:
In the instant the plane has fully penetrated the facade it comes to an abrupt halt!!??

We know this, because the split second after the plane disappears into the building, a big fireball takes shape on the right side of the building
15 – 20 meters along from the impact facade. Not halfway, not ¾ way into the building, but within the first quarter, or third, of the way in!
A fireball also forms outside of the entry hole.

We also know (because of the impact hole and the alleged direction the plane flew), that apart from the port side wing, most of the plane
would have missed the center core of the building, and hence should have continued more or less partly intact (because of the floors only)
on its over 800 km/h speed through the open office spaces, impacting the side wall and the far end wall, a mere 64 meters away from the
entry opening – or ca. 26 meters away from the 'undamaged' nose of the plane!! But (ignoring everything about the so-called "nosecone")
none of this happened!
No further impact (now from the inside of the tower) was visible either from the right side wall or from the North end wall in any of the
videos or photos we have seen of the exterior of the building. No outward bulging whatsoever of the walls, is seen anywhere!


The plane apparently stopped, dead in its track, just inside the perimeter wall!


I truly hope that not one single member of PF9/11T will even dream of entertaining this idea that such insanity could have taken place
…….Please!!!!

Let us instead gladly give this preposterous lunacy to the 'loyalists', the shills, the 'paid agents' and their 'research assistants', together with
the rest of the truly ignorant and hopelessly immature twerps amongst them.

The planes seen and witnessed in the skies that day is a completely different story that deserves its own close scrutiny and investigation,
and which has already for a long period admirably been started by many good people.

NPT therefore - seen in the Right Light - is an absolute fact as far as I'm concerned, and should naturally be supported by all other just and
wise people! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Cheers

tm (and mr.fetzer - tho i didnt have time to quote his posts), you make fairly accurate observations, but fail to form a plausible scenario that explains them. nevermind of course, that you are outright dismissing eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the building. nevermind the delayed timing between wtc crash 1 and 2, which would have had thousands of eyes, and dozens of cameras pointed at the the first tower ablaze and smoking. nevermind the multiple existing footages (video, digital cameras, and 35mm film) of a plane hitting a building (second crash). nevermind the absence of footage showing an explosion but no plane. nevermind the logistical impossibility of containing such footage if indeed such an event (explosion but no plane) ever occurred.

but speaking strictly to the physical event, that is - the plane's impact and subsequent seamless penetration into the building, then more or less "stopping in its tracks", there is a much simpler explanation than video fakery, i.e. "npt" (as far as im concerned the 2 terms are inextricably tied to each other and mean the same thing). that explanation:

-immediately prior to the plane's entry, various obstacles inside the building that would have impeded its penetration, were dropped out of the way via a mini-demolition. floor sections and columns were removed and only the facade remained intact and in view. this allowed the plane to punch through the relatively thin metal outside the building, without being slowed down by anything inside the building.

-once inside the building, the plane itself, rigged with explosives and already filled with fuel, was detonated, making sure it shattered into small enough pieces that none would act upon the remaining structure (core especially) as a horizontal force.


a more-detailed explanation here:

Some Say Aluminum Planes Can't Penetrate Steel, How about pumpkins?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774440
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774495
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774522
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774528
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774826

-in the end my hypothesis was not refuted; those who believe the wtc crashes were a video hoax and not an actual event, and whose strongest evidence imo was the seamless penetration of plane through building, had no answer - and after diverting to other issues - the thread died off.

to illustrate it more accurately than the crudely made hand-drawn graphics i shared in that other thread, here is purdue's representation of the building, its structural components, and the plane's path:

(IMG:http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase4/img084-0.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/Run12/FacadeAfter.jpg)


sources (contain other related pics/graphics):
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulat...ase4/index.html
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulat...Run12/index.htm


-those floorpans and the columns inside the building should have slowed the plane down, IF they were there during penetration. but to me the more logical interpretation of what's seen in the impact videos, is the absence of structural elements in the plane's way, not the absence of a plane. imo its hard to refute how much easier it would be to mini-demo subsections of a building thats already been wired for full demo (maybe the flash seen before impact is part of this pre-impact demo), than it is to control/contain all the variables required for video hoaxing the event instead. its simple, effective, and easily doable, plus it avoids loose ends created by having to involve and or control multiple entities, ranging from news media to average joes on the street, all of whom were focused on the towers after the first impact/explosions.





re: holograms - imo such a notion is not even possible-enough to be considered as an explanation. whomever is suggesting so, i ask that they please provide an example of any hologram anywhere that can even remotely be compared to 2nd wtc crash, specifically a hologram projected in broad daylight and moving at high speeds over an entire city, able to be witnessed by multiple onlookers. until then, its merely a conspiracy theory (anyone seen u2r2h. lately?).

note - while searching for an example, i ran into this entry at fetzer's blog, but the only evidence cited for such technology is anecdotal (the author references without substantiation, a story allegedly relayed by a friend of john lear's):

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/06/ba...ane-theory.html

Hologram Technology

There have been anecdotal reports of people giving speeches on stage at business conferences, while engaging the audience. Several minutes into the speech, the actual person walks out and stands next to his hologram which has duped the audience. A friend of aviation legend John Lear was driving in the California desert and spotted an enormous military cargo plane flying overhead. He found it odd that such a plane would be flying at such a location -- out in the middle of nowhere. He looked up and it vanished into thin air. The witness felt that this must have been a test run of holographic technology.

*while barry berman is credited with having written the above, alot of the text in that piece is extremely similar (almost word for word) to much of the logix presented here in this thread by mr.fetzer.

[amazed!]

I would like to ask just how we arrived at the airspeed value?

Rob suggests above the value is derived from radar data. I think others have arrived at a value by somehow measuring by video reference how far the airplane travelled in a given time, thus arriving at a ground speed. Are there other methods used?

I hate to be repetitious, but I am most skeptical of the radar data for the simple fact that we know that to some extent the data was corrupted by injects in the name of VG.

In short, I don't see how a precise number for the airspeed can be calculated.