I wonder how hard it would be to compile a short collection of videos taken by other, ordinary, common folk (as opposed to the various 'official' videos) showing the approach and impact of the second strike?

I remember seeing them years ago, and testimony from people who actually saw it happen, but did not archive them, or whatever the proper term is.

That is the material that can put the 'no plane at WTC' controversy to rest IMO.

The video that Jim Fetzer links to, allegedly taken by Mike Hezarkhani is apparently corroborated by an image which appears to be taken from the same vantage point. It was allegedly taken by Carmen Taylor.

http://beyondpoliticsand911.com/photogalle...-Taylor-pic.jpg

She was interviewed by Jeff Hill (copy and paste to browser - eliminate gap)

Http://www.pump itout.com/audio/ct_101407.mp3

Put your bullshit detector on and I defy anybody here to tell me that she isn't genuine.

There are many more images and videos. Here's a few just from a quick google

Scott myers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2hY0QleiHY

Luis Alonso

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/5145/fantadevscr4.gif

Ronald Pordy

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/1646/citylights1ev2.gif


Robert Fisch

http://old.911digitalarchive.org/images/details/515


Luke Cremin

http://old.911digitalarchive.org/images/details/1200

Rob Howard

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/arc..._354027gm-o.jpg

Question. Would the perps leave 100% knowledge and proof of the scale some are suggesting in the hands of so many? Proof that could see gallows being put up all over the US in the morning? I know it's a dramatic image but I'm just giving some a reality check here.

As for tower 1, I suggested to Jim Fetzer that we know that the alleged 757/767s weren't used on 9/11. I also suggested that the aircraft used in Manhattan may have been modified to enable penetration using the same technology used in the missile to bring down TWA800 (for example)

The best resolution and close-up of the Naudet brothers film is to be found on Simon Shack's video

01:10 and 02:04 specifically. Watch repeatedly. It's clear as day to me that there is an explosion just before impact. He doesn't focus on this at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM

Maybe this burying of a more obvious anomaly was the source of NPT?

No, I can't explain the physics of the impacts but there was some form of aircraft used.

Naturally I didn't speak on behalf of P4T, but only from a personal viewpoint.
This thread is in the 'Alternative theories' section, where I presumed one was
permitted to speak ones mind without fear or favour!!

Dom DiMaggio do not believe a plane crashed in Shanksville. I agree.
CIT and P4T do not believe a plane crashed into the pentagon. I agree.
Some people believe no planes crashed into the WTC towers. I agree.
Some people believe the 3 towers were brought down by CD. I agree.
Etc. etc..

I know little about J. Fetzer; only what I can gather through his posts in this
forum.
Not for a second do I believe he in this forum has been attacked by a 'pack of
…. wolves', so naturally I couldn't have been referring to this gentleman.

I was in fact referring to people like Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, Bob Balsamo,
Dennis Cimino, John Lear, Barry Twicker, Kevin Ryan and many others who
over the years have been viciously haunted by the infamous howling-chorus.

When I advised Aldo not to sink to "their" levels, that should naturally be taken
in the positive.I know all too well that these opponents, living mostly in a world
of Darkness, are far too skilled in the game of derision and nastiness, than those
for Truth and Justice could ever 'hope' to be!

I have supported CIT and P4T in the thick and the thin the last 5 – 6 years, and
will of course continue to do so, no matter if Aldo choose to believe planes crashed
into the towers. I respect his views in this regard even though I cannot share them
with him personally at this point.

Cheers

This reminds me of “Nitroglycerine”…shock and sensitive make it dangerous…

It would be interesting to have a “Poll” of members.

Just guessing out loud, I would “not” think that anyone believes that AA11, AA77, United 93 and United 175 hit anything.

From there you could elaborate to the question of special aircraft hitting the towers, and special flying objects hitting the Pentagon and Shanksville.

This whole idea of 19 Saudi Arabians [15] pulling this off…is great material for the Brothers Grimm.

In this fairy Tale, we actually roll out the Red carpet and wait for Dorothy to click her Silver slippers…”There’s no place like Home” [Homeland Security…I mean]

No "special flying object" struck the Pentagon.

There's no evidence whatsoever of another craft or missile striking the Pentagon bar misconstrued witness quotemines from the media. Anything as long as something "struck" the building, eh? Something that can easily be debunked. A "grey area" that tptb can manipulate.

Crazy.

On the one hand we have the "chosen ones" at 911Blogger and TruthAction berating and blatantly lying about the NOC evidence and the work done here by Rob. Branding Pentagon research "toxic" and "detrimental" to the research done in Manhattan (irrelevant utter bollox).

On the other, we have people in the NPT camp trying to drag the same research and evidence into their "fight". That's not a nice sandwich. And it's particularly disrespectful to the same people who've been taking this flack incessantly for six years only to have another boulder strung around their necks.
Especially when they want to clearly distance themselves from it.

Same goes for the "laymen" amongst us who go out into the "ethernet" to defend and spread their work (amazed! - hopefully you'll dazzle us all one day with your aeronautical knowledge).

I agree with Woody that this has all the hallmarks of a "bad cop, good cop" routine.

For the government nodding dogs skulking around this thread. This is what a real forum with real people looks like. Take your rara skirts off and join the party. Bob.

You apparently missed my point!

I said: “It would be interesting to have a “Poll” of members”.

It does not matter what I think. I live in a glass tent!

…shock and sensitive make it dangerous…

That is the real issue. Because if those specific planes did not hit the targets, the entire Official Myth is a stinking pile of bullshit.

What did or did not hit the targets is a separate issue, that without a real investigation is impossible to prove and all anyone can do is speculate. Of course, the gov has billions to spend poisoning the well and they've done a masterful job of it.

Spot on DYEW.

Just as SanderO (not having a go at him) was adding his "subplot" as to how WTC7 fell, he was missing the point that NIST claimed that "office fires" and "office fires" alone were the culprit. Anything else is irrelevant.

Just as CIT uncovered the NOC witnesses, any other claims regarding "missiles", "NOC impact" and "A3 Skywarrior" claims are irrelevant. Speculation can be good but if there's no evidence, what's the point?
Let tptb explain.

Just as Pilots found the major discrepancies in the alleged FDR for "Flight 77", Warren Stutt and his "data" are irrelevant. The NTSB hasn't changed its stance one iota. Let them explain.

Just as Rob found that "Flight 175" was supposed to have flown way over its limitations and that ACARS messages deciphered for the FBI are unambiguous in that it (and "Flight 93") were nowhere near the alleged crash sites, (again) Stutt's and GL's opinions are meaningless. Let them explain.

Thing is, imagine newcomers to this information are actually posed the dilemma that "oh, by the way, that was a hologram you saw hitting the towers" and/or "there were actually 2 planes/1 plane plus missile involved in the Pentagon op".

Unfounded speculation is as helpful as a chocolate fireguard. It's healthy between truthseekers but trying to tie it all up in one neat bundle as fact is another matter.

I too agree with DYEW, and as i said earlier, it deserves it own scrutiny and investigation.
It's definitely a dicey subject, and it seems like people are too afraid to think the problem
through to its conclusion and therefore treat it as a far too hot potato. I got no such fear.

On another forum, i joined a discussion about 'infinity'. The OP and others maintained infinity
to be only a concept used to describe f.ex. the rationals between zero and 1.
I argued that infinity, together with its inseparable companion eternity, should never be used
in connection with math and numbers, as these two terms describe absolute reality, and hence
could never be confined within two limits. I argued that as Cosmos is it, so are these two realities
completely without a beginning and without an end. They have always existed, and will always
exist, endlessly and boundlessly.
Would have liked to say more, but after that, the thread came to a complete stop. It 'died' there
and then. Not a word more after 18 pages!

"Arr well, such is life", said Ned Kelly, when they put the robe around his neck .......

Cheers



".......
Truly, I ask of you: what do you fear? Fear you the evil words?
Fear you to be hurt by stones which are cast upon you? Do you
not know that a child's arm reacheth but short? Guide the child
and rebuke it, for a child's hurling of stones and evil words
should not hinder that you speak for truth and justice.
......."

I'm not afraid to discuss it.

I've directly addressed the subject a few posts ago and nobody has answered it.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804272

I never doubted you for a moment, OSS!

So, no planes enter the towers (is my understanding), and yet we see planes enter!!

I personally think that we all have been made 'victims' to the greatest hoax and the
greatest "illusion" this world has ever seen - since perhaps the so-called 'moon landing'.

'Something' strange happened atop the Woolworth building, that I personally think warrants
yet more investigation:

http://www.orbwar.com/woolworth/

(I'm not into the ufo and orb bit, so please ignore that part!)

And I think also that one maybe should again familiarize oneself with what actually lies
behind 'the Indian rope trick', as this gentleman gives quite a good explanation about:



Fast forward to 9:00 and end it at 15:00. The rest is not important!

Cheers

I think the 9/11 cartel are given too much credit.

They've been running the show/shadow government for decades. Their methods have always been the same.

Waco - mass murder, MSM complicity, denial, denial, more MSM complicity, denial, a corrupt forensics lab, corrupt senate, corrupt FBI/ATF, denial, denial, more MSM complicity and blackening the name of any witness who counters the official story and blanket censorship. Destruction and removal of the "crime scene". And denial.

TWA800 - as above but with the gall to ignore all witnesses (on the ground and in the air), their own radar data and whistleblowers. Again topped off with denial and MSM complicity.

Oklahoma - as above, with the added denial of physical evidence and the actual murder of witnesses. Denial from the MSM of early reports of secondary devices. Withholding of video evidence. Destruction and removal of the "crime scene". Denial and MSM complicity.

9/11 - as above, only this event was to be stage managed by MSM (at the top) from the beginning. The official story, disinfo and soundbites to suckerpunch an already gullible and pathetic public. Then denial, denial, denial. Withheld video evidence. Second hand denial of all witnesses to explosions in Manhattan and the flightpaths in Arlington and Shankesville. Destruction and removal of "crime scenes".

There was no great "masterplan". The military ops and subsequent control of information, yes, but that's it. They've enabled this event and OCT script to have multiple layers that can morph but basically, they've been making shit up as and when necessary.

Couple the above with them realizing that they can get away with anything if they have the media and a dumbed down population. Job done. No need for Jedi mind tricks.

TM, what do you make of the post I made with all of those named photographers? Particularly Carmen Taylor? And the explosion preimpact on Tower 1?

OSS

Thanks so much for those pictures. Years ago I had seen some of them, but thought maybe I was losing my mind. The 'pumpshitout' link did not work, but the others did.

My interpretation is that the exoskeleton of the towers would have allowed what we see--the airplane 'melting' into the structure. With I think 2 foot wide windows, with about 40 inch spacing, that was a type of steel seive on a large scale.

When one has all the assets the perps did, and the story line is that airliners hit the towers, then why the hell NOT use real airplanes?

Anyway, thanks again for refreshing my memory.

You have to eliminate the "sh".

It's worth the listen. She's allegedly a hospital auditor and her story in no way sounds scripted to me.

I couldn't even attempt to explain the penetration but there were definitely aircraft involved.

I could not get an interview with her OSS. What I got was a video played to banjo music about her and some guy who took pictures from a tourist boat at Battery Park. The piece suggested she and the man were plants.

I can hear it okay (it's a recorded phonecall).

I will say though that I once tried to listen to another interview of his and I kept getting a "banjo" with some techno music crap. He must be watching this thread and messing with it?

Yes far too much! I don't give them anything at all.
As have now been proven far far beyond even the tiniest shadow of doubt - that we all survive 'death' -
these people have nothing to look forward to, except some extremely uncomfortable questions they will
have to answer with utmost truthfulness and sincerity, when they return home to their respective spheres
in the transcendental world. I feel truly sorry for the poor buggers!



Yes, horrific stuff. As said above, the - for them - terrible fact is that they will never get away with anything.
True Justice will one day overtake them. There's no escape. They will not be able to progress further until
they have given back absolutely everything they unlawfully have taken, both of human lives and of all other
kinds of more physical valuables.



Well i never trusted that Hezarkhani fellow for one minute. Very shady character i thought!
Carmen Taylor's long question and answer sessions with the pumpshitout crowd last year,
gave me nothing but 'nausea' .....actually. There are too many 'abnormalities' in her account,
imho!

Apart from the 'grand illusion', i think it's clear that CGI has been employed at strategic places
here and there. Whether it was used in connection with the pre-impact flash i do not know, but
the possibility is there, for whatever mischievous trick they could use to mislead and misdirect
us, i suppose! One can only speculate at this point, unfortunately ....

Cheers

When Tamborine man has done such an excellent job of summarizing my position (in post #90), I don't understand why anyone here wants to deny the use of "video fakery" when what I mean by that phrase is any use of video footage to convey a false impression, which means that, since Pilots has confirmed that the plane shown in the footage was flying at an aerodynamically impossible speed, we already know that video fakery was involved. And since Pilots has also confirmed that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, how can anyone deny it?

Rob Balsamo, of all people, interprets my point about "the impossible speed" for a standard Boeing 767 as a denial that any aircraft could attain that speed at that altitude--and offers an F-14 "Tomcat" as a counter- example. But I was not making that point at all. And he insists that "video fakery" is inconsistent with the witnesses who report having seen a plane, which is not the case, either. The use of CGIs or of video compositing would be inconsistent with the witness reports, but not something that looked like a real plane but was not.

Since I have made these points many times, I am baffled by the persistent failure to acknowledge even that "video fakery" does not mean that all of those who reported seeing a plane were wrong. It does require that what they saw was something they took to be a real plane but was not a real plane, since no real plane could perform the feats of this plane (enter Rob Balsamo, showing that a "real plane" could fly as fast as the one shown in the videos), in particular, by entering the building effortlessly in violation of Newton's laws.

Woody and Aldo want to attack some other position and claim that it is mine. I have no idea what inspires them to do that, because it is dishonest and unprofessional on their part. They want to hold onto some old position that they loved to hate, but it is seriously misleading to attack me for positions that I may or may not hold--especially when not only have I laid out my position very clearly but Tamorine man has offered an excellent presentation of what I have in mind: none of the "official planes" crashed at any of those 4 sites.

Moreover, when onsliceshort (in post #102) observes, "As for tower 1, I suggested to Jim Fetzer that we know that the alleged 757/767s weren't used on 9/11. I also suggested that the aircraft used in Manhattan may have been modified to enable penetration using the same technology used in the missile to bring down TWA800 (for example)", he is already implicitly endorsing "video fakery", since those videos have been used to promote the myth that Boeing 767s hit the North Tower and the South. Does anyone deny that?

Perhaps no evidence more powerfully undermines the "official account" of 9/11 than what we know about those four flights and their crash sites. Given the complete absence of any deceleration when "Flight 175" enters the South Tower together with the witness reports, I am trying to figure out what happened (how it was done), which, so far as I can see, is only explainable by the use of something that looked like a plane but was not a plane, namely, the projection of the image of a plane, which could perform impossible feats:

(1) Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day, according to BTS records, which I reproduce in my articleds;

(2) The planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not de-registered by the FAA until 28 September 2005, by FAA Registration records, which I also reproduce in my articles;

(3) So how can planes that were not in the air have crashed?; and,

(4) How can planes that crashed have still been in the air four years later?

(5) Pilots for 9/11 Truth has determined that Flight 93 was in the air but over Urana, IL, at the time it was supposed to be crashing in Shanksville, as you can verify at http://pilotsfor911truth.org.

(6) Pilots of 9/11 Truth has also determined that Flight 175 was in the air but over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was supposed to be effortlessly entering the South Tower, as you can also verify at Pilots' home page.

(7) The plane shown in the videos was traveling at an aerodynamically impossible speed for a standard 767 and therefore cannot have been a standard 767, which confirms the use of video fakery.

(8) The plane in the videos enters the South Tower in violation of Newton's laws: it should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground.

(9) None of that happened, where an engine component found at Church & Murray was obviously planted and did not even come from a 767, as my articles have also explained.

(10) If we take the witness reports seriously, as I do, then they saw something that looked like a real plane but was performing feats that no real plane could perform.

From that evidence, I infer that what we are seeing in those videos appears to have been the projection of a sophisticated hologram. What else could it possibly be consistent with (1) through (10)? I am reminded of the adage, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." This appears to be a perfect illustration of what initially (before considering the evidence) has a very low probability, yet subsequently (after considering the evidence) has to have been what happened.

I am doing my best to bring together all of the evidence and apply the principle known as "inference to the best explanation", which I have explained many places. I not only taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning but my Ph.D. is in the history and the philosophy of science. No real object can violate the laws of physics, of engineering and of aerodynamics, which includes real Boeing 767s. Here are studies that bring together the evidence about all 4 crash sites, where another focuses on Flight 77 and the third on Flight 93:

“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/91...d-video-fakery/

“9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attach is a fantasy” (with Dennis Cimino)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/91...k-is-a-fantasy/

“The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to Flight 93?” (with Dean Hartwell)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/th...d-to-flight-93/

Flight 93, by the way, was not only over Pittsburgh at the time of its effortless entry into the South Tower, but, as John Lear has observed, has no strobe lights; as Ben Collet has observed, casts no shadows; and as the fourth of these videos displays, has a left wing that disappears and reappears in flight. I simply do not understand how anyone who takes the time to view these videos could not appreciate that we are dealing with something that admittedly looks like a real plane but cannot possibly be a real plane. Check them out:

9/11 Fake: Media Make Believe (bee-lie-live) - YouTube

► 7:57► 7:57
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFqCU4VdFqo
Oct 6, 2010 - 8 min - Uploaded by FringeReality
Have you ever played physics games, like any Burnout games, Little Big Planet, Armadillo Run or whatever...? 1 ...

Totally fake! But you would still believe it! - YouTube

► 6:02► 6:02
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i5v_vioaMU
Oct 5, 2010 - 6 min - Uploaded by FringeReality
Yes you would! 1. Planes are made of light materials like aluminum and fiberglass. Think of them as long beer ...

Theory of Ghostplane - YouTube

► 5:07► 5:07
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc
Jul 25, 2008 - 5 min - Uploaded by CollinAlexander
http://psy-opera.com "9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera" is the Ultimate 9/11 Truth movie, and it has begun ...

PROOF "PLANE" WAS HOLOGRAM or CGI - YouTube

► 2:41► 2:41
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVaC5SH_B6o
Jun 13, 2010 - 3 min - Uploaded by AMolvar
Watch carefully, especially the left wing. All I have done is slow down this video, zoom in, and freeze some ...

And, in anticipation of those who will claim there was some virtually imperceptible deceleration, let me observe that what I am talking about is not subtle: the velocity of (most of) the plane should have dropped to zero!

There are those who like to cite the Sandia experiment as showing that the plane might have blown into very tiny pieces. But nothing like that happens at the South Tower--and that plane did not penetrate the barrier!

The velocity of the Sandia plane drops to zero, just as the velocity of Flight 175 should have dropped to zero --and would have, were we dealing with a real plane! But we are dealing with the image of a real plane, which can perform feats no real plane can perform.

I would also like to remind everyone of "Joe's Law", which offers a consolidation of Newton's laws of motion as they apply to the effortless entry of Flight 175 into the South Tower as observed in these videos:

"Joe’s Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton’s three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe’s Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe’s Law states: 'AIRPLANES DON’T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!'"

Joe also observes, "The Media’s defense will be: “We didn’t fake these videos, we merely bought them, believing them to be actual videos of the catastrophe as it occurred!” The question now is: When this fakery is exposed, will the little people still believe THE BIG LIE? For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe’s Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided." Here's a chance to make $5000!

And for those who would like to see what I mean by "inference to the best explanation", see "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which I published in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) and archived here. I regard Pilots as the most important research society investigating 9/11. There is no good reason that we should not be natural allies. I am marshaling the available evidence to fashion coherent arguments about what happened on 9/11, where Pilots have made some exceptionally important contributions toward that goal.

Wrong.

Again Jim, Impossible speed does not validate Video Fakery nor NPT.

Re-read the answer I gave to your question number 2. I'll bold and underline it since it is clear you missed it the first 3 times (via email, on facebook, and on this forum).

When we say "Impossible speed", this does not mean the speeds are impossible for all aircraft. The speeds are impossible for a standard 767-200. The speeds reported are not impossible if the aircraft were modified. This is covered thoroughly in our presentation "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Read it three more times Jim. Hopefully it sinks in. Let me know if you need me to increase the font size if you are still having trouble reading the above statement.

In other words Jim. Aircraft are modified all the time for increased performance. Modifications which cannot be detected on a blurry youtube video, or even on close inspection without opening up cowlings, wing panels.. .etc. If we are to theorize, it is quite possible the 767-200 observed in the videos was modified (read: not standard)... especially considering the fact that the FBI refuses to provide positive identification of the aircraft via the numerous aircraft parts recovered in lower Manhattan. If I were you, I would explore this route first before thinking all those videos were faked... and all the witnesses lying or mistaken, including the many pilots who i know personally that watched the aircraft hit the WTC, from JFK and EWR with their own naked eyes.

"So it is the position of Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, that a real plane can not only travel faster than a standard Boeing 767 at 700-1,000' foot altitude...." - Jim Fetzer

"What witnesses reported seeing hit the South Tower CANNOT HAVE BEEN A REAL PLANE, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMING FEATS THAT NO REAL PLANE COULD PERFORM." - Jim Fetzer

Contradict yourself much?


All I did was show Jim Fetzer (through a quick search)... that yes... a "real plane" could perform those "feats" and speeds "faster than a Boeing 767 at 700- 1,000'" .... and then some. I also specifically stated that I do not believe an F-14 hit the South tower.


The rest of your post I didn't bother to read. Stop using our work to further your theories Jim.

Regards.

it seems to me that the lcd is that the real aa11 and ua175 were not involved and that some 'fakery' was..close?

I believe this is another good point…that being…that some folks “do not” read the entire sentence.

There is no doubt…that audio and video can be modified however I do not buy into this Hologram theory regarding the Twin Towers because “Rob” has already solved the equation.

I also find it interesting how several members go insanely “Berserk” if you do not agree with them. One of the best examples I can think of…is the Pentagon crash video…


Example:
No "special flying object" struck the Pentagon.
Because OSS claims that: “There's no evidence whatsoever of another craft or missile striking the Pentagon”

[quote name='rob balsamo' date='Mar 27 2012, 03:32 AM' post='10804300']
Wrong.

Again Jim, Impossible speed does not validate Video Fakery nor NPT.

including the many pilots who i know personally that watched the aircraft hit the WTC, from JFK and EWR with their own naked eyes.

Dear Mr Balsamo

Did your pilot colleagues, identify the aircraft they observed hit the WTC, as a Boeing 767 200 ?

Robert S

The merit - or lack of merit - of NPT is beside the point.

What I have an issue with - and I have a REAL issue with it - is the fact that Dennis' article, which makes ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF OR REFERENCE TO NPT has been co-opted for precisely this purpose.

This traitorous act has the potential to ruin Dennis' credibility as an avionics professional. To my estimation, it already HAS damaged his reputation. You owe him an apology.



And yet, apparently, you've never crossed paths with the principle of Occam's Razor. I recommend giving yours a proper sharpening, Jim. Otherwise, pay attention to Rob's responses. Let him do thinking for you.

If you think those factual statements of mine were "berserk" elreb, you've lead a sheltered life mate.
If, on the other hand, somebody would actually "show me the money", I'm all ears.

Umm..me? Apples and oranges.

I had the decency to read through your work (and then some) Jim. Do me the same favour please and read my posts?

While you're on a roll Jim, why not do a little legwork? Put some meat on the bones?

Apart from ignoring my post on the list of people who are alleged to have allowed their names to be used to spread "faked" images and videos, how about the witnesses to an aircraft flying towards and striking tower 2?

I've ommitted possible media embellishments, unverified media witnesses, suspect connection witnesses, trstimonies which may be misconstrued or are open to interpretation.
I've instead listed mainly first responders and those who are documented and accessible.

EMT JARJEAN FELTON BATTALION 31

http://www.sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/0...jean_felton.pdf



FIREFIGHTER THOMAS GABY

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110140.PDF



Firefighter Scott Holowach

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110114.PDF



A very detailed, accessible witness..

Bruce Kratofil




Firefighter James Murphy

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110323.PDF



FIREFIGHTER ROBERT NORRIS

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110396.PDF




BATTALION CHIEF BRIAN O'FLAHERTY (FDNY)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110431.PDF




PARAMEDIC JOEL PIERCE

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110485.PDF




EMS CAPTAIN MARK STONE

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110076.PDF




FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH SULLIVAN

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110286.PDF




Denise Weiss (audio interview)

http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr276a01.mp3


Seastreak Vice President Jack Bevins (New York ferry)

http://www.trtnj.com/issues/110909/we8.php




Stanley Praimnath

02:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcdpMt38ip8




Mike Penzer

http://www.nabe.com/am2001/penzer.html



Contact them.

Please go to my profile...I have one..

Go to "Google" and search "REBrammer"...I have 5 pages...

Who are you? "Mate"

Show me the money!

Touchy?

What the hell has my identity got to do with the conversation? I know that I'm not the one pushing speculation without a shred of proof (missile at the Pentagon). Or like some here, add my "2cents" and leave it to others to do the legwork. Just like my last post or two which have been ignored because they contain pesky details.

Rob knows who I am. As do others that I trust.

I don't understand a word of what is going on here!

This is a truth forum. Full stop.

The source to Truth comes from the Light.
The source to falsehood comes from Darkness.

If we're into truth, that require us to show that we understand the meaning of this term at least to its basics.

If we're into truth (or what is "good" and "just") that means that we should at least apply some of its attributes,
like f.ex. a bit of kindness, of tolerance, of understanding and of sympathy to other peoples perceptions, when
they all belong to the same side.

But this is not what is happening here. Mistrust, misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misrepresentations
seems to be the order of the day. This has to stop; unless we inevitably will see a total breakdown in
communication, and a degeneration taken place into depths where not one of us really want to go! - Far from it!

To you OSS:
No one, absolutely no one, dispute that witnesses saw planes in the sky on that day. The difference is, that the
'loyalists' thinks that the planes were commercial airplanes with hijackers on board as per the OS story, while
we, and as many of the witnesses attest to, believe that the planes, more than anything, looked like military
planes without windows.
I'm sure you agree with this, because you showed us a video clip in another thread that showed us these dear
witnesses saying excacly this!

But here is the real problem: I'll maintain that with the help of the witness statements (that the plane they saw
was 'military' in its appearance), Anyone would have to agree that some form of "fakery" must have taken place!

Now OSS, you maintain that no "fakery" has taken place: "Umm ..me? Apples and oranges."!

But now: To save my sanity; to save that i'm not going completely bonkers; to save that i'm not about to loose
the plot completely; would you be kind enough to explain to me, why this should NOT go under the umbrella of
Fakery? (You might say that this is merely under the cover of "deception", but in reality the 'two' is exactly the
same, so that won't hold much sway).

Will you do me this kind and thoughtful favour please?

To any of the professional Pilots who may read this, please explain to me, in a kind way, why i might be on the
wrong track with the following observation:

We all see, and some of us see the same things over and over and over again! that the planes approaches the
towers in absolutely level flights 7 to 8 seconds before the ostensible impact. Their flight seems level and even
on all videos, except of course on the "dive-bomber" image.
Now, how is it possible to fly level, straight and even within these last seconds, while at the same time we see
a plane in a banking position and configuration? What we see next is that both planes impact the buildings in
exactly the same way: The starboard wings is up and the port wings is down. Exactly the same for both towers.
Is this really possible in the real world??
(Hope i don't have to mention the views of 'the fireman' in the Naudet brothers clip)!

Please don't kick me in the groin because of my naivity! i've had enough of that already ...., just try to be "kind"
if that is at all possible!! .......And i truly hope that you fully understand both meanings of this word)!

Cheers


PS!
Thank you so much for your support to post #90 Jim Fetzer - much appreciated. Felt a bit alone there for a moment!

amen, t-man!

[quote name='23investigator' date='Mar 27 2012, 08:54 AM' post='10804304']
Dear Mr Balsamo

Did your pilot colleagues, identify the aircraft they observed hit the WTC, as a Boeing 767 200 ?

Dear Mr Balsamo

The above question in post 123, may have become buried, in the various concerns following.

In other material which has been presented on the internet, one of the air traffic controllers in one of the control towers your pilot colleagues were at, near the WTC, made a remark that he was observing an aircraft approaching and then impacting the South Tower.
It is contained in a transcript, which at the moment is not at hand.
But when the air traffic controller, was asked what he thought the aircraft was, -- the transcript did not contain an answer.
The impression given though, the air traffic controller was surprised at what he was seeing.

If the aircraft had been a Boeing 767 200, it would seem that he would have seen enough of that type of aircraft, to have identified it there and then, and given an answer.

Robert S

Jim Fetzer states unequivocally that "holograms" were used TM.
Jim Fetzer claims that no planes were used.
Jim Fetzer claims that video and image fakery were used.

So basically, Jim Fetzer claims that either the plane that was allegedly Fl175, reported by witnesses, specifically the witnesses that I took a full day to cypher, saw a "hologram" or that they're all lying.

Jim Fetzer claims that all videos and images taken were of a "hologram" or that the authors of these videos/images are "plants". All of them.




Now here is where the play on words comes into effect TM.

"Fakery" as Jim Fetzer uses the word encompasses all of the positions I've outlined above. Not in terms of a "military op" or where the evidence (or blanket censorship of) points to a craft other than the OS planes being involved in the military ops.

There's a major difference and I don't understand why I have to point this out!



See above TM. Wordsmithery.

I think I've explained myself on what comes under the "umbrella of fakery" TM, no?

I've gone to the trouble of actually looking at the evidence of the NPT claims and posting the evidence against it here. I'd like someone, particularly Jim Fetzer to respond. I'd like Jim Fetzer to tell me whether he is going to contact those people and do a little legwork.

Peace

OSS

I don't get it, onesliceshort. Since I am not denying that many witnesses reported seeing "a plane" hit the building, why are you offering a list of witnesses who saw "a plane" hit the building AS THOUGH IT WERE A REFUTATION OF MY POSITION? My point is that what they took to be "a plane" cannot possibly have been a real Boeing 767--and not merely because of its speed at around 560 mph would have been impossible for a standard Boeing 767, but because it enters the building in violation of Newton's laws. It was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses at one end and the external support columns at the other, each of which was filled with 4-8" of concrete, representing about an acre of concrete for of those floors.

Imagine what would happen if a Boeing 767 traveling at 560 mph at 35,000' had hit just one of those floors suspended in space? The damage would have devastating. We know what happens when a commercial carrier impacts with a tiny bird weighing a few ounces. And in this case "the plane" was intersecting with eight! It's velocity should have dropped to zero, yet when we do a frame-by-frame advance, it turns out that it passes its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. That is impossible unless a 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft in flight than air. I cannot understand why any pilot would not recognize this is not a real plane.

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.

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


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.




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.

@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.

It is I who owe you, Tamborine man, my expression of appreciation. Of all people, I would have thought that the members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth would have understood my points, but some appear to be in a state of denial, others don't like the phrase, "No Plane Theory" or don't even understand Newton's laws.

As I use the phrase, "video fakery" encompasses any use of videos to convey a false impression of (in this case) the events of 9/11. Does anyone who has actually read "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'" think that "the plane" in the Naudet Brothers' video was a Boeing 767 rather than, say, an arrangement of UAVs?

They had to fake these "planes" for three reasons: (1) to guarantee a hit, (2) to get them all the way into the towers, and (3) at the time of the explosions in the subbasements to drain their sprinkler systems of water. A real plane under remote control might have guaranteed (1), but it could not have done (2) or (3).

No real plane could have overcome the massive resistance posed by the building and the eight floors that it intersected (in the South Tower) or seven (in the North). I would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground. None of that happened, which requires explanation.

Without getting the plane all the way into the building BEFORE IT EXPLODED, there would have been no pseudo-explanation ("The intense fires from the jet fuel caused the steel to weaken") for the collapse of the floors, which, of course, did not actually collapse. (See, for example, "New 9/11 Photos Released".)

The "hits" had to be coordinated in time to provide a cover story for those explosions, based upon the claim that jet fuel fell through the elevator shafts and caused them. This was fanciful at best, since the elevators were staggered every 30 floors and, apart from a few maintenance elevators, did not extend all 110 floors.

Since no real plane could have penetrated all the way into the building intact and would have exploded upon impact, they had no choice but to fake them. I believe they initially thought they could do it with remotes, but, as I have explained, no real planes could have performed the feats that this specific mission required.

Jim, your insults are not welcome.

Also, please read the white text on top of every page of this forum.

Anytime you wish to address my posts, feel free.

Finally, and for the third time, do not use our work to support your theories. The next time you will be warned, will not be on this forum.

jim, the velocity aspect has been addressed elsewhere. the folks that did a finite element analysis of a plane with similar parameters impacting the outer wall, showed that the speed would have been reduced to half the initial velocity. no small feat in my estimation.

i can't speak to the video, but for the time span in question, the change would have been imperceptible to the human eye.

i don't know enough of the particulars in the case of ua175, but my conjecture of aa11 would be that the shredded remains posed no danger to the core of the building and did indeed decelerate rapidly to zero.

oh wait, i'm sorry. the airplanes broke the core columns and the fires melted steel..yeah, yeah that's it.

Jim doesnt even know the velocity based on the data.

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.

Why are you using the word "claim"? - when it's simply a "conclusion" one has arrived at!!

I too have come to the "conclusion" that it must have been "Holograms" of some sort:

Re. DARPA's budget papers year 2000 to 2007.

From page 123:

".....
These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators
in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links
(multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly,
innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in
wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image
sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century.
....."

And so, i too believe that no real planes were used, as explained to the reasons why, in previous posts.

And yes, fakery was used, obviously.



No, he claims no such thing. The witnesses saw a plane, and that's all they saw. And of course they are not lying about this.
They just saw what they saw, which they reported accordingly.



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!




There's no play on words, OSS. Either 'fakery' took place, or it didn't. I think it's very clear and obvious that 'fakery' did take place.



No, not really, OSS!



Peace to you too, buddy -

Cheers

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.

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...



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.

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"!

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.