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
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
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
Jul 25, 2008 - 5 min - Uploaded by CollinAlexanderhttp://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
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 ...
QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Mar 23 2012, 01:39 AM)
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
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!