FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Did Large Airliners Really Hit the Buildings on 9/11?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

See attachment


Screen Shot.png
 Description:
Ghost plane
 Filesize:  182.12 KB
 Viewed:  327 Time(s)

Screen Shot.png


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5773
Location: East London

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, scienceplease2.
Could you possibly make a screen shot of the picture at 03.49 (just before the words 'Even the impossible' come up on the screen?
It is a better picture, and as I want to put it on a t-shirt, it is important to get the best pic available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmD5BDyMRkg&list=PLgKYsEYF9_QCSn8zSRU3e h45m38O5cSS6&shuffle=2240

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another screenshot - very pixelated...


Screen Shot 2.png
 Description:
Ghost Plane 2
 Filesize:  218.09 KB
 Viewed:  352 Time(s)

Screen Shot 2.png


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In summary his argument is:

The Nine Extraordinary Compositonal Features of the live shots (easy to manipulate in real time even in 2001).

Chopper 5 footage
No Plane in the Wide Shot
The Miracle Zoom
Pinocchio’s Nose
Fade to Black
The Missing Shadow
Unstable Motion - this critical to determine whether the image was added or not.

The ghostplane

Magically Healing Columns
The Over-Under Puffball

Missing in Action Compelling evidence of switches from image real-time compositing to live action.

No Broadcast-Quality Video
The Naudet Edit
The Ghostplane Edit
The Park Foreman Edit
No Sound in Fairbanks
Hezarkhani Won’t Talk

Cartoon Physics

Newton Rolls in His Grave - the expectation that some mass would bounce off the impact.
Comparison to Sandia F4 Test - it is easy to animate the plane disappearing into WTC2.
The Force Paradox - air resistance would stop the airliner flying at the speed observed
No Wake Vortex - compelling evidence that the explosion clouds not affected by aircraft vortex.
Detonation Flashes as Sync Pops - compelling evidence

There are also compelling logistical reasons for faking the planes:
- accuracy of impact (fake planes don't miss)
- risk control (able to rehearse)
- psychology (easy to deceive people and make people believe the TV)
- easier to control the aftermath
- fake blips on radar (already proven)
- financial (much, much, much cheaper than crashing a plane - one Boeing 757 is $80million. Easy to bribe 160 people with $500k each)




Mmmm, nothing conclusive which "September Clues Busted" may answer and military air craft possibly used.

The vortex idea, I've seen aircraft crash on video and leave no vortex.

The "Magically Healing Columns" seems like the video of another video played backwards momentarily.


But I'm open to both scenarios.


If this is genuine, I don't see much that would bounce of it really and the various videos do show some debris falling.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5773
Location: East London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ Andrew: 'The vortex idea, I've seen aircraft crash on video and leave no vortex.

The "Magically Healing Columns" seems like the video of another video played backwards momentarily...'

You haven't seen a large passenger jet crash into a building at about 590 MPH and leave no wake vortex.

If you think the 'magically healing columns' are shown by running another video backwards, all you need to do is pause the video as the 'plane' is entering the building, part in, part out, and you will be able to see that there is no hole where part of the wing has supposedly entered. You will know that the video has not been reversed, because you will be doing the pausing yourself (there are two stills above which show no hole where the wing has supposedly entered; and I wonder what happened to two of the three parts of the tail? You can see the building wall where the two missing tail structures should be).

It has been obvious to many since Loose Change, Barrie Zwicker and others showed the 'slowed down' 'plane' entering the building, that it magically 'melted' into the building, plastic nosecone, weak wing ends and all cutting through strong steel columns about a meter apart (over 40 'cut' by the 'plane').
The columns where strong enough, indeed well over-strong enough (common building practice to have spare strength capacity), to hold up all the floors above entry point (and that was a heck of a lot of weight!), yet could be cut like butter by aluminium wings?

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2557
Location: One breath from Glory

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The columns where strong enough, indeed well over-strong enough (common building practice to have spare strength capacity), to hold up all the floors above entry point (and that was a heck of a lot of weight!), yet could be cut like butter by aluminium wings?


The architects/engineers who designed the towers designed it to be punctured if a plane flew into it so from that point of view the external facade of the building did what it was designed to do (if indeed a plane flew into it)

The previous "form" as suggested in the Northwoods document of flying drone planes and carrying out mock funerals for the purposes of false flag shows the mindset back in the 50's/60's .

Also if plane 1 is false then the Naudet brothers who captured it on film become implicit in the crime. These same film makers also went into the damaged smouldering buildings to carry on filming--hardly the actions of those in the know

_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5773
Location: East London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fish5133 wrote:
Quote:
The columns where strong enough, indeed well over-strong enough (common building practice to have spare strength capacity), to hold up all the floors above entry point (and that was a heck of a lot of weight!), yet could be cut like butter by aluminium wings?


The architects/engineers who designed the towers designed it to be punctured if a plane flew into it so from that point of view the external facade of the building did what it was designed to do (if indeed a plane flew into it)

No, the guy didn't say that it was designed to be punctured, he just explained what would happen if a plane did hit it (and I'm sure he was, and probably still is, suffering from the delusion that a plane did hit and pierce it) so was explaing that the building could easily take it, it would be like 'a pencil penetrating a fly screen'. He was rationalising what would happen, as a hole did appear to have been punched through the wall and steel girders. He knew that with that extent of damage, the Tower would not collapse.

The previous "form" as suggested in the Northwoods document of flying drone planes and carrying out mock funerals for the purposes of false flag shows the mindset back in the 50's/60's .

Check out how many 'passengers' were supposed to be on board, and how many ended up on the SSDI (I think that's what it's called, the death register), and the very low level of take-up of large compensation awards, and Marriane or whatever her name is (it's in a post before this one) and her lawyer couldn't find any relatives of victims, or extremely few. Still think the Northwoods idea went out with the '50's/'60's?
The idea of 'False Flags' is old as the hills; 'if it ain't broke (ie still works), why fix it?'

Also if plane 1 is false then the Naudet brothers who captured it on film become implicit in the crime. These same film makers also went into the damaged smouldering buildings to carry on filming--hardly the actions of those in the know


The Naudet brothers would indeed have been in on it; try to get a look at their original footage! And of course they could bravely go into buildings, because they would have been tipped off the plans and would know just when the buildings would be brought down.
Yes, also what a remarkable 'coincidence', the NYPD just 'happening' to be checking a 'gas leak', the professional photographers 'embedded' in the station, just happening along, and catching the split-second hit, with no camera shake.
Such famous brothers, heard of them at all subsequently (apart from in the re-union video)?

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5773
Location: East London

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ fish: 'The previous "form" as suggested in the Northwoods document of flying drone planes and carrying out mock funerals for the purposes of false flag shows the mindset back in the 50's/60's ...'

Just had a new 'video' brought to my attention, very much to do with Northwoods & it's author Lyman Lemnitzer, and 'Gladio', which claims the 'Northwoods' & 'Gladio' mindset is very much at work today:
http://beforeitsnews.com/international/2013/04/bilderberg-behind-terro rist-attacks-italian-supreme-court-president-drops-bombshell-2455434.h tml

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skunkfan
Manic Depressive Wrecker
Manic Depressive Wrecker


Joined: 29 Mar 2013
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What really gets me about the Naudet film is how when the plane hits, he suddenly starts zooming in and out and waving the camera about making the film harder to view. I would expects that from a novice but this guy was making a film so he should have known waving the camera around whilst doing this would be bad for the footage. It reminds me of those fake UFO videos hoaxers make. Ya know where they film a frizby on a string and then shake a camera at it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

You haven't seen a large passenger jet crash into a building at about 590 MPH and leave no wake vortex.


No I haven't but that works both ways though and I have seen them on video crash and not leave a vortex though.

In the videos of the planes crashing into the twin towers there is debris too and a lot of dust, I would say but don't know the dust is because the concrete used was an aerated (or Foamed Concrete; rather than some other aggregate.) mix to make it light weight but retain strength (I've seen it used in buildings for that purpose, used with steel decking as that was a part of my trade.)

Quote:
If you think the 'magically healing columns' are shown by running another video backwards, all you need to do is pause the video as the 'plane' is entering the building, part in, part out, and you will be able to see that there is no hole where part of the wing has supposedly entered. You will know that the video has not been reversed, because you will be doing the pausing yourself (there are two stills above which show no hole where the wing has supposedly entered; and I wonder what happened to two of the three parts of the tail? You can see the building wall where the two missing tail structures should be).



Ye I know what you've said and the video played backward part looks as though that is what it is and then there is that photo of the large hole in the building. Which is a well defined photo rather than too few pixels ( But who knows.)


Last edited by Andrew. on Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5773
Location: East London

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew. wrote:
Quote:

You haven't seen a large passenger jet crash into a building at about 590 MPH and leave no wake vortex.


No I haven't but that works both ways though and I have seen them on video crash and not leave a vortex though.

Can you refer me to videos of any of the crashes you have seen, or at least tell me what kind of plane, kind of speed, was there smoke, dust and/or fireball, as a wake vortex is not visible in air without something of that nature?

In the videos of the planes crashing into the twin towers there is debris too and a lot of dust, I would say but don't know that is because the concrete used was an aerated mix to make it light weight but retain strength (I've seen it used in buildings for that purpose, used with steel decking as that was a part of my trade.)

Please refer me to any video of the WTC 2 'plane' showing any dust or debris ON IMPACT (not supposedly coming out on opposite side or another side).

Quote:
If you think the 'magically healing columns' are shown by running another video backwards, all you need to do is pause the video as the 'plane' is entering the building, part in, part out, and you will be able to see that there is no hole where part of the wing has supposedly entered. You will know that the video has not been reversed, because you will be doing the pausing yourself (there are two stills above which show no hole where the wing has supposedly entered; and I wonder what happened to two of the three parts of the tail? You can see the building wall where the two missing tail structures should be).



Ye I know what you've said and the video played backward part looks as though that is what it is and then there is that photo of the large hole in the building. Which is a well defined photo rather than too few pixels ( But who knows.)


I have no doubt the picture of the gaping hole (with no vestige of aircraft inside) is a very clear and genuine photo; I would just dispute what caused it (I would suggest explosives, set to blow the columns inwards to go along with the 'Official Narative').
I was talking about the slowed-down video of the 'plane' 'melting' into the building; all you have to do is watch the videos at the times I explained to 'fish' in posts above, and pause the video while 'plane' is still going in (don't wait till the video is reversed and coming out again).
Then you can see, with 'plane' half in and half out, that there is no hole where the wings should have entered. And you would know it wasn't 'reverse' trickery, because you would be doing the pausing while 'plane' was still 'entering'.
Or just look at the two stills in 'scienceplease2's posts above. They are the ones I was referring to as very 'pixelated' ('scienceplease2's word; I would just have referred to them as very poor quality pics, but certainly good enough to show a gaping hole if there was one).

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
(I would suggest explosives, set to blow the columns inwards to go along with the 'Official Narative').


The problem with that is that its an explosion and not an implosion.

Quote:
Can you refer me to videos of any of the crashes you have seen, or at least tell me what kind of plane, kind of speed, was there smoke, dust and/or fireball, as a wake vortex is not visible in air without something of that nature?


I just did a search for plane crashes, I did it years ago looking into it.

Quote:
Please refer me to any video of the WTC 2 'plane' showing any dust or debris ON IMPACT (not supposedly coming out on opposite side or another side).


There are videos showing that though outsider.


Last edited by Andrew. on Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:16 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5773
Location: East London

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew. wrote:
Quote:
(I would suggest explosives, set to blow the columns inwards to go along with the 'Official Narative').


The problem with that is that its an explosion and not an implosion.


Not a problem at all; as I explained, the explosives would be set to blow columns inwards, to go along with 'Official Narative'.

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

outsider wrote:
Andrew. wrote:
Quote:
(I would suggest explosives, set to blow the columns inwards to go along with the 'Official Narative').


The problem with that is that its an explosion and not an implosion.


Not a problem at all; as I explained, the explosives would be set to blow columns inwards, to go along with 'Official Narative'.



Ye, but how do you set an explosive to implode?


Or if explosives were used as suggested, without some floors not falling to pull the sides in and at the same time set them to not bend any outwards (that can't be seen.)?

I suppose you could say that one or more floors could have been weighted so charges could drop the floors and weight to pull the side in, but then you have the problem of how can you do that without pulling the sides in else where. So it would then need to just drop a section of the floor and leave it attached to the part that could be pulled in. But as its pulled in (the side that's still attached to pull the side in) it would have to have those connections broken to get to what we see in that clear photo.

But I would still expect to see more bending rather than a sharp blow that servers rather than bends.


Last edited by Andrew. on Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5773
Location: East London

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

'Ye, but how do you set an explosive to implode?


Or if explosives were used as suggested, without some floors not falling to pull the sides in and at the same time set them to not bend any outwards (that can't be seen.)?'

As you can see from the very clear photo of the hole, the steel columns have a weak exterior 'facing' to cover them. The explosives would probably be set between the facing and the actual columns.

Again, there is NO SIGN OF DEBRIS ON IMPACT; point me to one video that shows debree or dust ON IMPACT.
Sure there was debris and probably dust along with the fireball a fraction of a second after the 'plane' had entered; the explosion is very well coordinated to video timing, but not perfect.
Again, if you try stopping video of 'plane' going in, THERE IS NO HOLE; NO HOLE = NO DEBRIS (and 'Ghost PLanes' don't leave holes, any more than 'ghosts' have shadows).

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

outsider wrote:
'Ye, but how do you set an explosive to implode?


Or if explosives were used as suggested, without some floors not falling to pull the sides in and at the same time set them to not bend any outwards (that can't be seen.)?'

As you can see from the very clear photo of the hole, the steel columns have a weak exterior 'facing' to cover them. The explosives would probably be set between the facing and the actual columns.

Again, there is NO SIGN OF DEBRIS ON IMPACT; point me to one video that shows debree or dust ON IMPACT.
Sure there was debris and probably dust along with the fireball a fraction of a second after the 'plane' had entered; the explosion is very well coordinated to video timing, but not perfect.
Again, if you try stopping video of 'plane' going in, THERE IS NO HOLE; NO HOLE = NO DEBRIS (and 'Ghost PLanes' don't leave holes, any more than 'ghosts' have shadows).


Ye i was just writing this out.

"I suppose you could say that one or more floors could have been weighted so charges could drop the floors and weight to pull the side in, but then you have the problem of how can you do that without pulling the sides in else where. So it would then need to just drop a section of the floor and leave it attached to the part that could be pulled in. But as its pulled in (the side that's still attached to pull the side in) it would have to have those connections broken to get to what we see in that clear photo.

But I would still expect to see more bending rather than a sharp blow that servers rather than bends."

Quote:
Again, there is NO SIGN OF DEBRIS ON IMPACT; point me to one video that shows debree or dust ON IMPACT.
Sure there was debris and probably dust along with the fireball a fraction of a second after the 'plane' had entered; the explosion is very well coordinated to video timing, but not perfect.
Again, if you try stopping video of 'plane' going in, THERE IS NO HOLE; NO HOLE = NO DEBRIS (and 'Ghost PLanes' don't leave holes, any more than 'ghosts' have shadows).


"Sure there was debris and probably dust along with the fireball a fraction of a second after the 'plane' had entered; the explosion is very well coordinated to video timing, but not perfect."

That's what I would expect of a crash too? That's like saying there should be debris and all that dust before the impact.

Quote:
Again, if you try stopping video of 'plane' going in, THERE IS NO HOLE; NO HOLE = NO DEBRIS (and 'Ghost PLanes' don't leave holes, any more than 'ghosts' have shadows).


The Ghost "plane" could be fake footage just as easily as any other.


-----------


Link



At 2:26 you can see dust as soon as it makes contact (even though the chap keeps repeating it just glides in)

Which is what I would expect when it hits a building built like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Link



Quote:
A 1992 report by Sugano et al describes an experiment involving the crash of an F-4D Phangom jet fighter jet into a 10-foot-thick (3.04 meters) concrete block at 480 mph (772 km/h). In the experiment, the fighter is reduced to confetti, leaving no large pieces of debris.


I would say much of the concrete would break into dust and small pieces, and the plane break into small pieces. As is seen in this video.

But it shows (if genuine) what would happen if a plane was to crash into a building built like the twin towers were, rather than a wall built to withstand much more force.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fish5133 wrote:

Also if plane 1 is false then the Naudet brothers who captured it on film become implicit in the crime. These same film makers also went into the damaged smouldering buildings to carry on filming--hardly the actions of those in the know


Ace Baker in his movie "American PysOpera" makes the claim that not only the Naudet Brothers were implicit but also
    The person filming the ghost plane - not a coherent story.
    The person filming underneath South Tower (who got the "reaction shot") Fairbanks - Sound anomalies and Fairbanks evasive.
    Cameraman in Channel 5 helicopter - this was the main focus of September Clues and I wasn't that convinced by that... the correction due to jitter done by Ace Baker is quite revealing!
    The person that filmed from Battery Park - further sound anomalies.


Baker makes a very convincing argument. Have you seen "American PsyOpera" yet? It is very controversial but is one of the most professionally made 9/11 Truth videos I've seen and very entertaining.

The Naudet brothers being in the perfect position to film the first aircraft flying in to get the "perfect shot" and Fairbanks, Ghost Plane, Channel 5 anomalies and Battery Park coincidences. (All explained in section 6 and 7 of American PsyOpera). Let's say 1 in 10 probability for each anomaly being "by chance" - just something to shrug our shoulders about? Now multiple those probabilities together to determine the "By Chance" statistic: 1 in 10x10x10x10x10 - that's, conservatively, 1 in 10,000 of all those anomalies being explained away by chance.


Last edited by scienceplease 2 on Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5773
Location: East London

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That was my point; the 'Ghost' plane was video fakery.

It's a very close thing, but at the very beginning of 02.26, when the nose and left wing are in, there is still no dust, but there is a slightly dark area where left wing would be, and there are the light 'puffballs' (seen in some videos above, and in other videos below, the wings, and the light flash which seems to occur immediately before the 'plane' makes contact.
In the video where the guy is looking up as the 'plane' goes in, there is not one piece of debris seen falling.

Regarding the fighter plane, you are right, there is no evidence of 'wake vortex'; I suspect that is due to (a) the extremely sleek design of the fighter and (b) much more importantly, due to it's ground level approach, and being bolted to the rails, it behaves like a train rather than a plane.
The ground level approach would be bound to be different to a plane flying at 1,000 feet or higher.
That was one of the reasons for no Pentagon plane; ground effect would make flying at high speed (as an aircraft, not as a ground-based 'train', impossible). I think the Jury is out on this one, but thanks for pointing it out.


There is no shame in changing one's mind; I'm absolutely convinced the vast majority of 9/11 Truthers originally believed the original story; I certainly did, till about 2004, when someone pointed out anomalies and I started to check stuff out.

The longer one has held beliefs, the harder it will be, generally, to change them. For me, that was not a problem, because for many years I had campaigned for Human Rights in Latin America, and I knew how evil the US Administrations had been, and I had no trouble whatsoever believing they would sacrifice their own countrymen to suit their ends.

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5773
Location: East London

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew. wrote:

Link



Quote:
A 1992 report by Sugano et al describes an experiment involving the crash of an F-4D Phangom jet fighter jet into a 10-foot-thick (3.04 meters) concrete block at 480 mph (772 km/h). In the experiment, the fighter is reduced to confetti, leaving no large pieces of debris.


I would say much of the concrete would break into dust and small pieces, and the plane break into small pieces. As is seen in this video.

But it shows (if genuine) what would happen if a plane was to crash into a building built like the twin towers were, rather than a wall built to withstand much more force.


I've just had another look at the fighter hitting the wall; as you can see, with the plane half destroyed, and the back half undamaged, there is a big area of smoke around plane; this you do not see with the 'ghost' half way in, and the rear end undamaged (though two sections out of three of the tail, apart from the tip of one missing part, in case you thought they might have bounced off; this could not be, because the tip is still in place) there is no big smoky area at the front.

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It's a very close thing, but at the very beginning of 02.26, when the nose and left wing are in, there is still no dust, but there is a slightly dark area where left wing would be, and there are the light 'puffballs' (seen in some videos above, and in other videos below, the wings, and the light flash which seems to occur immediately before the 'plane' makes contact.
In the video where the guy is looking up as the 'plane' goes in, there is not one piece of debris seen falling.


I don't know, it looks as though there is dust to me on contact, and when the chap looks up (just like in the test video.) But there is larger debris just after in other videos which looks like an explosion and of fuel, possibly where parts of a plane hit parts of the building with more resistance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5773
Location: East London

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm bowing out now, because we seem to be at an impass.
But I do recommend you watch the whole 8 parts of 'Psy Opera'; though I don't agree with everything, I do with a great deal of it.
There is an interesting part where he discusses a strange round hole in the groundrock under one of the WTC towers; I had previously taken the idea of mini-nukes being used with a pinch of salt, not totally dismissing them though.
His discussion on the strange hole, and the very high tritium level in drainage water, does make the idea more of a possibility (in addition to nano-thermite and conventional explosives).

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Cameraman in Channel 5 helicopter - this was the main focus of September Clues and I wasn't that convinced by that... the correction due to jitter done by Ace Baker is quite revealing!



Mmmm, how does September clues busted compare to Ace Bakers's. I'm not sure of the video editing claims of both.

Quote:
The Naudet brothers being in the perfect position to film the first aircraft flying in to get the "perfect shot" and Fairbanks, Ghost Plane, Channel 5 anomalies and Battery Park coincidences. (All explained in section 6 and 7 of American PsyOpera). Let's say 1 in 10 probability for each anomaly being "by chance" - just something to shrug our shoulders about? Now multiple those probabilities together to determine the "By Chance" statistic: 1 in 10x10x10x10x10 - that's, conservatively, 1 in 10,000 of all those anomalies being explained away by chance.



Is that all of the first alleged plane though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew. wrote:

Is that all of the first alleged plane though.


Only Naudet Brothers filmed first plane. (There is another long distance cctv view of first explosion which has no analytical value).

I haven't been able to watch the whole of September Clues - it was not convincing (cf American Psyopera...)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5773
Location: East London

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reposting one of my earlier posts, re lack of 'dead passengers' & lack of compensation claimantrs; it is not just a few points, there is a whole slew of evidence, all pointing to the highjacked scheduled airliners being a pack of lies:

Holmgren and Reynolds on No Planes on 911-

'Exposing the Illusion'

By Ronald Bleier:

http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html

A lot of evidence here, the following is just some of it:

'Not many plane crash victims

A frequently asked and presently unanswerable question is: what happened to the passengers and crew of the four passenger jets that were supposed to have crashed? While very little information about their deaths has surfaced there is evidence that there were fewer victims than has been reported.

NY based researcher Vincent Sammartino claims that the government seems to have faked the number of plane victims and also faked the number who claimed victim compensation.[25] According to Sammartino, of the 266[26] official names of passengers and crew who were supposed to have died in the four passenger jets, only 52 names have appeared on the Social Security Death Index (SSDI), a privately owned website not affiliated with the Social Security Administration. According to Sammartino, of the 52 listed as dead in the SSDI, which has an accuracy rate of about 83%, only 11 of the family members have claimed victim compensation (not counting 9/11 plane crash widow, Ellen Mariani, who has pointedly refused compensation).

Sammartino writes that his research was spurred in part because of a radio interview he heard with Ms. Mariani and her lawyer in which they spoke of their inability to locate other family members of the purported plane passengers.
(Remember Northwoods???)

If Sammartino’s figures are closer to reality than official reports, the discrepancies also go some way to advancing the NPT. If no planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and if Holmgren is right that Flights 11 and 77 did not fly that day (and Flights 93 and 175 did not crash that day), then it might have been easier for the terrorists to have diverted and perhaps disposed of merely 50-60 victims rather than many more bodies.

Thus the NPT helps us to advance, as Holmgren suggests, a combination missile, and preplanned explosives theory to explain the explosions and fires at the Twin Towers and the Pentagon and the lack of any big passenger plane evidence at those sites. It also helps to explain why relatively few "plane crash" victims have come forward. Evidence also indicates that that no big passenger plane (or any other plane) crashed in Shanksville, PA. The episode may have been cooked up simply for purposes of distraction.

Occam’s Razor

As an independent researcher with little at stake in any particular theory, it has been relatively easy for me to follow the NPT evidence where it leads. I have joined the No Planes group because it seems to me most in conformity with Occam’s Razor, the least complex theory that accounts for the available data.

Over and above scores of non-passenger plane related 9/11 anomalies, the NPT seems to provide a common sense explanation for many of the unanswered questions and inconsistencies. For example, the NPT explains:

why government BTS records show that two of the four planes never took off that day and two others were not decommissioned until four years later.
why the government has refused (or been unable) to present "a single airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration," and why there is no confirmed debris of any of the alleged four planes, so that all of them have disappeared without a trace;
why the passenger lists are phony; why no Arabic names are on any of the passenger lists; and why there are remarkably few alleged plane victims’ families requesting compensation
why several of the purported hijackers have turned up alive and why the government apparently felt it necessary to produce such unpersuasive evidence as hijacker passports, training manuals, etc.
why in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the government claimed that there were terror cells operating in at least 40 states but hasn’t produced even one untainted terror cell in the last five years.
why there is no reliable video of the Pentagon and the NYC Twin Tower attacks. In the case of the Pentagon video released by the government first as photo stills and then as video, no plane is in evidence; nor would it be possible for a big passenger jet to come in at ground level at high speed.
why there was no air cover in NYC or in Washington, D.C. until after the Pentagon attack at 9:37. If there were no hijacked planes there would have been no need for interceptions.
why there are no credible witnesses to ANY of the alleged four planes.
why the authorities destroyed the tapes of the flight controllers’ recollections of the events of that day. Those tapes might contain evidence that flights 11 and 77 did not take off that day and that 175 and 93 did not crash.
why ALL the cell phone calls were fabricated including the iconic "Let’s Roll," call as well as the Ted Olson-Barbara Olson exchange.[27]..

_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Only Naudet Brothers filmed first plane. (There is another long distance cctv view of first explosion which has no analytical value).


I suppose the Naudet Brothers film (in the right place) is a little suspicious, but the odds then don't stack because it would be expected there would be many people watching it when the second alleged plane hit and although it points to an inside job from that point of view it doesn't point to either no aircraft or there were.


Last edited by Andrew. on Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Reposting one of my earlier posts, re lack of 'dead passengers' & lack of compensation claimantrs; it is not just a few points, there is a whole slew of evidence, all pointing to the highjacked scheduled airliners being a pack of lies:


I tend to agree with that so its most likely, no planes, military or unscheduled passenger aircraft.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew. wrote:
Quote:
Only Naudet Brothers filmed first plane. (There is another long distance cctv view of first explosion which has no analytical value).


I suppose the Naudet Brothers film (in the right place) is a little suspicious, but the odds then don't stack because it would be expected there would be many people watching it when the second alleged plane hit and although it points to an inside job from that point of view it doesn't point to either no aircraft or there were.


I'm not really too sure what you mean... there were anomalies associated with each of the other videos capturing the the second plane. Sure it would be more likely to capture the second plane on video by not anomalies associated with each of the videos.

    The person filming the ghost plane - not a coherent story.
    The person filming underneath South Tower (who got the "reaction shot") Fairbanks - Sound anomalies and Fairbanks evasive.
    Channel 5 helicopter - the strange zoom, jitter and strange behaviour of camerman explaining the cut in the live broadcast
    The person that filmed from Battery Park - further sound anomalies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 5773
Location: East London

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yippee! We seem to have a convoy!!
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2557
Location: One breath from Glory

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fake sound footage of first plane hit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHX222Hqp_s

more implicit "witnesses"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6B7g6mt4Gk



Remember watching a clip of motorcyclist courier head cam or a dash cam that caught first plane. But it was footage that only surfaced a year or two after. The driver was just about to enter a tunnel Cant find it on youtube

Not just the Naudet brothers who would be implicit but also the firefighters with them who pretend to look up at the sound of an imaginary plane. Having watched the Naudet bros documentary it would also mean they had to be scheduled to be in the right place at just the right time and that they were directing where the fireman would be but it seems to be the other way round in that the firemans day to day routine dictated where they would be at a given time.

_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group