An email from a Conspiracy theorist, and I have no idea how

[Belz...]

Of course I am seriously suggesting that real people incl. engineers behave as suggested.

And do you have a reason for suggesting this, aside from your preconceived notions that, apart from you, people have no conscience ?

As the plane impact is a fake, the jet fuel cannot have been arriving with the plane at 500 mph and stopped inside the tower on floor 82 within 0.3 seconds.

And how do you know the impact is fake ? Because the fuel didn't leave the building ? Isn't that a tad circular ?

In WTC2 the fuel was probably hidden in an empty office.

Why not just crash an airliner into it ?

see how another country managed to cover-up another fatal incident

Covering up an accident and making it happen by employing thousands of people and having them participate in the murder of 3000 of their own is not the same.

You forgot the magic windows stopping the plane/fuel arriving at 500 mph. of course it was the windows. Sorry, I forgot them.

Who in the flying grandma's name said it stopped in the building ?

I said it. A plane that slices through the south wall/windows at 500 mph and not slowing down at all there (it is just swallowed)

You're living in a fantasy world. The plane most assuredly did slow down while it was plowing through the building. Whatever gave you the idea that it didn't ?

should in all probability continue through the open office space inside the tower for 240 feet and exit with a similar speed through the north wall ... and its windows.

That's because you don't understand squat about what you're talking about.

 

[Belz...]

Of course the witnesses focusing on the south wall might not have seen the north wall at all.

Why do you truthers insist on calling everybody a complete idiot ?

The videos are clear - virtually nothing flies OUT.

Why? Poor trickfilming?

Begging the question.

Many suggest that there is no evidence for an alternative and that therefore it must be OBL. The logic of that is beyond me.

Strawmen rarely engage in logic.

 

[Heiwa]

You are supporting 9/11 truth out of ignorance or on purpose. You refuse to take factual evidence and visual proof into account, and then you make up junk as you go with out researching the subject first. You have not done much research and post statements which show the same. Do not expect much since you refuse to learn or try to research your false ideas on your own and then ask relevant questions. You have been fooled by the fools who make up stuff in 9/11 truth. They are liars, they have no facts to back up their lies. Wake up.

Thanks for you frank opinion. I do not share your opinion about factual evidence and visual proof. Evidence! Soon after 9/11 FBI finds a suitcase full of incriminating stuff + a testimony, etc. Evidence? Or planted to mislead the investigators. A passport is found intact in Manhattan belonging to an alleged terrrorist. Evidence? Come on! But subject was actually the assumptions behind a structural analysis. My opinion is that the assumptions are twisted to obtain a certain result. And that is disturbing. But it seems it cannot be discussed in a friendly manner on this forum.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

But subject was actually the assumptions behind a structural analysis. My opinion is that the assumptions are twisted to obtain a certain result. And that is disturbing.

The problem you have is that you seem to confuse "assumptions" with scientific work. You assume a lot and thus you seem to think that everybody does. That is not so. Now, that is sorted, what a relief.

How about that theory of yours? It would obviously greatly improve the common ground on which to continue a friendly discussion, since your opponents wouldn't have to guess all the time what exactly you are talking about.

Or to put it in your words:

Or try at least.

/SLOB

 

[Corsair 115]

A passport is found intact in Manhattan belonging to an alleged terrrorist.

Why is finding a (relatively intact) passport a problem? Do you have the mistaken impression that an aircraft crash and explosion automatically destroys everything aboard it? Have you familiarized yourself with some of the items which survived the break up of the space shuttle Columbia on re-entry?

 

[stateofgrace]

Thanks for you frank opinion. I do not share your opinion about factual evidence and visual proof. Evidence! Soon after 9/11 FBI finds a suitcase full of incriminating stuff + a testimony, etc. Evidence? Or planted to mislead the investigators. A passport is found intact in Manhattan belonging to an alleged terrrorist. Evidence? Come on! But subject was actually the assumptions behind a structural analysis. My opinion is that the assumptions are twisted to obtain a certain result. And that is disturbing. But it seems it cannot be discussed in a friendly manner on this forum.

Come on? No sunbeam you come on.

You have posted no end of speculation from your belief that people jumped to their deaths because they saw one of the towers collapse to your belief that the planes did not even hit the towers and that nobody in New York saw them.

Now you say people should come on because a passport was found at GZ. I'll tell you what else was recovered from GZ sunbeam, the remains of 1200 people and 54000 personnel effects, all planted eh? All fake?

How about...........

Also identified this week were the remains of Betty Ann Ong, a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to hit the trade center

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200203/21/eng20020321_92502.shtml
It is hardly surprising you are not greeted with open arms and to be frank, I am actually amazed people show you any tolerance at all.

 

[Belz...]

Thanks for you frank opinion. I do not share your opinion about factual evidence and visual proof. Evidence! Soon after 9/11 FBI finds a suitcase full of incriminating stuff + a testimony, etc. Evidence?

Let me get this straight.

No evidence = conspiracy.
Evidence = conspiracy.

Don't you think your position is a tad unfalsifiable ??

Or planted to mislead the investigators.

Begging the question.

A passport is found intact in Manhattan belonging to an alleged terrrorist. Evidence? Come on!

Argument from incredulity.

 

[Heiwa]

I say: "Of course the witnesses focusing on the south wall might not have seen the north wall at all."

Belz... answer #422: "Why do you truthers insist on calling everybody a complete idiot ?"

Question: Where do them truthers (me?) insist on calling everybody a complete idiot?

I have to say that the analysis by 'socialservice' of the live (sic) reporting of WTC2 explosion on http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice is interesting.

The commentators - live - do not observe a plane first. Bad witnesses? Or what? Idiots?

And why are the 'live' recordings later edited or improved?

In this respect are the 20-30 amateur videos of the same event of interest.

The obvious question: Are these amateurs filming the same event? Because it seems the angle and height of the flight of the plane differs from one to another, the fire ball, its velocity in different directions and the shadow it casts on the adjacent tower differ, etc.

Are some amateur videos correct and others not? Why? Or are all of them faked? Why? Or all correct and unedited? Are these stupid questions?

 

[funk de fino]

I say: "Of course the witnesses focusing on the south wall might not have seen the north wall at all."

Belz... answer #422: "Why do you truthers insist on calling everybody a complete idiot ?"

Question: Where do them truthers (me?) insist on calling everybody a complete idiot?

I have to say that the analysis by 'socialservice' of the live (sic) reporting of WTC2 explosion on http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice is interesting.

The commentators - live - do not observe a plane first. Bad witnesses? Or what? Idiots?

And why are the 'live' recordings later edited or improved?

In this respect are the 20-30 amateur videos of the same event of interest.

The obvious question: Are these amateurs filming the same event? Because it seems the angle and height of the flight of the plane differs from one to another, the fire ball, its velocity in different directions and the shadow it casts on the adjacent tower differ, etc.

Are some amateur videos correct and others not? Why? Or are all of them faked? Why? Or all correct and unedited? Are these stupid questions?

undeniably

 

[Heiwa]

Why is finding a (relatively intact) passport a problem? Do you have the mistaken impression that an aircraft crash and explosion automatically destroys everything aboard it? Have you familiarized yourself with some of the items which survived the break up of the space shuttle Columbia on re-entry?

It seems that plane parts found on WTC5 could not origin from AA175 or a Boeing 767/200 as the rivets below the windows are in the wrong position.
http://www.explosive911analysis.com/planted.htm

 

[kookbreaker]

It seems that plane parts found on WTC5 could not origin from AA175 or a Boeing 767/200 as the rivets below the windows are in the wrong position.
http://www.explosive911analysis.com/planted.htm

Ummm, who put the 'yellow rivets' on the debris pictures? I couldn't find them on the FEMA source, the article does not note who put them there, as far as I can tell, they did it themselves.

Even if FEMA put the 'yellow rivets' on themselves, this article is horribly sourced and very deceptive.

Par for the CT course.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

I have to say that the analysis by 'socialservice' of the live (sic) reporting of WTC2 explosion on http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice is interesting.

If they could CGI planes onto live coverage on WTC1 and 2, why haven't they managed at the Pentagon?

And why are the 'live' recordings later edited or improved?

You keep claiming this without any evidence. What recordings, and where and how?

 

[Heiwa]

If they could CGI planes onto live coverage on WTC1 and 2, why haven't they managed at the Pentagon?




You keep claiming this without any evidence. What recordings, and where and how?

A. There was evidently no live media coverage of Pentagon prior the explosion there. The only live video coverage was by various cameras fitted for other purposes and those films have been confiscated by the FBI (and never seen again).

B. I have only seen media recordings of the explosion at WTC2 without interruption of 'Fade to Black' and various 'beeps' that according 'socialservice' was included in the 'live' show and thus I conclude the recordings have been edited.

C. Why this change of suit?

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

A. There was evidently no live media coverage of Pentagon prior the explosion there. The only live video coverage was by various cameras fitted for other purposes and those films have been confiscated by the FBI (and never seen again).

So you are saying that the conspirators can succesfully edit, live and in realtime, media coverage and inject CGI airplanes into the broadcast of both national and international news companies, but they can't do it with recorded surveillance cams that they already have exclusive control over and have had so for the past six years?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

B. I have only seen media recordings of the explosion at WTC2 without interruption of 'Fade to Black' and various 'beeps' that according 'socialservice' was included in the 'live' show and thus I conclude the recordings have been edited.

Please provide links to the non-edited as well as the edited versions. And why did the miss the CNN coverage. I think I've asked you this about three or four times on two different fora now:

Yes, I seem to recall you claimed that even all the archived material at Wayback Machine has been edited prior to being uploaded, to remove that "fade to black" you seem to think, for some reason, indicates live realtime editing. You failed, however, to explain as to why while the clips from BBC, FOX5 and ABC had no Fade-to-black, CNN still had it. But, oh, its obvious. NWO slipped there didn't they, yeah, thats right.

Adding to that, linkies to what you claim is the original material.

C. Why this change of suit?

Because I didn't really like the connotations the nick gave on an english-speaking board. Plus, I like change.

 

[funk de fino]

The only live video coverage was by various cameras fitted for other purposes and those films have been confiscated by the FBI (and never seen again).

you really are not very good at this are you?

the yellow rivets post is an astounding piece of stupidity almost up with mr kirkman

another plant IMO

see ya

 

[Corsair 115]

I have only seen media recordings of the explosion at WTC2 without interruption of 'Fade to Black' and various 'beeps' that according 'socialservice' was included in the 'live' show and thus I conclude the recordings have been edited.

Are you aware that there are over 40 different camera angles of the second aircraft impact? All shot from different vantage points on different cameras by different people, some professional news cameramen, the rest private individuals.

Some of us back then spent the better part of 9/11 and the next two days doing little else but watching the news. Like me, for example. I flipped around between TV networks constantly looking for new reports and updated information. I saw many, many different angles of the jet impacts played on different networks, with these images being replayed often. My roster of networks watched included both U.S. and non-U.S. networks.

There was no video fakery. It's a non-starter. If you're going to claim the 9/11 jet footage was faked then you might as well claim all the Apollo footage of astronauts on the moon was faked too, because both notions have about an equal chance of being true (which is to say zero chance).

 

[stateofgrace]

AB. I have only seen media recordings of the explosion at WTC2 without interruption of 'Fade to Black' and various 'beeps' that according 'socialservice' was included in the 'live' show and thus I conclude the recordings have been edited.

You conclude? I'm sorry but who exactly are you?

Oh yes I forgot, you concluded that people jumped from WTC 1 because WTC 2 collapsed, you also concluded that nobody in New York saw flight 175 hit WTC 2, oh I almost forgot, you also concluded that upper part of WTC 2 was blown up in mid air.

Your conclusions are irrelevant because you are trying to sound smart and educated when you are not. You believe you are talking to young children, when in fact you are talking to adults, who could not care less what you conclude, unless you offer real and substantiated facts to back your conclusions. See, sunbeam science does not start with a conclusion, it concludes with a conclusion, something you obviously missed in your extensive engineering academic training.

BTW, my offshore co worker you never actually told me what the exclusion zone was, any idea? Or should I conclude you are a fraud?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

You conclude? I'm sorry but who exactly are you?

Like I said when he first showed up,

He is a B.S. artist.

 

[Heiwa]

Ummm, who put the 'yellow rivets' on the debris pictures? I couldn't find them on the FEMA source, the article does not note who put them there, as far as I can tell, they did it themselves.

Even if FEMA put the 'yellow rivets' on themselves, this article is horribly sourced and very deceptive.

Par for the CT course.

Anyway - it would have been easy to identify the window frames and see where they originated from, etc. but it was not done. It seems FBI and FEMA collected a whole container full of plane scrap and at least some bits could have been properly identified.

 

[Heiwa]

So you are saying that the conspirators can succesfully edit, live and in realtime, media coverage and inject CGI airplanes into the broadcast of both national and international news companies, but they can't do it with recorded surveillance cams that they already have exclusive control over and have had so for the past six years?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.


Please provide links to the non-edited as well as the edited versions. And why did the miss the CNN coverage. I think I've asked you this about three or four times on two different fora now:



Adding to that, linkies to what you claim is the original material.





Because I didn't really like the connotations the nick gave on an english-speaking board. Plus, I like change.

Re Pentagon, I assume it was too difficult to copy/paste a plane into the surveillance videos cutting lamp posts, etc. for them to appear credible ... so the videos, showing nothing or something else, had to be destroyed. The only video is then the one showing a gate to a parking with Pentagon in the background and it is not very convincing.

'Socialservice' provides links to all sources of his/her analysis. Myself I was peacefully repairing my house in germany on 9/11 when somebody phoned and asked me to switch on the TV and watch the drama. But I had no TV! So I have only later seen clips of the explosions without any 'Fade to Black' och 'beeps', etc. so I assume I have been shown edited stuff.