Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
If you click this video through and stop it at 0:07 you will see that the fuselage of the plane that hit WTC2 is perfectly level. This makes me wonder about the fact that the plane is supposed to have dived into the building. Any comments ?
http://www.zend2.com/go.php?u=Oi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tL3dhdGNoP3Y9Nm15WjJIbHB4TFE%3D&b=13
Click to expand...


I asked this in another thread: what is your point? Others have articulated why the observation may indeed be incorrect, but I don't care if it is or not. I'm asking what it's supossed to be evidence of? Mind explaining it? Does it contradcit NIST column failure data, ATC radar data? What?
 
Slayhamlet said:
Bill, you could get a feeling of just how different the two cameras' perspectives are if you'd actually watch the videos for longer than the deranged lady from your twoof website wants you to.

Watch how far the camera zooms out at the 32 second mark:


Now pay attention to the location of the camera when zoomed out at the end of this video (from the same camera as webfairy's clip):


Now, with both videos paused, compare and contrast the position of each as relative to Two World Trade, and then perhaps actually think for once in your life.

I am not committed to this hypothesis-that's why I phrased it as a question. You guys may well be right in this instance but a good look does no harm. Thanks for the clips.

Could you do that for us, Bill?
Click to expand...

I am not committed to this hypothesis-that's why I phrased it as a question. You guys may well be right in this instance but a good look does no harm. Thanks for the clips.
 
apathoid said:
I asked this in another thread: what is your point? Others have articulated why the observation may indeed be incorrect, but I don't care if it is or not. I'm asking what it's supossed to be evidence of? Mind explaining it? Does it contradcit NIST column failure data, ATC radar data? What?
Click to expand...

If the hypothesis was correct then we would have two versions of he same incident. Two different angles of attack. That would certainly mean hat there was video fakery afoot and lend weight to the no-planes argument.
 
Last edited:
Or, it could be parallax, perspective, the fact that truthers don't understand anything about aviation, the fact that you can't discern regarding motion from a single frame of a video, and willful cherry picking on the part of some truthers who choose to ignore evidence (such as the other fames of the same video and others in which you may discern that the plane is descending).

Or, all / most of the above. Who can say?
 
Minadin said:
Or, it could be parallax, perspective, the fact that truthers don't understand anything about aviation, the fact that you can't discern regarding motion from a single frame of a video, and willful cherry picking on the part of some truthers who choose to ignore evidence (such as the other fames of the same video and others in which you may discern that the plane is descending).

Or, all / most of the above. Who can say?
Click to expand...

I will keep an eye out for any video or still that clearly shows an angle that deviates from the close-to-level. I have a feeling that I've come accross them before but I can't be certain. As you say the camera angle can be deceptive.
 
bill smith said:
If the hypothesis was correct then we would have two versions of he same incident. Two different angles of attack. That would certainly mean hat there was video fakery afoot and lend weight to the no-planes argument.
Click to expand...

If "video fakery" was afoot in the TV version, how did the fakers make about a million people along the length of Manhattan hear the loudest roar most people ever hear in a lifetime when a full-throttle jets flew buy at low altitude.

That would be one hell of a rock concert sound system.
 
bill smith said:
I am not committed to this hypothesis-that's why I phrased it as a question. You guys may well be right in this instance but a good look does no harm. Thanks for the clips.
Click to expand...

"Looking" is fine once you, Bill, accept the fact that two 757/767 jets crashed into the towers on 9/11. Until you accept and admit that, all your "just asking" is indistinguishable from being a no-planer from the point of view of the reader.

Do you, Bill, admit that two real jets crashed into two all-too-real towers on 9/11?

YES [ ]
NO [ ]
 
bill smith said:
If the hypothesis was correct then we would have two versions of he same incident. Two different angles of attack. That would certainly mean hat there was video fakery afoot and lend weight to the no-planes argument.
Click to expand...
Video fakery is the dirt dumb delusion solution. Is that your idea?
No planes? There are thousands of people who saw 175 impact with their eyes no video needed. RADAR has 175 right there. DNA from people on 175 was found. You present dirt dumb lies.

Why do people say 175 was in a dive? Who can say what the dive angle was?
175a.jpg

There is evidence of a dive before impact.

But in the NIST report NIST uses an impact angle of 6 degree, MIT 0 degree, and another of 2.7 degrees.

I watched your videos you presented and found a downward VVI of 1200 to 2400 feet per minute dive based on the mass movement. 1200 to 2400 feet per minute would match the 2.7 to 6 degree dive by NIST and others. If you could do physics you could stop making up lies about 911 you can't articulate.

I used your videos to find a dive at impact that matches other experts. I am a aircraft accident investigator and found you no plane theory to be bogus tripe. You are debunked because you have no real conclusions and you have no evidence to back up your delusions.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
If the hypothesis was correct then we would have two versions of he same incident. Two different angles of attack. That would certainly mean hat there was video fakery afoot and lend weight to the no-planes argument.
Click to expand...


I suspected thats what you were getting at, but I wanted to be sure. Sorry I asked and have fun with your new pet theory.
 
BigAl said:
Until you accept and admit that, all your "just asking" is indistinguishable from being a no-planer from the point of view of the reader.
Click to expand...



Indeed. If one isn't sure if airplanes were involved or not on 9/11, safe to call that person a no-planer. I don't buy the "I'm just keeping my options open.." song and dance. It'd be the same exact thing saying:

"I'm not a crazy Flat Earther, but I'm not entirely convinced the world is round and I've seen some interesting photos and videos that are clearly faked. But I am not committed to this hypothesis."
 
Hokulele said:
What the heck is it with CTists and the complete inability to stay on topic?
Click to expand...
I suspect its an unavoidable consequence of their recipe; starting with a tub of full-fat wild conjecture, add an unhealthy dose of paranoia and whip to a frenzy with lashings of willful ignorance
 
As you probably know, the Troofers have a lot of videos on YouTube. I recently discovered that there are websites which will automatically convert YouTube to MP3 files (audio only), so you can listen to a Griffin or Jones lecture on your MP3 player without being tied to the computer.

I used the Firefox add-on downloadable from here. Now when you got to a YouTube video, you'll see a link that says "Convert and Download as MP3".

The actual conversion process takes a little time, but I found the downloads quick and easy.
 
Brainster said:
you can listen to a Griffin or Jones lecture on your MP3 player without being tied to the computer.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the thought, but I'll stick with 'counting sheep', 'watching paint dry' and - of course - youtube
​

:)
 
bill smith said:
Interesting new WTC7 video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnXeUIaYj3k
Click to expand...
Interesting... if your a muppet...

This video highlights the very obvious and serious differences between the way that WTC 7 deformed as it descended and the NIST computer models of the same event.

The NIST models are visual the end-product of their computer model, which forms the basis of their conclusions.

Highlighting such serious flaws when comparing the NIST model behaviour to reality is only one small issue with the NIST report, it's methods, and findings.

Visit user AE911Truth here on YT for a primer.

The NIST Final Report on WTC 7 does not in any way explain the descent.

NIST should be directly challenged on all issues.

In the absence of any rational explanation for the descent of WTC 7, other than controlled demolition, demand a new investigation.

I know it was a controlled demolition.
I hope you know it was a controlled demolition.

NIST have even included a 2.26s period of free-fall during the descent, which basically CONFIRMS it was a controlled demolition, but the plain fact has not yet reached full disclosure.

Demand full disclosure.
Click to expand...


For the non-muppets who have a hunch that maybe, just maybe, NIST just might have a 'rational explanation for the descent of WTC 7':

youtube: NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an extensive three-year scientific and technical investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City. This video describes the results of this study, which concluded that fires on multiple floors in WTC 7--which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
Click to expand...

Tell me bill, do you think there's any need to revise the pre-2001 construction codes in anticipation of any more 'uncontrolled fires in tall buildings'?
 
bill smith said:
Another fun piece of video fakery ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU6J_PLHkcU&feature=player_embedded
Click to expand...

The 9/11 hoax was all about tv fakery. Faked Manhattan sceneries, fake computer-inserted planes + helicopters and - believe it or not - overlayed birds...

These few seconds alone prove that the LIVE TV broadcasts were digitally manipulated.

Any ornithologists / birdwatchers out there ? Would you please watch this video and tell us what birds fly in flocks over Manhattan, capable of accelerating in close formation (all at once) by a factor of 44% in a split second?

I believe such birds do not exist. What we see here is a good example of the crude video layering technique used by the TV networks to dupe the World.

Why was this done? Most probably (just as all the various fly-by choppers which invariably fly-by perpendicular to the viewer) they were inserted to inject some 'life' to the fake skyline necessary to conceal the incoming 'object' that hit the tower. The masking is evident by looking at the 'linings' around the contour of the towers and smoke.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously so deluded that you're incapable of thinking how such a phenomenon might occur without recourse to fakery?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom