Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[bill smith]

Sure you do.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You know I do Myriad, We have chatted about it before I think.

 

[Macgyver1968]

I think the hollow core columns were filled with nanothermite and protected by the fireproofing from cooking off.

Are you talking WTC 1 and 2 or 7? As far as I know, 7 used I-beams.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

I thought no-planers believed in space beams.

Perhaps one of the no-planers could give us a narrative of what they believe happened that day.

 

[Myriad]

You know I do Myriad, We have chatted about it before I think.

Sure I do.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[bill smith]

I wonder what was in the east penthouse of WTC7 that they had to drop it into the building first so that the rest of the rubble would fall on top and hide it ? Maybe something explosive that would have enhanced the fireball when flight 93 nosedived to it. Well.....gotta speculate to accumulate.

 

[jaydeehess]

Picture it this way. The North Tower is struck by a plane. It is quickly on TV. Many people get on the phone to their friends and family. ' Turn on your TV ' they say 'A plane has just flown into the WTC ' So thy do- in their millions just in time to see two more jets scream in and plunge into two more WTC buildings which explode in giant photogenic fireballs. The waiting hovering semicircle of cameras gratefully lap up this legendary footage which we have all seen millions of times since.

The traumatised, terrified,virtually catatonic American pubic will now allow the administration to turn 50% of the world into a glass desert at will.

I just wanted to draw people's atention to the transparent tableau of the 9/11 NYC atacks.

Picture it this way. The North Tower is struck by a plane hijacked by Islamic Jihadists in what they perceive as their struggle against western, non-believer's invasion and influence in the Holy Lands. It is quickly on TV. Many people get on the phone to their friends and family. ' Turn on your TV ' they say 'A plane has just flown into the WTC '. They do- in their millions, , just in time to see two more jets scream in and plunge into two more WTC buildings which explode in giant photogenic fireballs. Many more millions around the world also witness these attacks on TV as they footage is sent to every broadcaster in every country. The plan to have more than one attack in the basic same location is two fold. First it is to attack both of the two large towers which symbolize American economic power, and also to ensure that network coverage broadcasts the second impact for the world to see. This footage is eagerly used world wide by the Jihadists who spin this as a great blow against the west. Islamic men around the world then take on the Jihad against the west widening and furthering the cause which spawned the attacks.

The plan also includes an attack on the seat of American military power and another against a symbol of American political power. The later however is not successful. Despite not hitting one of the targets the operation is an unqualified success and in the ensueing years recruitment into Jihadist organizations is at an all time high.

Indeed, a transparent and obvious agenda.

 

[jaydeehess]

I wonder what was in the east penthouse of WTC7 that they had to drop it into the building first so that the rest of the rubble would fall on top and hide it ? Maybe something explosive that would have enhanced the fireball when flight 93 nosedived to it. Well.....gotta speculate to accumulate.

oh brother!





Better check under your bed tonight, and make sure you keep the tin foil fastened tightly to your windows.

We are watching you, every day, every second. It was my shift last night. Nice bunny slippers

 

[jaydeehess]

I saw the fires on the North side of WTC7 and I saw he MASSIVE fires in WTC5. Very little smoke on the North side and far less from the MUCH bigger fires in WTC5. Was there a smokier kind of office firniture in the south side of WTC7 ? Explain please ?

Discussed already bill. The north side was upwind and the south side had most of its windows missing so it makes perfect sense that much of, or even most of, the smoke from the fires was exiting the building through the largest openings, the missing south side windows.

 

[jaydeehess]

Let's look at this video in FULLSCREEN at the 1:20 mark. We can safely say that that is not an engine and it is not dust. Can anybody see wing roots ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGQJ19ysTfU

What a wonder example of what generational and compression loss can do.

Did you notice, bill, that neither of the towers in that video appear to have any windows? The entire side of the buildings appear as an almost homogeneous single colour, the edges of the structures are blurred, there is basically no great definition to the fireball either.

Wing roots no, but I do detect a wingnut.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

I wonder what was in the east penthouse of WTC7 that they had to drop it into the building first so that the rest of the rubble would fall on top and hide it ? Maybe something explosive that would have enhanced the fireball when flight 93 nosedived to it. Well.....gotta speculate to accumulate.

 

[jaydeehess]

I am still waiting for that video that shows the crowds around the WTC towers, between the time of the two impacts, to be nothing of the sort shown in the Naudet video.

 

[twinstead]

Gotta speculate to accumulate???

 

[bill smith]

Picture it this way. The North Tower is struck by a plane hijacked by Islamic Jihadists in what they perceive as their struggle against western, non-believer's invasion and influence in the Holy Lands. It is quickly on TV. Many people get on the phone to their friends and family. ' Turn on your TV ' they say 'A plane has just flown into the WTC '. They do- in their millions, , just in time to see two more jets scream in and plunge into two more WTC buildings which explode in giant photogenic fireballs. Many more millions around the world also witness these attacks on TV as they footage is sent to every broadcaster in every country. The plan to have more than one attack in the basic same location is two fold. First it is to attack both of the two large towers which symbolize American economic power, and also to ensure that network coverage broadcasts the second impact for the world to see. This footage is eagerly used world wide by the Jihadists who spin this as a great blow against the west. Islamic men around the world then take on the Jihad against the west widening and furthering the cause which spawned the attacks.

The plan also includes an attack on the seat of American military power and another against a symbol of American political power. The later however is not successful. Despite not hitting one of the targets the operation is an unqualified success and in the ensueing years recruitment into Jihadist organizations is at an all time high.

Indeed, a transparent and obvious agenda.

Do you know that 90% plus of architects and engineers who attend the internationally famous architect Richard Gage's lectures.are instantly, (over the course of a single lecture )converted to the controlled demolition hypothesis ? for WTC7 ? I have videos I can show you. Would that not indicate that my theory rather than yours is the correct one ?

I mean Gage already has 1,000 architects nd engineers signed up and demanding a new 9/11 investigation let alone the tens of thousands who do not dare sign but are fully aware and monitoring the situation ? Unless you are saying that the terrorists somwhow wired WTC7 for demolition it has to be an inside job.

I am not derailing here, I am showing that your theory is hopelessly undermined and weak.

 

[bardamu]

• AA Flight 11 9/11/01
• UA Flight 75 9/11/01
• parky's Aunt 9/11/01
• Video footage of a plane over lower Manhattan on 9/11/01

AA Flight 11 did not exist?
UA Flight 75 did not exist?
Al Qaeda did not exist?
Hijackers did not exist?
Video footage of 9/11/01 was 'faked' somehow?

I believe the two aircraft existed but I don't know what happened to them on 9/11. I believe Al Qaeda exists but was set up by western intelligence agencies and still receives orders from them. I don't know if the alleged hijackers existed or not but if they did they were set up. Video footage was faked using cgi cartoon planes. I have no idea if parky's aunt exists or not.

Still. if WTC7 had been inside the semicircle of cameras as a huge fireball it would have completed the picture. Pure stage management. The 'shocking and awing' of the American people would have been all the more spectacular.

Controlled demolition is proof of inside job. No planes is proof the networks were in on it. That's all we need for now. Speculation about flight 93 doesn't add to the evidence or strengthen the arguments and it lets the debunkers have a field day.

Do you believe planes hit the towers, Bill?

You see, Ace Baker has been proposing a post-production model for his whacked-out no-plane theories all along and he doesn't even understand why that is. And Ace Baker should really make it clear that these aren't rules for compositing (whether live or post); they're just his argument as to what aspects of what transpired that day that make him think 'no-plane'.

They most assuredly aren't "rules" that anybody who works in television production would recognise as such.

I'm guessing he formulated the list of necessary conditions while he was working on his reconstructions of the 9/11 composites. His composites are just as realistic as the ones that were broadcast by the TV networks on 9/11, which is to say, not very...

For the second aircraft there are other considerations that need to be taken into account to help make this a success. there will be a lot of smoke from the first impact. The wind along the seaboard is predominantly either on-shore, or from the west. This means the most likely clear path would be from the south. So its either try another direct path and risk having to contend with obscuring smoke, or take the plane south first and then head for the second tower. A quick check of the NYC weather that morning would confirm that a south face hit would be unhindered by smoke.

If the first plane had hit the south face of the south tower, there would have been no smoke in the way of the second plane as it approached the north face of the north tower. More crucially, the TV cameras would have been guaranteed to film the plane crash into the side of the building.

Picture it this way. The North Tower is struck by a plane hijacked by Islamic Jihadists in what they perceive as their struggle against western, non-believer's invasion and influence in the Holy Lands. It is quickly on TV. Many people get on the phone to their friends and family. ' Turn on your TV ' they say 'A plane has just flown into the WTC '. They do- in their millions, , just in time to see two more jets scream in and plunge into two more WTC buildings which explode in giant photogenic fireballs. Many more millions around the world also witness these attacks on TV as they footage is sent to every broadcaster in every country. The plan to have more than one attack in the basic same location is two fold. First it is to attack both of the two large towers which symbolize American economic power, and also to ensure that network coverage broadcasts the second impact for the world to see. This footage is eagerly used world wide by the Jihadists who spin this as a great blow against the west. Islamic men around the world then take on the Jihad against the west widening and furthering the cause which spawned the attacks.

If the footage was so important to the Jihadists, why did they risk there not being any footage of the impact, by flying the second plane in on the blind side of the studios?

I started argueing against crazy people when I first encountered people on an internet forum who believed that the Apollo missions were faked.

You believe Armstrong walked on the moon???

Coward.

Yup... that entire post is one big sign of cowardice... But what do you expect from twoofs?

Is it cowardly to admit you don't know everything? Is it cowardly to want to avoid speculating? Is it courageous to swallow a story based on 19 arab hijackers when there's no evidence they even boarded the planes?

If bardamu and bs cannot give a simple resume of their versions of the events that took place in New York on 9/11,then what are they drivelling on about?

I can give you a quick resume of what I do know after examining the evidence, but I'm not prepared to fill the gaps in by speculating on things I don't know.

1. There were explosions in both towers.
2. A plane was faked live on TV and later more fake plane footage was shown on TV.
3. Several eyewitnesses lied about seeing planes and many of these were employed by the TV companies or had close ties with the media.
4. Three buildings were demolished.
5. TV coverage of the day's events was guided by counter-terrorism analysts in the studios, such as John Miller, Jerome Hauer, Steven Simon and James Rubin, who laid down the foundations for the official conspiracy theory involving Islamic suicide pilots.

The above sounds exactly like what bin Laden wanded to accomplish and what happened on 9/11.

Do you think threats count as hard evidence? Why do the FBI say they have nothing on Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks?

What persuaded him to change his mind, anyway?

BBC on 9/11 at 11:55pm:

"Some news just in from Pakistan, where a newspaper used by the Saudi dissident, Osama Bin Laden, has published a statement in which Mr. Bin Laden has denied involvement in the American attack. However, the Afghanistan-based Islamist said that he fully supported the attacks."

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive.html

Let's look at this video in FULLSCREEN at the 1:20 mark. We can safely say that that is not an engine and it is not dust. Can anybody see wing roots ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGQJ19ysTfU

The sun appears to be highlighting the top part of the nose out and casting a shadow underneath. It looks similar to the highlight and shadow on the nose of the plane before it goes in. Could dust and debris reflect the sun like that?

 

[bardamu]

Any ideas how a piece of fuselage from the back of the plane could have been blown forward by an explosion in the middle of the plane?

 

[bill smith]

What a wonder example of what generational and compression loss can do.

Did you notice, bill, that neither of the towers in that video appear to have any windows? The entire side of the buildings appear as an almost homogeneous single colour, the edges of the structures are blurred, there is basically no great definition to the fireball either.

Wing roots no, but I do detect a wingnut.

I invite readers to run the video and note that the shape of the buidings are clear enough, as is the shape of the emerging object. This is clearly no engine or plume of dust as debunkers often maintain.

emember hat a delicate plane went through the 33 well braced 14'' x 14'' x 3/8'' steel box columns on the entry side. So what does the emerging oblect remind you of ?

 

[beachnut]

I believe the two aircraft existed but I don't know what happened to them on 9/11. I believe Al Qaeda exists but was set up by western intelligence agencies and still receives orders from them. I don't know if the alleged hijackers existed or not but if they did they were set up. Video footage was faked using cgi cartoon planes. I have no idea if parky's aunt exists or not.
...

1. There were explosions in both towers.
2. A plane was faked live on TV and later more fake plane footage was shown on TV.
3. Several eyewitnesses lied about seeing planes and many of these were employed by the TV companies or had close ties with the media.
4. Three buildings were demolished.
5. TV coverage of the day's events was guided by counter-terrorism analysts in the studios, such as John Miller, Jerome Hauer, Steven Simon and James Rubin, who laid down the foundations for the official conspiracy theory involving Islamic suicide pilots.
...

Flight 11 and 175 were seen impacting the WTC. Evidence proves this and your belief is pure hogwash.
UBL is not a CIA asset, he promised to kill us when he can; your delusions is supported only by your failed opinions.
The hijackers did exist and you can't refute it with evidence, just talk based on moronic delusions.

1. No explosion in the WTC towers, you lack the knowledge to understand a gravity collapse releasing over 130 tons of TNT. Got Physics?
2. No planes were faked it is only proof you prefer to lie about an event based on your ignorance.
3. People saw the planes hit making this another delusion.
4. Proof you can't count. Got math? Terrorists destroyed the WTC complex by flying planes into buildings at high speed.
5. lol, your delusions know no bounds.

Why to you spread lies about 911? A disrespectful hobby.

 

[bill smith]

I believe the two aircraft existed but I don't know what happened to them on 9/11. I believe Al Qaeda exists but was set up by western intelligence agencies and still receives orders from them. I don't know if the alleged hijackers existed or not but if they did they were set up. Video footage was faked using cgi cartoon planes. I have no idea if parky's aunt exists or not.




Controlled demolition is proof of inside job. No planes is proof the networks were in on it. That's all we need for now. Speculation about flight 93 doesn't add to the evidence or strengthen the arguments and it lets the debunkers have a field day.

Do you believe planes hit the towers, Bill?




I'm guessing he formulated the list of necessary conditions while he was working on his reconstructions of the 9/11 composites. His composites are just as realistic as the ones that were broadcast by the TV networks on 9/11, which is to say, not very...




If the first plane had hit the south face of the south tower, there would have been no smoke in the way of the second plane as it approached the north face of the north tower. More crucially, the TV cameras would have been guaranteed to film the plane crash into the side of the building.




If the footage was so important to the Jihadists, why did they risk there not being any footage of the impact, by flying the second plane in on the blind side of the studios?




You believe Armstrong walked on the moon???






Is it cowardly to admit you don't know everything? Is it cowardly to want to avoid speculating? Is it courageous to swallow a story based on 19 arab hijackers when there's no evidence they even boarded the planes?




I can give you a quick resume of what I do know after examining the evidence, but I'm not prepared to fill the gaps in by speculating on things I don't know.

1. There were explosions in both towers.
2. A plane was faked live on TV and later more fake plane footage was shown on TV.
3. Several eyewitnesses lied about seeing planes and many of these were employed by the TV companies or had close ties with the media.
4. Three buildings were demolished.
5. TV coverage of the day's events was guided by counter-terrorism analysts in the studios, such as John Miller, Jerome Hauer, Steven Simon and James Rubin, who laid down the foundations for the official conspiracy theory involving Islamic suicide pilots.




Do you think threats count as hard evidence? Why do the FBI say they have nothing on Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks?

What persuaded him to change his mind, anyway?

BBC on 9/11 at 11:55pm:


http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive.html




The sun appears to be highlighting the top part of the nose out and casting a shadow underneath. It looks similar to the highlight and shadow on the nose of the plane before it goes in. Could dust and debris reflect the sun like that?

On the question of whether it was real planes or not I am pulled both ways. It seems far too risky to do it all with cgi when they could just as easily use real planes and not take that risk. That is my main reason for leaning towards real planes. I totally agree that there is a huge amount of evidence supporting no-planes too.

It has crossed my mind that that if there was no no-planes theory people might have been asking rather sooner how on Earth the plane went through the building as it did. Right now if anybody opens their mouth about that they are labelled a no-planer right away.

With the perfect dualism of planes-no-planes nobody thought for a long time about the middle ground. A real plane and tampered-with perimeter box columns.

 

[twinstead]

I totally agree that there is a huge amount of evidence supporting no-planes too.

That would be true, were there not a HUGE amount of evidence that there were planes.

 

[bill smith]

That would be true, were there not a HUGE amount of evidence that there were planes.

I just thought of something Twinstead. The distance between the floors of the Towers was I believe 12 feet and three inches. But the diameter of the fuselage of a 767 is fifteen feet six inches...are you with me ?

So would the concrete floors, not have carved off some of the only millimeters thick lightweight aluminium as the plane went in ? And would the emerging plane have looked as it did ?

Note that no debris fell down the entry side of the building.
I hope you guys have a good answer....

http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt_files/slide0045_image034 Nose Cone
http://nomoregames.net/presentation...al_August_07.ppt_files/slide0046_image035.png Nose cone 2

PS

In several videos of the penetration and emergence the nose going in and the nose coming out they are the same size. (the micro-precision match) But that must mean that the plane is to small going iin.... 12 feet 3 inces or less when we know that he diameter of a 767 is fifteen feet six inches.