NYC World Premiere. Firefighters, Architects & Engineers: Expose the Myths of 9/11

a reply to: wmd_2008

But that pic is not from the impact footage I was talking about, is it.

The trouble is if YOU have NO experience in how structures work or how materials fail YOU jump to conclusions it's all their if YOU look yourself

Wth are you rambling about? I am talking about what is seen in the impact footage. You obviously have no way of countering it.

a reply to: wmd_2008

The Empire State building had a masonry skin INTERIOR COLUMNS and yet the engine made it through 7 walls and out the other side YOU avoided making ANY comment about that because YOU probably didn't know that happened !

You are rambling. I never denied this. I said that the wing tips didn't penetrate, even though in the 911 impact footage the wing tips cut throught the wall like it wasn't there.

Are you saying that the wing tips did penetrate the Empire State?

a reply to: RogueWave

So who are the people that want to discredit the Truth Movement? And why would they want to do that?

One reason is, the Truth Movement issues false claims that can pose problems, but I have been willing to show them the light.

Now, there are people demanding another investigation to determine whether explosives and thermite were used during 9/11. Why?? It has been proven time and again that explosives and thermite were not responsible, so why waste money on another investigation into explosives and thermite that never were? How much of their own money would truthers be willing to use to support another investigation? Donating one penny is one penny too many.

I've notice that over the years that truthers were posting hoaxed and doctored videos and photos and yet despite my many warnings, they continued to post them on a regular basis. Within the past month alone, truthers have slapped me with hoaxed videos, which were exposed as such years ago. I guess they didn't get the message that the videos they were posting were proven flawed. It goes to show that they are just posting anything as long as it has some measure of anti-government or false flag tones attached

Now, let's take a look here as one example because truthers have disregarded my facts regarding the so-called pod attached to United 175. Despite the fact I warned them that they were misidentify things on United 175, they continued to push the false attached pod claim anyway. As a result, there were people who decided to take advantage of their own ignorance to discredit them. Case in point.

Pod People hijack 9/11 Truth Movement
"Pod Plane" at the South Tower (the one that hit second, with lots of witnesses)

The "Pod Plane" instead of Flight 175 at the South Tower. This story got a bit more attention than the "webfairy theory" that planes did not hit the World Trade Center, but less than the Pentagon plane claims. This claim was first floated in 2003, but the "pod" was promoted more aggressively after the 9/11 International Inquiry in San Francisco (Marh 2004), presumably to distract from the "reality based" part of the 9/11 truth movement and to distract from more productive analysis as the Presidential Election drew closer.

The "pod" is the claim that Flight 175 (the second plane to hit the WTC) supposedly had an anomaly underneath it that "proves" the planes were substituted in mid-flight and therefore 9/11 was an inside job. This claim is based on blurry photos of an alleged "pod" underneath the wing that fired a missile, contained a bomb or remote control equipment (depending on which website you read). The "pod" it is easily exposed as a hoax comparing the photos of the plane with a normal photo of a Boeing 767 -- the mythical "pod" is just the normal connector between the wing and the fuselage, called a "fairing."

The "pod" was the primary thesis of the "In Plane Site" film released in July 2004. No matter how many times this story is exposed as fake, its primary proponents continue on as if the Earth really is still flat, facts are obviously irrelevant for their campaign.

www.oilempire.us...

Just another example of many as to why the Truth Movement cannot be taken seriously.

a reply to: RogueWave

Compare that to the 911 footage where even wing tips can cut the wall even though the rest of the wing has already past it.

Different building, different era, different materials

Empire State is exterior is build of slabs of cut limestone

WTC exterior is composed of steel columns held together with spandrel plates and bolted together in sections

Aircraft impact snapped off bolts and welds connecting columns together.

Here is picture of section of exterior knocked from North Tower lying in street

sites.google.com...

sites.google.com...

a reply to: gladtobehere

The problem with the conspiracy theories, suggesting explosions, have totally ignored the exothermic reaction caused by tons of aircraft aluminium, being heated in oven like conditions by the fire, and then the buildings sprinklers igniting the whole lot as it flowed down the floors to where the sprinklers were working. Some shots show the metal poring out of the building, in yellow glowing plumes which must be around a thousand degrees. Yes their were explosions, the same as the ones in various aluminium plants around the world when water has got into the melt. If a conspiracy was the cause, it wouldn't have used a hit and miss explosive as would be the case with the exothermic cause.

a reply to: anonentity

The problem with the conspiracy theories, suggesting explosions, have totally ignored the exothermic reaction caused by tons of aircraft aluminium, being heated in oven like conditions by the fire, and then the buildings sprinklers igniting the whole lot as it flowed down the floors to where the sprinklers were working. Some shots show the metal poring out of the building, in yellow glowing plumes which must be around a thousand degrees. Yes their were explosions, the same as the ones in various aluminium plants around the world when water has got into the melt. If a conspiracy was the cause, it wouldn't have used a hit and miss explosive as would be the case with the exothermic cause.

BINGO!!

That is why I have told people that the sound of explosions does not mean that explosives were responsible.

We know the WTC buildings were on fire and that molten aluminum was present, which can be seen flowing from the northeast corner of WTC2 where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest, and it is well-known that molten aluminum coming into water will create huge explosions.

Molten aluminum/water explosions are a problem and have resulted in death and destruction at facilities around the world.

Molten Aluminum/Water Explosions

www.metabunk.org...

I think what happens is that every few years a new group gets drawn in to believing the same old crap. The "new' video is not really new. If someone was a child in 2001, they are now 14 years older and may have just started looking at the events of 9/11.
Everything goes back to square 1, all things are possible, and ignorance reigns supreme. There is a burning desire to know something that is inside knowledge, to join the exclusive club, to gain acceptance from the fellow travelers, and to be important. They defend indefensible theories, have "feelings" that "something wasn't right," believe in doctored videos, and have knee-jerk responses to argument and deny reality by claiming that the OS is a lie, and that everyone who says that there is no evidence for anything but the OS, is a liar.
The hangers-on claim that the "movement is growing" when the vast majority of people have moved on and are ignoring them. Any growth is the new group of rookies. The hope that somehow there will be a new investigation is a pipe dream but this event, like the Kennedy assassination, will provide fodder for many decades to come. I can only hope that they can come up with more realistic conspiracies and put Gage out to pasture. Physically, the planes explain everything and there is no evidence for anything else, as much as some people want there to be. They should start looking at the conspiracy of silence amongst the incompetent Bush appointees who blundered the intelligence that could have stopped the attacks or their covering up and circling the wagons after the fact.

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: gladtobehere
Glad they are keeping it alive, just wish they would stream the movie, today, free. Then pass the hat.

9/11 to me marks the end of the US as we knew it.

It really was going for broke. The Shadow gov played their hand that day and not only suspended the rules of physics for the day but every standard and emergency procedure involving airport security, the FAA, NORAD, DOD and the Secret Service.

It allowed several huge financial scandals to be swept under the rug and forgotten; the $2.3 Trillion unaccounted for at the Pentagon, WorldCom and Enron both of which I believe would had led to AIG, Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan/Chase and a few others being involved. I think the crash of '08 was probably going to happen back in late 2001 if hey hadn't gone forward with 9/11.
The really BIG bubble has yet to pop but when it does it will be a doozey.
We'll see what kind of mettle humankind has when that goes down.

a reply to: RogueWave

YOU didn't know what happened in the Empire State crash you found the picture looked at it and formed your conclusion, even although the Empire State Building was of a TOTALLY DIFFERENT design and construction method and the aircraft was a total different size.mass & velocity to what happened in 9/11 YOU assume the results should be similar.

YOU can't film a high speed impact and see how the materials interact on a low res 29 fps video uploaded to youtube.

Watch this video filmed at normal speed and also when the balloon bursts at 1000 fps may be then it might sink in why YOU cant uses 29 fps video to look at the impact

I'd agree that this video is fake regardless of where the building is situated. A close up of the left wing going behind the top of the building with an invisible misshapen line proves it's CGI

originally posted by: Nova937
I'd agree that this video is fake regardless of where the building is situated. A close up of the left wing going behind the top of the building with an invisible misshapen line proves it's CGI

BEEN debunked on here before that is not a building in the background its on the top of a building in the foreground.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Nova937
I'd agree that this video is fake regardless of where the building is situated. A close up of the left wing going behind the top of the building with an invisible misshapen line proves it's CGI

BEEN debunked on here before that is not a building in the background its on the top of a building in the foreground.

Please read people's posts before commenting. What did I say?

I will repeat for you what I said since you obviously didn't read it the first time.

"I'd agree that this video is fake regardless of where the building is situated."

I don't give a monkey's where it was proved the building was situated. It's the effect of the wing passing behind the building that looks fake! It looks added by CGI. So why would they do that?

Do perhaps the position of the building has been debunked but the strange misshapen line that looks CGI has NOT been debunked!

originally posted by: Nova937

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Nova937
I'd agree that this video is fake regardless of where the building is situated. A close up of the left wing going behind the top of the building with an invisible misshapen line proves it's CGI

BEEN debunked on here before that is not a building in the background its on the top of a building in the foreground.

Please read people's posts before commenting. What did I say?

I will repeat for you what I said since you obviously didn't read it the first time.

"I'd agree that this video is fake regardless of where the building is situated."

I don't give a monkey's where it was proved the building was situated. It's the effect of the wing passing behind the building that looks fake! It looks added by CGI. So why would they do that?

Do perhaps the position of the building has been debunked but the strange misshapen line that looks CGI has NOT been debunked!

it's NOT fake the youtube poster claims it's fake because of what happens to the wing but that has been debunked just because people like you claim it's fake is not how things work lets see YOU prove it's fake.

Also as that is part of a building in the foreground they don't have to fake anything do they.

Remember its not the only video of the South Tower Hit for example





It's low res video posted to youtube look up mpeg artifacts learn something about video

a reply to: Nova937

BEEN debunked on here before that is not a building in the background its on the top of a building in the foreground.

The video is proof that WTC2 was struck by United 175. After all, we have the proof right here.

United 175 Fuselage

a reply to: Nova937

"I'd agree that this video is fake regardless of where the building is situated."

Why do these series of videos debunk your claim?

a reply to: skyeagle409

You didnt answer my question. That´s ok, I only asked it to show that you will say anything to discredit anything that opposes the OS, even if it doesn´t make sense at all from your position.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The Shadow gov played their hand that day and not only suspended the rules of physics for the day .

Really want to say why you think that

a reply to: wmd_2008

YOU can't film a high speed impact and see how the materials interact on a low res 29 fps video uploaded to youtube.

So whatt you are saying is that the frames of the 29 fps video showing the plane, are in fact not showing the reality of that specific moment?

What are we looking at then? If those frames don't show the actual situation, then how did the visuals that we see, end up in the frames?

Hold on while I make this perfectly clear.

a reply to: RogueWave

You didnt answer my question. That´s ok, I only asked it to show that you will say anything to discredit anything that opposes the OS, even if it doesn´t make sense at all from your position.

Please post your question.

If you are going to make a claim, I expect you to back it up with scientific evidence. Using references from conspiracy websites that are well-known for spewing disinformation just doesn't cut it.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The Shadow gov played their hand that day and not only suspended the rules of physics for the day .

Really want to say why you think that

Sure, how about several airliners exceeding their airspeed design limits at altitude, 2 steel framed hi rise skyscrapers collapsing due to fires that weren't hot enough or long enough to even weaken the steel frames. Upon onset of collapse the upper floors meeting little to no resistance from the 80 or so completely undamaged floors below allowing them to crash to the ground at near free-fall speed. The seismic impact of the collapses generating smaller waves than ones recorded prior to collapse that are coincident with deep rumbling sounds as heard in video footage shot from across the Hudson river. A third steel frame skyscraper (WTC 7) also collapsing due solely to internal fires at near freefall speed.

That's really what I wanted to say.
9/11 was UNREAL and everyone watching knew that in their gut.

Eta: Were you really asking about the shadow government? The people who have been making all the decisions for our country regardless of what the people want? The folks who make decisions to invade foreign countries based on false pretexts and pass draconian legislation like the PATRIOT ACT without letting Congress read it before forcing a vote. Or how about bailing out failed banking institutions at taxpayer expense? Yes, that shadow government.