Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
this topic is blowing my mind. Keep it going though by all means. I wanna see where this goes.




posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
It's long into the explosion? Don't you notice anything about these shots, like the lack of explosion?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...


This video clearly shows deflection. Stop the movie at 00:05 and you will see...

[edit on 2-10-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
You will not embarass me... Because you could not provide a shot of the plane debri deflecting (A shown by NIST), aside from the columns and chunks of building blowing out by the massive combined internal explosion.
Anyway I'm very interested in seen more work about this.


Good try with the shadow but thats very loooooong into the explosion.

"With the WTC planes, their inertia was enough to not cause any deflection outside the WTC, but upon hitting beams/structure inside the WTC, the aircraft would have broken up, slowed down and stayed inside the building. Glass and other small pieces would have fallen down but due to the overall intertia of the aircraft, it would not deflect as per the NTIS example."

Here we go... The NIST simulation of the impact is not real, it has to do with something that happened let's say in Dresden at the end of WWII. I understand; NIST is not modeling the reality of the WTC impact... It is doing some other work.

>>With the WTC planes, their inertia was enough to not cause any deflection outside the WTC



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

I also want to add another movie the collection for this thread calling no planes into WTC.













posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
You will not embarass me... Because you could not provide a shot of the plane debri deflecting (A shown by NIST), aside from the columns and chunks of building blowing out by the massive combined internal explosion.
Anyway I'm very interested in seen more work about this.


Good try with the shadow but thats very loooooong into the explosion.

"With the WTC planes, their inertia was enough to not cause any deflection outside the WTC, but upon hitting beams/structure inside the WTC, the aircraft would have broken up, slowed down and stayed inside the building. Glass and other small pieces would have fallen down but due to the overall intertia of the aircraft, it would not deflect as per the NTIS example."

Here we go... The NIST simulation of the impact is not real, it has to do with something that happened let's say in Dresden at the end of WWII. I understand; NIST is not modeling the reality of the WTC impact... It is doing some other work.

>>With the WTC planes, their inertia was enough to not cause any deflection outside the WTC



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...
"This video clearly shows deflection. Stop the movie at 00:05 and you will see... "

No what that video shows is a massive explosion shaped like a jet... You have to check again the STATUS of the plane. The "plane" vanishes inside the building, at this point there are no rebounds present and this is what we are considering right now, this is the important place in time; because by now given the NIST model there must be pieces of plane flying ALL around in a MASSIVE cloud of metal. That is the "plane" status on page one. In this case we have exactly the same (Same impact), the plane goes under a digital mask and then the massive explosion (That you are trying to switch for the rebounding debri) goes off.

You are trying to mutate the past; and you cannot because we can see images on the first page that clearly shows no rebounds before the massive explosion (With the "plane" already missing).

Amazing statements incoming:
"""The NIST model is INCORRECT. Simple. It does NOT take into account the laws of physics that everyone but YOU understands."""

From your point of view, the detailed physical model of the impact is just, ejem, an animation with no physical basis. Interesting.

Two on this thesis... Above and below. NIST does its modeling with an 8086 (Maye they used an Atari); they do not have computer capability to make accurate models.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
brainsucker... the deflection is CLEARLY there.

Of course this NIST RENDER is not 100% accurate...



....there is absolutely no program on Earth that could track and plot every single object, piece of dust, or all debris that came out from the deflection. Even if there was, to draw a micropartical on a 200x200 png image would be near impossible, and it would turn out exactly like it does above..

[edit on 2-10-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
brainsucker, I don't think you clearly understand the SCALE of this whole thing. Most of the deflection debris will be near invisible to a camera since they could be smaller than a pixel in size. This jet and building is so huge, and the deflection particles so small, that even if you had a piece of object the size of a basketball or a human head, it would NOT show up on video. The only deflection you would see is anything bigger than that.

A pixel can not get any smaller.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
No... NIST shows us a CLOUD, C L O U D of debri flying. Go back to page one (Or get the PBS documentary) and show us that cloud please; before the massive explosions start to burst of course.
Because in page one you can see the plane vanished and no cloud...



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
brainsucker, again I am still curious as to why you are so adamant in disproving all other truth movement work in favor of something so bogus as this, when we could instead just agree that the government was involved and move ahead. It is this that makes me doubt your intentions, and the intentions of others that use such dubious scenarios as "evidence".

The only alternative is that you have simply decided a hologram hit the tower and that's that, poo on any proof to the contrary, which makes debating with you equally headache-inducing and pointless. You have been shown direct photo evidence which throws the hologram theory out the window, which you either refuse to acknowledge or blow off in some silly way.

I really see no further points to make, since others here have made them and you choose to ignore them. Happy posting, I guess.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   











posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Look at the engines carefully on the plane.









posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
No... NIST shows us a CLOUD, C L O U D of debri flying. Go back to page one (Or get the PBS documentary) and show us that cloud please; before the massive explosions start to burst of course.
Because in page one you can see the plane vanished and no cloud...






I see a cloud right there... just because YOUR angle/camera doesn't see it, doesn't mean it is not there. Once again, even if the debris were as big as a baseketball they would probably not show up clearly AT ALL, the scale is just too big, the camera is just too far away, pixels are just not being captured because there is a limit to how small an object can be, and still get recorded.

Its like you are trying to film an ANT at 100 feet away, its not gonna happen.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Brainsucker,
We keep trying to tell you, but you keep ignoring us...

The model you are referencing is flawed.

Physics proves you wrong. Move on.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Astygia:
I truly respect the truth movement and all the opinions in there... This are my views.
Take it or leave it. I'm no trying to disprove ANY person. I don't have obscure intentions.

And I will tell you more, something that you have been looking for:
Yes I do think that there are people in the truth movement that has obscure intentions...
And probably by now you can imagine who do I think about. Refer to the taboo post.



[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
People who believe there was no plane and people who believe there was a plane let's
compromise and all agree that it was a jet remotely controled so we can all hug and have peace :0



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
"Physics proves you wrong. Move on."
Hehehe, good try... You have not proved a thing, and you can't even start dreaming of debunking the NIST model.
Don't mud the waters for the people reading the last pages.

LAES YVAN: The last try was a good one... But thats well into the explosion again, and of course is the explosion (Because it just looks like the explosion we've seen 100s of times); next time try to provide bigger pictures (Especially those that show a Boeing flying in pieces in the opposite direction of the WTC, see NIST simulation).

Some notes, I knew that this kind of images were coming:


I've tought (Long time ago) about two trivial scenarios for this (I could be wrong):

a) The CG/CallItX plane is the means for the -internal- explosion.
b) The CG/CallItX plane is cloacking/hiding something that causes the explosion.

That image seems to suggest (b).


[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker

LAES YVAN: The last try was a good one... But thats well into the explosion again, and of course is the explosion (Because it just looks like the explosion we've seen 100s of times); next time try to provide bigger pictures (Especially those that show a Boeing flying in pieces in the opposite direction of the WTC, see NIST simulation).



I don't want to do it, but I'm just going to call you an idiot. The picture is not "well into the explosion", if it was you would see a fireball. The photo was a crop of this one:



It was taken just as the tail section of they jet disappears. From this video:

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 2-10-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN



I don't want to do it, but I'm just going to call you an idiot.


I didn't want to but I had to warn you. OK gang, that's it. Discuss this without personal barbs or the flags WILL fly further.





top topics
 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join