9/11 DEW / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline

Here on ATS there is an expectation that posts contribute to the discussion. Posts that simply say you disagree with a point of view really don't contribute anything other than waste bandwith. So, why do you think it is poor logic? I think that is what Intrepid was getting at.

reply to post by Willard856


OK, fine, we have aircraft parts, body parts, loads of evidence that an aircraft DID impact each one of the Twin Towers. Just these outrageous theories being spouted and debunked again and again really get under my craw. Why is this thread still active? I thought it wasn't long ago that the board threw off a TV-Fakery troll.

I happen to agree with you. Given that the thread was simply a promotion of the OP's website (I'm assuming he didn't get permision to post it given the edits by BT), and given that the title bears no resemblance to the content (still waiting for the timeline I asked about!), this thread seems pretty pointless.

Oh, and to the poster who decided to award me a FAIL because I believe the first scenario to be the most likely, logical and supportable by evidence - I didn't realise we are now critiquing and assessing beliefs here on ATS? I can see that becoming very messy very quickly...

How odd is it that all the people who steer the "truth movement" towards explosives demolition have ties in one way or another to DEWs? And on top of that, NIST contracted with sponsors of DEPS! And let's not forget the NY Times redacted DEW evidence!

Originally posted by piacenza
The easiest one is obviously TV fakery and the use of exotic weapons,

No evidence of such weaponry's existence. But since it doesn't require you to acknowledge that fast moving high momentum and energy aluminium can penetrate a steel lined structure, of course its really credible.

and some drones, this would explain the sincronized charges going off (during second impact and the first tower collapse),

So now you need a drone as well in order to set off explosives? A simple control system should do it, with maybe a couple of cameras, so why the drone? Unless thats to be the plane, so why not use a real one?

the weird laser like lights, the weird missing wings, the weird angles of the so called plane approach,

So you don't think that GPS and some altitude information would be sufficient for a guidance system? Or would that be somehow prohibitively expensive?

And the missing wings? What missing wings, they should be ripped apart/deformed on impact,but they would still penetrate.

And the weird angle of approach, how do you mean? A civil jet can easily do a 2.5 g or so turn, and probably if you don't care too much about the state of the plane afterwards, go to the ultimate load, which if you are assuming 2.5 to be the normal maximum load factor, you can still do 3.75 g turns without it breaking or being damaged (though it would seriously push it, since it's the ultimate load). It wouldn't be easy, but if you are assuming remote guidance or onboard computer doing it, fairly easy.

Edit:
Looking at the FAA FAR 23 rules, the Normal Limit flight load factor for the normal category is 3.8, so you could do an even sharper maneuver.
www.flightsimaviation.com...
www.flightsimaviation.com...

[edit on 27-11-2007 by apex]

Originally posted by apex
But since it doesn't require you to acknowledge that fast moving high momentum and energy aluminium can penetrate a steel lined structure, of course its really credible.

An aluminum airplane cannot glide through steel girders and concrete slabs. It violates Newton's 3rd Law of Motion: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The plane would receive the same force as the building. Therefore, the weaker plane would receive more damage than the stronger building.

A real plane should have crushed against the building, not glide through steel girders.

Velocity and momentum have nothing to do with it.

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


You obviously have no sort of training in physics. Did you know there are machines that use water pressure to cut steel?

Informative link

The factors of force and reaction are always calculated with relative velocity. In case you didn't notice, the airplanes didn't exactly slice thru those buildings. A huge mass of pristine aircraft hit the building and in the space of less than the aircraft's length it was reduced to a loose conglomeration of material flowing thru the building and out the other side. Also, don't forget that the skin of the aircraft is made of aluminum but plenty of the aircraft is made of far denser materials.

reply to post by StudioGuy



You bring up red herrings. The fact is an aluminum airplane would receive more damage than the steel girders, not the opposite. A real plane would have crashed against the building, not effortlessly enter and disappear. Try getting a grip.

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


I have a grip. My grip is on reality and not some sort of woo-woo theory that doesn't stand up to common sense.

But using your logic, wouldn't you say that being bent and in some cases broken would be LESS damage than being completed pulverized?

I assume you're referring to the link I posted on the waterjet machines that are used to cut steel. I'm simply trying to point out that you were siting Newton's third law as something that refutes what apparently happened on 9/11 at the WTC nort and south towers. You're ignoring the fact that velocity (or pressure for this purpose) can change the dynamics of the physical event in an extreme way.

This whole movement toward thinking some sort of exotic weaponry was used on 9/11 is the red herring. The simplest weapon is always the best and most reliable. Some arabs with a goal, some lackluster security measures, and the element of surprise are the best explanations for what happened that day.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
An aluminum airplane cannot glide through steel girders and concrete slabs. It violates Newton's 3rd Law of Motion: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
A real plane should have crushed against the building, not glide through steel girders.

Velocity and momentum have nothing to do with it.

Really? Velocity and momentum have nothing to do with it? In that case why do we bother using high velocity armour piercing bullets? Since velocity has nothing to do with it, why don't we just use slow rounds? And it didn't glide through them, it was destroyed in the process, but that doesn't mean it couldn't do any damage in the process. Strangely enough thats what most people feel as well. But since you are saying it with no supporting scientific knowledge, I guess we'll have to listen to you. And Newtons third law says nothing about damage, only about the forces involved. But there is only so much force an I beam (or whatever type of beam) can take perpendicular to the main load, before it fails.

The plane would receive the same force as the building. Therefore, the weaker plane would receive more damage than the stronger building.

Well, you got that bit right it seems. I applaud your observational skills for noticing that the plane was destroyed, while the building was damaged.

So at least one person in the no plane movement apart from john lear does actually know something. Three cheers for you!

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
The fact is an aluminum airplane would receive more damage than the steel girders, not the opposite.

How do you quantify "damage"? If you were an engineer, what terms/units/formulas might you be talking about?

A real plane would have crashed against the building, not effortlessly enter and disappear.

How can you just say this? Show us why this must be true; demonstrate it to us.

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


Last time I saw the videos it didn't look like the planes "glided" through the buildings. It looked like a very heavy plane traveling at a high rate of speed forced itself through the side of the building destroying itself in the process. I would assume if the plane was actually able to "glide" right through it would have "glided" out the other side as well.

I'm not going to waste time responding to ad hominem posts. This has already been discussed in other threads and I won the debate every time. I already responded to that water cutting steel analogy lunacy and don't care to repeat myself. Besides, it's not the topic of this thread anyway.


I'm asking this for a THIRD TIME:

What are people's opinions on the DEW connections in the "truth movement", as well as Romero, Mineta, NIST and the NY Times redaction of DEW evidence?

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
I'm not going to waste time responding to ad hominem posts. This has already been discussed in other threads and I won the debate every time. I already responded to that water cutting steel analogy lunacy and don't care to repeat myself. Besides, it's not the topic of this thread anyway.


I'm asking this for a THIRD TIME:

What are people's opinions on the DEW connections in the "truth movement", as well as Romero, Mineta, NIST and the NY Times redaction of DEW evidence?

Lunacy that proves your ignorance of simple physics and lack of ability to do research maybe.

My opinion of the DEW connection on any large scale is that they are pure science fiction at this point.

Originally posted by StudioGuy
My opinion of the DEW connection on any large scale is that they are pure science fiction at this point.

You did not respond to my question. My question had to do with the DEW connections to people within the 9/11 "truth movement", the 9/11 coverup, and the 9/11 orchestration; not whether you think the large scale weapons are "pure science fiction". Try responding to the actual question.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Besides, it's not the topic of this thread anyway.


I'm asking this for a THIRD TIME:

What are people's opinions on the DEW connections in the "truth movement", as well as Romero, Mineta, NIST and the NY Times redaction of DEW evidence?

Funny, I've asked you a few times about the topic of the thread. Haven't seen anything on timelines yet. And you have got opinions, they just don't agree with yours. Maybe you should have qualified in your first post that you only wanted responses from those who agreed with you or thought the way you do?

As for the DEW connections, I don't see anything sinister. They probably all drive cars as well, does this mean Ford is in on the conspiracy? What if there was a significant portion that ate at Pizza Hut? It's like the six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon. Look hard enough and you could probably say everyone is affiliated or has connections with DEW programs, people, technology etc. And given you have only focused on those with POSSIBLE DEW affiliations, there are probably orders of magnitude more who don't have a direct link. So there you go, an opinion as requested. Now, about that timeline...

reply to post by Willard856



Willard856 considers the DEW connections to be coincidence.

Very telling!

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


Do you realize how much of an obnoxious troll you're coming across as or do you just not give a crap?

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Jim_Kraken]

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


You haven't proved they are not a coincidence yet, just some paranoid ravings that since you believe directed energy weapons brought down the WTC, and these people have connections to directed energy research therefore they must be 'in on it'.

For example:

Former BYU physics professor, Steven Jones, has done research at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched.

Says nothing about whether he ever did any such research or not. In fact, since he is a Professor, maybe he actually understands physics and feels that DEW would need far too much energy.

Another one:

Jenkins’ papers were listed in an annual report which also listed at least one manufacturer of directed energy weapons (Rockwell).

Hmm, you do know that wasn't the only thing Rockwell did don't you? They made other things too, the B1 Lancer among them.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by apex]

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
What are people's opinions on the DEW connections in the "truth movement", as well as Romero, Mineta, NIST and the NY Times redaction of DEW evidence?

Stringing together a bunch of coincidences (as far as I know) and then never bothering to link them together with anything solid, is hardly a counter for all the huge scientific problems with the theory.

Are you ever going to get around to saying anything, or are you going to keep making vague suggestions while ignoring the physical problems with the idea that a photon beam sublimated two steel skyscrapers?

[edit on 28-11-2007 by bsbray11]