New Video - No real planes hit World Trade Center (Continuous Pieces)

page: 11
7
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
if you don't find the "originals" you claim need to be found, then it proves they don't exist


As I previously mentioned, nearly all stock footage houses have several HD videos that include the planes on September 11th, 2001. Hundreds, if not thousands, of hours are available for anyone able to pay a small fee that typically begins at $75.00 for downloadable 1080 versions, and $150 for DVDs. Over the past two days, I've identified 114 different video products that can be ordered... ranging in duration from 15 minutes to a set of five DVDs with 15 hours of 9/11 footage.


GREAT! Look forward to it! would love to see the fakery with even more Clarity.




posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ermmmm.....thanks, Insolubriious, you have just PROVEN that a B767 impacted the side of the WTC Tower, based especially on the diagram shown as "Figure 6-3".
Yeah, but matrix will be along soon to say that it isn't proof of anything and that explosives could've made the hole to look exactly like a plane hit. Ignoring the fact that unless the explosives were placed on the outside for all to see, the explosives would've blown the building OUT, not sucked chunks of the building IN like the images show.


Where did I say it was only an explosion/pre set charges bonez?

I challenge you to show exactly where I've ever said I don't think there was an IMPACT from the outside.

You need to STOP LYING and making #e up


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Disinfo artists are so predictable. They are running out of material. Maybe that's why matrix keeps typing the same thing over and over again in every post and capitalizing every other word.


and I'm having fun doing so. Brings more attention to the analysis you look so pathetic trying to dismiss and argue.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
your entire response can be summed up in three words:

POT KETTLE BLACK








posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezza, how many times crashing into buildings?

Thousands and thousands of times...it's called 'landing'.

Landing an airliner on the centerline (or centreline) of a 150' to 200'-wide runway is a far sight more difficult than crashing into the broad side of a building!!!

Your second question was inane. Please refer to 'Figure 6-3' up above a few posts, by Matrix.

Extra credit, BTW....the angle of bank, as seen from the impact photo, and from the various videos, indicates that it was a last-second correction by the piece of [expletive deleted] flying the airplane.

A question: Why did the Tower that was hit second, by UAL 175, collapse first??

Think about it....simple logic.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
tezza, how many times crashing into buildings?
Thousands and thousands of times...it's called 'landing'.

Please, Tim, don't take me for a fool - it's beneath you.

Your thousands of hours of experience have taught you to control a landing, without causing damage.

You've never once crashed into a building, so you're no more qualified to speak about the damage pattern that should be present, than most other people would be.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Don't you think a screaming mass of upwards of 200,000 lbs is going to cause some damage? Wouldn't it seem logical that the dense pieces of the structure would, by definition, xarry a certain amount of momentum (AKA Kinetic energy) and have a tremendous destructive force?

Never mind....it's pointless. What I've seen on these threads is endless arguing...with the NPT dudes coming around and 'high-fiving' each other with stars, yet when asked a direct question never really respond. Instead, it is a favorite ploy to pick apart, 'parse' (very annoying, BTW) someone else's post....replying to what they want, and ignoring the rest.

This 'editing' serves a major purpose: It deflects, and conveniently ignores, that which the responder doesn't wish to address.

Funny, out of about 242 'active' signed on ATS members right now there are a mere handful that subscribe to this NPT.

*edit* comment posted to wrong thread.


[edit on 4/20/0909 by weedwhacker]

*edit* to add this: I think it is important to analyze the sources of these 'alternative theories' and how they propogate. I've begun to find that the existence of a deeper conspiracy exists...and whether NPT and/or 'thermite/thermate' or even top-secret space-based Energy Beams...ALL of these mutually-exclusive theories cannot be correct.

SO, what's at work here? Answers might be (warning, controversial) in the documentary 'Core of Corruption' (available here on ATS).

If you're a fan of Israel, you may not like this film.....

[edit on 4/20/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 

How do you know if that footage, you believe in is not fake?


911 AMATEUR part2


www.youtube.com...

I mean, you are putting a lot of faith in someone’s documentary. If you are going to use this youtube video as your proof, and you are saying these are the facts, then YOU have to show that it is not a fake or you have to prove it is not disinformation. Looks like the ball is in your court. For all we know, this video documentary could have been the work of the same masterminds who released the famous Pentagon five frames video footage of the Boeing slamming into the Pentagon.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


I forgot to add to my post above that if you make a claim that the steel columns were all cut by the wings, but the diagram and picture both show otherwise, that's spreading disinfo. No real shocker there though as that's all NPT'ers know how to do.


If the wings did not cut the steel, then what did?

Check the picture below, the engine is on the far right which i marked with a white dot. So what cause 'hole x' and the clean cut out diagonal line running inbetween 'hole x' and the engine? The cut runs right through the middle of an outer wall section, not just the connections. It seems very strange to me that the wing section outside the engine would be able to do any damage at all, let alone slice through the facade.




posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Bones may not know the answer....consider this, please.

Engines are very heavy, yes?? AND, they are the source that provides the thrust, yes?? The structure that them mount to has to be very strong.

The engines don't just attach to the end of the spar....a great deal of the strength of the spar is carried out beyond the engine attach point.

As you move progressively outward towards the thinner, more flexible wingtips the strength of the spar is reduced.

*edit* Enjoy this for example...


BUT, the point is: the 'meat' of the wing extends from a point outboard of both engines, through the center. It has to, in order to be structurally sound.

[edit on 4/20/0909 by weedwhacker]

*adding*...just for fun...to see what a big jet can actually do, in terms of the bank angles....



[edit on 4/20/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Spars are made from brittle aluminium and if anything they would of sheered off or bounced off the wall with a very loud clang noise not cut through the steel. Large peices of wing sections would of fallen down to the ground or become embedded in the aluminium cladding.

It doesn't matter which object is moving you get the same kind of effect if the plane were stationary and you shot 4-5 floors of outerwall steel and concrete at the plane it wouldn't break or cut the wrecking ball, it would break and cut the plane.

This is what steel does to planes..




posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


LOL! 'brittle' aluminum!!!

My god, you are just not getting the point! Perhaps you should do some reading up into the amount of energy involved in a rapidly moving object as it meets a stationary object.

Oh, epic try, though. A poor defenseless airplane sitting on the ground being chopped up....not even close.

Let's try this, I hate analogies because inevitably they'll be twisted around...but here goes: In your vast experience, which would you say is stronger --- steel or lead? Well, obviously, steel. Steel will crush lead.

Lead bullets can pierce steel car bodies, right? Sure, the car steel is thin, BUT, the bullet is small, and fast. Hold the bullet in your hand and hit the car as hard as you can, see if it goes thru...

Aluminum alloys are harder than lead. Ever held a piece of aircraft grade aluminum alloy in your hand?? Find a piece that's, say...an inch thick, and try to bend it.

Now, multiply the size of that piece, as necessary, to form a structural component for an airframe. Aluminum alloys also have very high tenasile strengths, for their weight. Here's another little tidbit that seems to go without mention....there are parts of the airframe made out of titanium as well. AND magnesium...(check out the temperatures that Magnesium burns at...)

Oh, BTW....before that poor defenseless airplane gets chopped up in the utube video, it is first stripped of any valuable components....like titanium, magnesium, engines, hydraulic tanks, etc...anything useful or recyclable in another way.....



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Everyone...

Eyes on the ball and not the player, please.

This discussion is getting heated, with an increase in counterproductive commentary focused on each other, and not the topic.

This will be the first and last warning in this thread.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Link to the posted image from above.

The construction seemingly has an outer shell cast off and the
beams still seem intact.

Other past images of the first hit show the same beams as if
the cover plate were knocked off.

We don't want to make presumptions like an explosion came from
the inside but why not.

All films of the second 'hit' show an outward explosion because the
'plane' snuck in from the other side.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 

How do you know if that footage, you believe in is not fake?


911 AMATEUR part2


www.youtube.com...

I mean, you are putting a lot of faith in someone’s documentary. If you are going to use this youtube video as your proof, and you are saying these are the facts, then YOU have to show that it is not a fake or you have to prove it is not disinformation. Looks like the ball is in your court. For all we know, this video documentary could have been the work of the same masterminds who released the famous Pentagon five frames video footage of the Boeing slamming into the Pentagon.


the ENTIRE OFFICIAL STORY IS DISINFORMATION TO BEGIN WITH.

so what are you talking about? Before you can say the BOP is on us, you have to FIRST demand that of those who peddle the OFFICIAL STORY!

Why is it that you don't seem to understand something so basic?

You can use your reasoning above, but now the conundrum you and the oct supporters/RPTrs create is that you're using faulty self-destructing logic that if the documentaries cannot proven they're using original footage, then what they show is not proof and/or fake. So your entire logic is built on an already unproven CONSPIRACY THEORY that continues being exposed for the LIE it is. Not a very a WISE choice to put all your marbles into.

EVERYONE with a brain thats done the research knows the OCT is total BS.

With that said and known if you're an intelligent person, you're betting, assuming and putting MORE FAITH ON THE BELIEF that these VIDEOS such as SC that claim to expose fakery, are fake, tampered with, not trustworthy and/or not taken from the originals etc.

thats really the ONLY reasoning you people have as a basis for your argument. There's not too much question that there's fakery imo. But the only real argument/logic OCT and RPT defenders have to deny this fakery is that THE ANALYSIS IS NOT FROM THE ORIGINAL WHEN IN FACT WE'RE SAYING IT IS.
And with all thats known about the OCT being BS and 911 being an inside job, the claims and evidence of fakery being exposed should at least be given the benefit of the doubt and given far more credibility than those who cling to the OCT and what it claims about REAL PLANES ie Flight 11, 175, 77 and 93!

The other problem you create is that because its allegedly not the original and can't be proven original or what we see isn't clear due to compression and pixelation, its therefore not proof or evidence of anything and/or its fake.

So again, the first thing you have to do is PROVE that the oct and the footage it relies on as EVIDENCE/PROOF OF REAL PLANES, PROVES real planes.

It doesn't.

and no one has yet by any means.

Before you can claim NRPT'rs are wrong or that we're using some convoluted reasoning and logic, the burden of proof to PROVE the official story, is on the government and media and anyone that supports it.

not only have they ALL failed to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE ANYTHING, but the official story has been PROVEN to contain contradictions, flaws, physical impossibilities, unanswered and unanswerable questions, omissions suppression, and obvious tampering/manipulation of the evidence claimed that allegedly proves the official conspiracy story.

talk about convoluted... And its this problem which opens up NRPT being far more logic and reasonable to explain things better than the RPT.

for all intents and purposes, all we really have to do is show just ONE contradiction, flaw, physical impossibility, or tampering of the evidence or suppression and we've demonstrated the official story can not be trusted, relied on or used as evidence for anything.

Once those facts are presented, and we present counter-evidence showing how there's no conclusive evidence of a plane, that fact alone actually validates NRPT, which you still don't even seem to understand.

you claim there's no evidence of NRP, yet you have yet to show how and where the evidence being presented, is wrong. All you or the RPT camp present are opinions, conjecture, speculation and hearsay or silence, and then say oh but the burden of proof is on you to prove whats never been proven to begin with!!! good gawd you people are unreal.



[edit on 21-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


You hear that everybody? We have to prove the videos are real so the no-planers don't have to prove they're fake.


[edit on 21-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Here's this....for 'no-planers' who point to the way the fireball is seen, on 9/11. Check out these videos of Kamikaze Japanese Zeros from WWII.

These small airplanes had only a few hundred gallons of aviation fuel...high-grade gasoline, in essence....NOT JET-A....

Note in particular, the blast patterns....and now, say that these were 'faked', please..




posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Sorry but for me that's a poor comparison mainly for several reasons:

a) Most of those WWII planes exploded on or up against the ships hull or deck, it didn't penetrate right through the hull and explode on the inside, unlike the planes on 9/11 which seemed to fly through concrete and steel at the same speed they travelled through air and only exploding once fully inside the buildings.

b) the Kamikaze pilots used to fly 'flying bombs' that were dropped from larger planes are were specifically designed to dive bomb ships, much like a manually flown cruise missile.

c) The Kamikaze planes had explosive munitions, commercial jet airliners don't.

d) Just a guess but the ships steel hull that did get penetrated were most likely done by v-1 flying bombs against relatively thin and already damaged surfaces, unlike the WTC walls. Did you know there was enough steel in the twin towers to make 11+ Class A battleships?

e) The Kamikaze planes were probably shooting bullet holes at their target upon approach, thus weakling the impact zone.


f) Kamikaze pilots often missed or had a skewed approach, even though their planes were far more agile than any kind of passenger airliner yet both planes that hit the towers were perfectly aligned with the face of their target, yet the planes were anything but agile.

g) The ships that were hit didn't suddenly and dramatically break up into a billion parts in a matter of seconds an hour after being hit - as if the whole boat had been demolished. After being hit by suicide plane attacks, they sank slowly into the sea, if they sank at all.



WWII v-1 Kamikaze Flying bomb ^


A special force of suicide pilots was established 1944 to crash-dive planes, loaded with bombs, onto US and British ships. Initially many different types of aircraft were used but later the Okha, a specifically designed piloted flying bomb, was developed. Kamikaze squads caused major problems for Allied shipping, sinking or severely damaging at least six major vessels November 1944–January 1945, until their base in the Philippines was destroyed by Allied air strikes.


en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 23-4-2009 by Insolubrious]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Your a) is disengenuous. You saw very clearly how the fuel from the airliners exploded, just as you saw the Zero's fuel explode.

b) you're referring to the extremely experimental "v-1" that was used, per the Wiki article, against Allied shipping, sinking only 6 vessels.

c) prove it

d) you're repeating b....you also repeat it again later, witht he photo of a 'v-1'

e) speculatin. Maybe too many Looney Tunes cartoons???

f) you don't fly, do you? If you did, you wuldn't have made such an iinaccurate statement about the agility of a commercial jet. They are quite light on the controls, actually. When you're a passenger in the back they 'feel' like a lumbering beast because pilots want to give a smooth ride.

g) completely irrelevant! Now, you compare a battleship to a 110-story building??? Come on, getting a little desperate? But, then you admit that the kamikaze Zero CAN sink a battleship!!! Because that tiny, fragile piece of aluminum can, through kinetic energy, cause sufficient damage and fires to soften the metal, and 'kill' a vessel....OK, thanks!!

BTW...."No Planes?"

Watch this ---






[edit on 4/23/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 4/23/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 4/23/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 4/23/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


The Ohka (name Baka or stupid by the Aliies) was something of a bust
only ship sunk was destroyer Mannert Abele.

Some of the ships hit off Okinawa by kamikazes

USS Sterrett DD407 after kamikaze hit



Notice hole and lack of blast damage to exterior of ship

USS Hinsdale APA 120



Again no exterior blast damage indicating plane penetrated inside of ship
before bomb(s) exploded

Now if a flimsy WWII fighter aircraft can penetrate the steel side of
warship what do you think a 767 weighting 330,000 lbs going 500 mph
can do?





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join