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

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

Insolubrious,

This post is directed at your OP.

I have spent an entertaining hour or so reading through all eight (so far) pages...I don't have the stomach, yet, to plod through that over two-hour Google video...perhaps after some liquid reinforcement, I'll tackle it.

Anyway, with all of the bickering back-and-forth something important seems to be missing: WHAT, exactly, does the NPT advocate?? Where did I miss the 'alternative' that this 'theory' embraces?

John Lear was on 'The Veritas Show' just last February (Friday the 13th, actually) going on, again, about 'holograms' and secret space-based Directed Energy Weapons that blasted the WTC Towers with a de-molecularization beam....now, if you don't think that sounds crazy, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale....

So....which is it? John Lear's "version" of events? Missiles (with wings??)?

CD and mass hypnosis? Or, something else? I'm all ears...

I would like people to discuss the video more and some of the interviews held within. I am not saying it's holograms, tv fakery or missiles but i feel those possibilities are more likely than the official line of events. I am still undecided as to what actually hit the towers and the Pentagon, but after looking and listening closely to a wide variety of opinions and data I feel the answer is anything but a regular passenger airliner. Those so-called planes went right inside the buildings before they actually exploded. The military spend millions on developing advanced missiles to do the same job, yet on 9/11 we have three passenger planes carrying out what is only to be expected from a high tech armour penetrating missile. Planes arent designed to punch holes in steel plates as they are made to be light weight and carry passengers, not payloads.

I didn't see any plane on the second tower crash
watching real time TV.

I did see a big fat helicopter roam around that even
the TV real time announcer saw.

It might be only me but the FEMA helicopters were not
roaming around for nothing.

I don't know the grade of analysis the footage of the first
tower crash ever received but wonders are possible
in optical analysis and the second hit does have an ugly
duck image of something that may have evolved from
a beefed up chopper.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Planes arent designed to punch holes in steel plates as they are made to be light weight and carry passengers, not payloads.

The planes didn't punch holes through any steel plates. The planes didn't even cause the steel columns to fail. The planes did cause the connectors to fail that connected the perimeter columns together.

At 300,000 pounds, 767's are not so lightweight. And there are planes that do carry payloads. They carry vehicles, tanks, helicopters and even other planes. It's a little hard to comprehend what people think is going to happen when a 300,000 pound object travelling at 500mph hits something.

We all know the buildings were designed to withstand the impacts of a fully loaded 707, but did you know that a 707 faster than a 767?


[edit on 18-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
the second hit does have an ugly duck image of something that may have evolved from a beefed up chopper.

Here is a YouTube video that has all known angles (43) of the second plane impact. Watch it and then come back here and let us know if you still think it's a chopper:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Insolubrious


Insolubrious, it is going to be difficult, I see, to explain in writing when I could do it face-to-face with illustrations so much easier.

Your impression of a 'flimsy aluminum airframe' is slightly off-base.

Research the construction techniques of a jetliner. The main strength in the wings come from very high-grade and dense alumninum alloys...these are called the 'spars'. They are very strong, as they be. They are engineered through the center area between the wings known as the 'wingbox'.

This video shows how, even when subjected to great stresses, the wings stay well attached to each other...




Of course, that was at a slow speed...likely about 160Knots.

The AA11 and UAL175 had a lot more....a heck of a lot more Kinetic energy. So, every massive component on the airplanes could very well do damage...the main Landing Gear struts, the Engines, the mass of cargo and luggage in the fuselage, the APU in the tail....

With that amount of momentum, both the object struck and the striking object will suffer. I've seen some posters on ATS periodically think that physics work like they see in cartoons....someone once said that half of the airplane should have been sticking out of the building!!! That only happens to Wile E. Coyote.

Still, what you posted might have been correct, absent the fires and the 'weakening' (not 'melting') of the trusses and supports...when weakened and compromised, the dead weight above is no longer able to be supported.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
We all know the buildings were designed to withstand the impacts of a fully loaded 707, but did you know that a 707 is heavier and faster than a 767?

Got research?

The 767 is almost 70,000 pounds heavier than the 707 at MTOW actually. The 707-320 MTOW is 328,060, the 767-200 is 395,000. Their empty weights are 137,562 for the -320 and 179,080 for the -200. Maximum cruising speed for the -320 is 607 mph, for the -200 is about 568 mph.

reply to post by Zaphod58


My source had the weights wrong, but the speeds correct. So, I stand corrected. I edited my above post accordingly.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
the second hit does have an ugly duck image of something that may have evolved from a beefed up chopper.

Here is a YouTube video that has all known angles (43) of the second plane impact. Watch it and then come back here and let us know if you still think it's a chopper:
www.youtube.com...

you crack me up bonez.

The hypocrisy in what you continue to say and use to support your fallacious logic and argument is hysterical.

posting a link to 43 angles of fake footage which is also from the same footage you claim can't be verified and proves nothing, doesn't help your argument.

in fact, its quite sad to be honest.



[edit on 19-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Can you explain how a reliance upon lossy, poor-quality, low-frame-rate, Internet video for anything evidentiary is remotely related to anything that could approach "common sense"?

sure...

your argument doesn't even remotely explain or disprove the totality of the evidence they and other docs present,,, nor can it account for and be used to dismiss all the hundreds of different anomalies and contradictions that occur throughout the OCT/ footage.

why?

Because its one thing if we're talking about just a few areas... but these anomalies occur over and over.

It shows a pattern that anyone with the common sense you speak of, can figure out and see.

However beyond that, your argument relies solely on the faulty logic that SC and truther npt docs and footage they analyze, are not from the original footage, were doctored by SC, and/or whatever they're pointing out cannot be seen clearly due to the type of frame loss you're talking about.

there's a point where coincidence goes far BEYOND COINCIDENCE. And the 911 official story passes that test or threshold. In reality, if just ONE aspect of the story can be PROVEN FALSE, contains IRREFUTABLE CONTRADICTIONS, defies LAWS OF PHYSICS or Newtonian laws, then its not only REASONABLE to question EVERYTHING, but there's a higher probability that whats QUESTIONABLE (such as the anomalies you claim are due to low res etc) is what it APPEARS to be.

you can't have that many coincidences, "LOSSES" or physical impossibilities including miraculous anomalies or suspension of physics and newtonian laws that day ONLY, unless it was an intentional MASKING OF THE TRUTH.

Anyone with half the brain of an ANT, doesn't have to rely off of the QUALITY as you're talking about, to SEE the OBVIOUS FAKERY in ALL the videos and footage etc. All the different fakery doesn't all rely off the quality of the footage.

sure, okay, perhaps there's some truth to what you claim IF there was just one or two anomalies etc, but there's NOT REMOTELY ENOUGH evidence in this case to PROVE your claim that justifies DISMISSING all the EVIDENCE that exists of FAKERY which isn't all about the ghosting anomalies

While your logic works for ONE area, it cannot be used to explain another or ALL the OTHER areas and problems.

Now again, you can try to argue that such anomalies like the GHOSTING and wings disappearing is due to compression or low frame rate, but there's far more LOSS occurring that low res, frame rate or compression CANNOT account for! You can't use this EXCUSE/logic to dismiss everything... and thats the conundrum and quagmire you and the rest of the OCT defenders have created for yourselves using that faulty logic and pathetic argument.

the evidence of fakery overwhelmingly outweighs the evidence against it.

but the funniest part in all this is how our resident disinfo agent bonez uses the same footage he calls unreliable and lacking, as evidence there were real planes.

I fall over laughing each time he posts that insanity.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
The "September Clues" videos were similarly pathetic,

whats far more pathetic is the fact you offer ZERO counter-evidence showing exactly how and where thats true.

oh well.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
and falling firmly within the purposeful "disinformation" category as the hopeless video linked in the opening post of this thread.

except the facts and evidence prove otherwise.


[edit on 19-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by mister.old.school

 

I've also busted them more than once purposefully making things up to propel their agenda. Nice list there.

One more link I'll add:

September Clues and tv fakery debunked
arabesque911.blogspot.com...

and then that was debunked right here....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

once again here's yet another example of bonez using a debunked link to debunk.

LOL

you really need rethink your debunking tactics bonez, or at least REVISE what you're using to support your failed arguments and logic.

I shouldn't be the one to point this out to you though... I thought you'd have already done it on your own back on march 20th.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
your argument doesn't even remotely explain or disprove the totality of the evidence they and other docs present,,, nor can it account for and be used to dismiss all the hundreds of different anomalies and contradictions that occur throughout the OCT/ footage.

In fact, it does.

If all you (or the theory proponents such as Nico Haupt and the "Webfairy") rely upon is poor footage as your source material (heavily compressed streaming digital video) then anomalies will be the norm in anything you view, not the exception.

It simply requires a moderate amount of research to understand the numerous quality issues associated with club.cdfreaks.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">compression artifacts in streaming video from sources such as YouTube which are notoriously difficult to use in video productions (see except below).

If you plan on converting your FLV files to AVI or some other editing friendly format, the disadvantages often outweigh the advantages. Going from FLV to AVI or any other format often results in a file that looks worse than the FLV. Going from FLV to AVI also involves a bunch of extra time combined with increased artifacts in your finished file, because you're waiting to convert the file from FLV and then you're waiting again to convert back to FLV when you finish. Each conversion process introduces additional compression artifacts, which means your finished video will quite possibly look almost unwatchable compared to the original.

I've repeated asked you for links to videos that support your claims that do not make use of these types of poor source files. This is because every single streaming Flash video (FLV) is a visual compromise so that the file size of the streaming content will be efficient and useable. As a result, as I've been stressing, no FLV video can be considered a reliable source for pixel-level examination.

you can't have that many coincidences, "LOSSES" or physical impossibilities including miraculous anomalies or suspension of physics and newtonian laws that day ONLY,

See above. Yes you can if your "evidence" is all from a compromise format with dubious quality issues.

Anyone with half the brain of an ANT, doesn't have to rely off of the QUALITY as you're talking about, to SEE the OBVIOUS FAKERY in ALL the videos and footage etc.

It's an extraordinary claim you, Nico Haupt, the Webfairy, and all the other no-plane proponents are making. Anyone with half a brain would demand the best-possible evidence to consider the claim. Why is it that the no-plane proponents, don't themselves have half a brain and put forth a significant effort to get the best possible source material?

As a video professional myself, I have access to high resolution source material through several accounts with footage houses. The HD-quality Naudet DVD is available for order from three of the sources, with usage costs ranging from $175 to $1,800 depending on intended finished product. In addition, a wide range of other professional and amateur videos and photos of the day are available for similar fees -- exceptional quality source material is readily available. You source a YouTube video here that makes several incorrect claims either on purpose, or because the author of the video does not understand the nature of his source material. I will provide high-res frame-by-frame comparisons to see if the claims are based on either a misunderstanding, or manipulation (blurring) of a source digital video.

Now again, you can try to argue that such anomalies like the GHOSTING and wings disappearing is due to compression loss or low frame rate, but there's far more LOSS occurring that low res, frame rate or compression loss CANNOT account for!

The three most important things to understand about streaming digital video are:

(1) Pixel averaging -- the compression engine will seek to create a grid of rectangles of anywhere from three to eighteen pixels of the same color. The number of pixels being averaged depend on the compression setting of the compression engine. The compression settings of YouTube up until 2006 where optimized for small file size and fast streaming, thereby creating larger and numerous areas of averaged pixels.

(2) Frame compromises -- no matter what the frame rate or compression quality settings, the compression engine also seeks to optimize performance and file size by only storing the changes from frame to frame. However, this is done after the pixel averaging. The result is a distinct possibility that averaged pixels in an area of frame "10" may result in no noticeable change for frame "11", even though there is slight change in the source file from frame 10 to 11.

(3) Key frames -- before pixel averaging and frame compromises come into play, the compression engine creates key frames which are best-quality reference frames that establish a visual standard for the frames in-between each key frame. Typical videos of 30 frames per second will utilize two key frames per second, or one key frame for every 15 frames. The result is that the key frames look good as good as possible (depending on compression settings), and each subsequent frame (until the next key) is compressed with averaging and compromises, sometimes resulting in diminishing quality until the next key. The end result is a video that looks fairly decent to the human eye at 100% resolution and normal speed, but which will break down once we zoom-in and slow it down. This is the primary cause of what appears to be lost detail in the source videos used by the no-plane video creators.

As you can see, if all your source video is this type of format, nothing can be trusted.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
posting a link to 43 angles of fake footage

You've been called out on some of that footage more than once by more than one person. Please tell everyone how private citizens had the technology in their homes to fake the planes on their home videos. We're still waiting for your answer.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
the funniest part in all this is how our resident disinfo agent bonez uses the same footage he calls unreliable and lacking, as evidence there were real planes.

You can clearly see and hear the plane in every single video. You don't need the original videos to tell that. For someone to claim those same videos are fake, you DO need the originals. The originals then need to be taken to someone that has the equipment and the expertise to check the originals for tampering or to check to see if there were inserted images.

That's exactly what happens when someone comes out with a picture or video of a UFO. You can clearly see it's a UFO, but to verify that it's not fake, investigators obtain the original and run it through software or have it taken to a professional studio to disect it and look for evidence of fakery.

I'm pretty sure that not a single NPT cult member has obtained any video from the original source and had it taken to a professional studio to run it through the software and check for fakery. THAT's what needs to be done to say tv fakery is fact and until then, it's disinfo with your OPINIONS only, period.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
and then that was debunked right here...

That's not a debunk. That's you going "ha ha ha, lol lol lol", attacking and giving your opinions. I see nothing scientific, verifiable or tangible there.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
posted by mosey
none of us have absolute truth about anything

One thing that is ABSOLUTE TRUTH is that thousands of people watched a plane slam into the south tower with their own eyes.

and thats not only an ABSOLUTE LIE ABSOLUTELY, but as usual you conveniently fail to mention there were TONS of witnesses who contradict the witnesses you and the oct claim saw planes.

but this is just more PROOF of your BIAS here and inability to be OBJECTIVE to show ALL THE FACTS and story in full CONTEXT which only further destroys your credibility as a truth seeker and adds evidence that you're nothing more than a disinfo agent/shill posing as a truther.

whatsmore, you also fail to mention how MOST of the so called witnesses that "saw" a plane slam into the south tower, are connected to the MEDIA and GOVERNMENT.

even further than that, witnesses who used or rely on the LIVE AKA FAKED/questionable FOOTAGE to support their claims they SAW PLANES HITTING THE TOWERS, is LAUGHABLE at best and beyond pathetic for you to use as evidence supporting your argument.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It was recorded by at least 43 different video cameras by major media,

all of which contain evidence of FAKERY and therefore absurd for you to use questionable/tainted evidence as a basis for your argument let alone proving it.

your hypocrisy and double standards are ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
independent journalists AND home videos from private citizens.

who nearly all have been shown to have connections to the MEDIA or GOVERNMENT.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Every single one showing the same plane and the same sounds.

which again is a A TOTAL LIE.

but even if that were true, you're again talking about the SAME FOOTAGE thats been proven to contain FAKERY.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Both plane impacts also left plane debris on the ground.

yet not one single piece of wreckage from the four alleged planes and debris field etc can be confirmed or identified forensically or otherwise with serial numbers.

yet you continue using this pathetic faulty logic and supposed "evidence" to support your argument.

no wonder you're credibility continues to plummet faster than the non-existent dive bombing of flight 175.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
One of them being a smoking jet engine that the tv fakery cult would rather say is planted. The planters must've taken a torch to it right before they planted it so that it could be all steamy and warm.

how do you know for sure what lengths they'd go to? the fact is YOU DON'T... so how can you possibly use that rationale or HEARSAY/speculation as a basis for your argument as if its real evidence or fact?

but still, the issue of it being steamy and warm like a pile of dog# is IRRELEVANT if theres not one single piece of wreckage from the four alleged planes and debris field etc can be confirmed or identified forensically or otherwise with serial numbers.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
king9072
- planes don't melt into buildings

If the steel columns had failed, I'd almost agree, but the columns didn't fail. Only the connectors did.

huh?? your reply makes no sense at all.

what does connectors failing have to do with a plane MELDING/MELTING into the building as the video evidence shows?

its a FACT, the visual evidence, the physics and damage of the impact was not consistent with the damage that occured or what newtonian laws say should have occured.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You keep forgetting about the B-25 the melded into the Empire State building in 1945. Must've been tv fakery then even though they didn't have tv's:

unless you can produce LIVE FOOTAGE and/or VIDEO of that example, its WORTHLESS as evidence proving or disproving anything.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
king9072
things in motion fail to stay in motion when they slam into steel

Once again, the steel columns didn't fail. The connectors did.

which is irrelevant to whats at-issue.

king9072
- Theres no way that an alluminam airliner hull can travel right through a skyscraper, protruding out the opposite site IN TACT

bonez
Wow, BLATANT disinfo in that claim. There was no exit hole in the south tower for a real fuselage to have exited:

of course,,, because in realty no real boeing (fuselage) plane was used.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb3953e10f0c.jpg[/atsimg]

And there was no plane inserted into the live stream for a fake fuselage to have exited:

again your argument makes no sense. if there was no real plane, there wouldn't be an exit hole. if the plane was faked, there still wouldn't be one either.

so no # sherlock. its just more of your twisted logic

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f1744371cf2d.jpg[/atsimg]

king
That you can't claim a plane is "Dive bombing" when the best media propaganda clearly shows the plane level and cruising
bonez
Oops, more blatant disinfo again. Two shots of the second plane coming in from a higher altitude. The plane didn't level out until the last approx. 3 seconds:

not only are there vids that show no such dive, but faa aviation engineers have said its BS as well. If just one of these are true, your argument fails.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42d92959bf9d.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c83323b4df6e.gif[/atsimg]

king907
- that planes far exceeding their maximum recommended speed are hard to control, and are liable to break apart at such extreme speeds
bonez
Obviously not as indicated by the 43 different angles of the second plane slamming into the south tower.

which are all fake.

king9072
Maximum speeds for airliners cannot be achieved at sea level

bonez
They can if they're coming down from a higher altitude as shown in the 2 animated images I posted above. You would need some kind of understanding of flight dynamics to understand

which you obviously don't have... nor have you seen the evidence that contradicts what you claim.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by mosey
for the record, y'all didnt debunk sh*t.

Oh really? Then how come not a single person has countered my post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

oh really?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

oooops.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It's because you can't debunk FACT. NPT/TVF is debunked. Has been and always will be.

guess you'll have to revise that faulty argument and logic now too.

Originally posted by mosey
im going to leave you believing that you know the absolute truth about the events of 9/11

Nah, we just know that it's the absolute truth that two large jetliners struck both towers of the World Trade Center. We also know it's the absolute truth that there were no inserted images of a jetliner on tv, no holograms and no missiles. And there's not a single NPT/TVF cult member that can convince anyone otherwise besides the few followers of the disinfo cult.

except the facts and evidence prove otherwise.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]

Originally posted by mister.old.school

once again, for starters, the visual evidence such as in the 2nd video for example, is taken directly from footage from the naudet bros video.

As a follow-up to this conversation, I've ordered an HD DVD that contains the Naudet footage in high-resolution. I will digitize that segment, uncompressed, and we'll see how it compares with the version shown in the YouTube video you provided as evidence.

Fair enough?

great... not sure if that changes the essential point of what i've presented, but okay. i'll revisit this discussion again at that time.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

Insolubrious,

This post is directed at your OP.

I have spent an entertaining hour or so reading through all eight (so far) pages...I don't have the stomach, yet, to plod through that over two-hour Google video...perhaps after some liquid reinforcement, I'll tackle it.

Anyway, with all of the bickering back-and-forth something important seems to be missing: WHAT, exactly, does the NPT advocate?? Where did I miss the 'alternative' that this 'theory' embraces?

John Lear was on 'The Veritas Show' just last February (Friday the 13th, actually) going on, again, about 'holograms' and secret space-based Directed Energy Weapons that blasted the WTC Towers with a de-molecularization beam....now, if you don't think that sounds crazy, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale....

So....which is it? John Lear's "version" of events? Missiles (with wings??)?

CD and mass hypnosis? Or, something else? I'm all ears...

sorry but i'm butting in to simply point out that you can claim it sounds crazy all you want... and as long as you don't examine and research all the evidence and facts that support what you claim is crazy, of course it might appear that way... but thats your opinion... if there's evidence to contradict your opinion, your opinion is nothing more than that... and we all know what they say about OPINIONS right?

just as many once said the idea the world was round was crazy,,, the analogy applies in this case.

so once again your opinion or argument only works if you ignore the actual evidence.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
and thats not only an ABSOLUTE LIE ABSOLUTELY, but as usual you conveniently fail to mention there were TONS of witnesses who contradict the witnesses you and the oct claim saw planes.

We all know how disinfo artists like to say that all the videos are fake and all the witnesses are lying so you don't have to show any proof. All while cherry-picking the very few witnesses that corroborate their disinfo without even understanding or completely deleting the context that those witnesses are describing.

You can clearly see and hear the plane in every single video. You don't need the original videos to tell that. For someone to claim those same videos are fake, you DO need the originals. The originals then need to be taken to someone that has the equipment and the expertise to check the originals for tampering or to check to see if there were inserted images.

That's exactly what happens when someone comes out with a picture or video of a UFO. You can clearly see it's a UFO, but to verify that it's not fake, investigators obtain the original and run it through software or have it taken to a professional studio to disect it and look for evidence of fakery.

I'm pretty sure that not a single NPT cult member has obtained any video from the original source and had it taken to a professional studio to run it through the software and check for fakery. THAT's what needs to be done to say tv fakery is fact and until then, it's disinfo with your OPINIONS only, period.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
you're again talking about the SAME FOOTAGE thats been proven to contain FAKERY.

Not proven, OPINIONED. Until you get the original footage and take it to professionals like I've described above, you have OPINION ONLY.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
what does connectors failing have to do with a plane MELDING/MELTING into the building as the video evidence shows?

Had the steel columns been continuous from top to bottom, you might have an argument, but the steel columns were connected together at every 3 floors and the connectors connecting the steel columns together easily failed against a 350,000 pound object travelling at 500mph.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
unless you can produce LIVE FOOTAGE and/or VIDEO of that example, its WORTHLESS as evidence proving or disproving anything.

So you're saying the hole and wing damage at the ESB that's very similar to the holes and wing damage at the WTC is worthless as evidence? Even though they're nearly identical holes?

Guess what happens if video was produced of the B-25 slamming into the ESB? You'd call it fake!

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
which is irrelevant to whats at-issue.

It's EXACTLY relevant. If the steel column had been continuous, a good portion of the plane would've fallen to the ground, but the connectors failed allowing the plane to easily enter the building. Simple physics and research.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
not only are there vids that show no such dive, but faa aviation engineers have said its BS as well.

You posted 2 videos that I used show the plane coming down from a higher altitude and not flying level! And you either didn't understand what the aviation engineers were saying, or you took their statements out of context which I've already busted you on in previous posts.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
except the facts and evidence prove otherwise.

You keep saying this over and over ad nausium, but never end up showing real facts or real evidence. Get the originals, have them examined by professionals, then you'll have facts. Otherwise.....DISINFO.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by matrixNIN11
I'm saying the millions of people either don't know about NPT, don't understand it due to a lack of research

The entire 9/11 truth movement does know and has known about NPT for quite some time, so that point is moot. Many intelligent people, including myself, have spent countless hours researching and going over the NPT "theories', so that point is moot also.

then either you're full of #e, biased for personal reasons, intentionally spreading disinfo because you can't handle being wrong, or haven't done *enough* research.

oh, and please show me evidence and proof that "The entire 9/11 truth movement does know and has known about NPT for quite some time"

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
All you have left is your opinionated, sad little excuse that the 9/11 truth movement won't accept NPT is because of denial.

no, i've presented far more than just that... so stop lying.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Instead of making up excuses due to your lack of real research,

PKB bonez, PKB.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
why don't you contact some of the heads of the 9/11 truth organizations and ask why they won't accept NPT or why NPT is banned from being discussed and see what they say. Then you can tell everyone yourself the same thing I've been saying, you have no physical, tangible, verifiable evidence.

except what i've presented proves otherwise as any objective person can verify from my postings.

but what does one have to do with the other?

your reasoning is beyond illogical.

why would I bother contacting shills, disinfo agents and ignorant intellectual know-nothings or mental midgets to validate what they're in denial of or refuse to admit and objectively research?

Most are as clueless and biased as you are.

thats almost like asking dick cheney to explain his role in the planning of 911.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
All you have is your OPINION of what's going on in those videos. Your opinion is not fact and it is not evidence. You have a real problem separating fact from opinion. You have tons of opinions, but not a single factual piece of evidence, period.

whats going on and what ANYONE with a brain can see if they're unbiased, objective and honest, is clear evidence of fakery.

that you claim the fakery is an opinion, is YOUR OPINION and ignores the actual evidence.

docs like SC present an argument supported by facts, science and visual evidence that proves far beyond a doubt the live footage contains fakery.

if this were just an opinion, you be able to present a line by line counter-argument showing exactly how and where the evidence, facts, science and their argument are wrong.

you claim you have, and i can show evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Until you can comply with such a simple request, you are considered a con-artist sir.
I've been saying that about the NPT disinfo artists for a couple years now. You won't get any evidence out of him. All he can do is attack, call names, use profanity, and make long post after long post of blah blah blah.

POT KETTLE BLACK pal

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I can say with 110% certainty, we will never see any real evidence from the NPT disinfo cult.

except the facts prove otherwise.

oh well... back to the drawing board for you.

I'm just going to but in and make a small statement of not scientific fact but on the job fact.

Any plane, that model, can easily reach 500 without defects in the construction itself.

Max and min speeds are for the safe structural integrity/stalls of the aircraft model in question. That being said the damage to the aircraft after going pass the recommended max speed will be different for every aircraft. 1 little hairline crack in 1 screw in the wrong place could bring the whole thing down or not.

Arguing the speed point is a moot point because we do not know if there was damage to the aircraft as it entered the building because it was incinerated so there is no way to prove speed other than actual physics and geometry taking into account both the triangulation of exact position along with the angle of decent, the angle of the bank. Sense I have no desire to really do this someone else I'm sure can or already has.

Point is it can achieve 500 mph. Part of what we trained pilots about.

reply to post by Insolubrious


is the OP a complete idiot? WTF?! we all know it was explosives planted in the building that brought it down, and NORAD was practicing the same exercise that caused them to STAND DOWN TO REAL PLANES heading towards the world trade towers....YES 9/11 was a setup to take away our freedoms it was planned by our homeland...but seriously dude wtf?

we also know that REAL PEOPLE ON THE GROUND SAW THE PLANES HIT, it WAS NOT JUST A VIDEO the world saw. (one of them being a good friend of mine who has a high rise apartment, after first plane hit he went to his balcony and saw the other plane hit)

what else do we KNOW,,,entire families of people WHO WERE ON THE PLANES ALL DIED......they all boarded that flight, all the families knew it, all the families died...


i just can't believe some people, its conspiracy crazy's like you who give the real truthers a bad name.


do the world a favor and go teach retarded children, at least then it wont effect their discernment

[edit on 19-4-2009 by daersoulkeeper]