Ultimate 911 No Planer PROOF Page - Help Debunk

page: 13
4
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 






I never said there were no planes regarding the twin towers.


Then why are you so fast to discount testimony from amateurs, eyewitnesses on the ground including the very firemen who risked their lives to save lives?




I have no doubt that some of the people who were supposedly on those planes were intending to go to LA.


So you believe then they were at the airport?




You know, I had never seen this video before, but the moment I watched it I knew there was something “off” about it.



You don't really hear the explosion. That "hiss" noise is not the explosion. There is a delay in the sound of the plane which is normal.

The video is not tampered with at all. That the audio wouldn't match has very rational explanations. Audio and Video sync being off on my own camera has happened.

What you have here is a claim that the "audio" is off. Depends how the video was fed into the computer ect.




Why would they need to?



This is a bizaare question! One random person who stores his video is the one person who takes down the entire operation!

The same reason Chriss Angel wouldn't like someone filming his film crew. The illusion could be exposed!




I could be 100% right by chance. I don’t believe I am, but I could be.



Right about what?




Most “experts” have no idea what they are talking about.



Yet, it is logical to consult experts. Its not appealing to authority to consult with people who are familar with the material in question.




Reason should tell you that no one is to be trusted on these matters except YOU and your application of logic. The moment you feel as if you need to rely on someone else to deduce truth for you, you are !@#$ed.



You can still consult with those things after consulting with experts. Using your logic--- autopsies should be thrown out the window because those experts don't know what they are talking about and we should just believe whatever we want?





That’s a horrible way of going about things. If I’ve ever wanted to learn something, I’ve always taught myself. It’s the only way to do things.



History has to rely on opinions of others as does our court system. So I suppose you would want to see murder trials without DNA experts and the like.

In your world then OJ had no DNA matched evidence.





I choose option C. Since option C exists and is reasonable, what you are saying is a false dichotomy.



Your original quote was there was not "just real planes". Your own words don't leave to many options.




I’m not advocating my position, I’m questioning yours.



But your own questions show that your own sketpical thinking could deny 9/11 as a real event!



what cameras?



There is no good reason to suppose such an event there wouldn't be cameras!

Huge events attract eyewitnesses and cameras.





it has everything to do with intent, the intent is so overwhelming that you're missing the slight of hand



Right, but a single camera blows this out of the water. A single diplomat from either the Russian side or Chinese blows this right out of the water.

Do you think all these people have nothing better to do?




Well I’m saying that eye witness testimony is garbage unless the people are untainted and are all saying the same thing.



"Tainted?" What is your yardstick for such?




I never said that there weren’t any planes. It’s not as simple as that.



So all the plane parts were planted right in the middle of New York without anyone noticing?

So the damage that is consistent with a plane going into the WTC is just what then?




I wouldn’t know, I’m not them, but if I had to guess? Shell shocked? Doubting themselves? Scared of ridicule? Scared of being silenced?


Which anyone can use on your own testimony. But the problem here is your not well corroborated.





there is no un-doctored, untainted evidence that two 757s crashed into the twin towers. Absolutely none.


That isn't reality.





Those are all loaded questions Simply because someone is not telling the truth does not mean they are lying.



They would be in a court of law! But I forgot, you don't believe in lawyers or experts.

Maybe that is the problem. You actually don't know what good testimony is.






You made a claim that lots of people saw the plane impact the towers; I said that EVERYONE I had spoken said that they didn’t.



And weren't you at school that day? Did all your friends miss school as well? Where are all of these people nowadays? Posting on the net wthout protesting this in the open?

I see a lot of NEw Yorkers protesting the IRAQ WAR/9/11 TRUTH,

Its damned funny I don't see them rallying around your claim's. Guess what? Occam's Razor says your testimony is what is problematic. Not the testimony of the firefighers or the rest of the New Yorkers who see no need to hit the streets and proclaim there were NO PLANES!




Allegedly.



What are you talking about? The United States admitted to bombing the Chinese Embassy in Serbia, and the Chinese were angry about it.

That isn't "allegedly"





f the plane came over their heads at 500 mph, it would have impacted the building before they had time to turn around. He does not claim that he saw the plane impact the building. He says “it just impacted the building” (past tense) “it had just impacted the building” is what he probably meant to say, which means he probably did not see the impact.



It just says the plane past overhead. I don't know about you, but I have been to a lot of air shows and I can catch planes moving faster then 500 mph with a turn of my head.





That was not the first thing on everyone’s mind, most people though the first plane was an explosion until the news media told them otherwise; already you can see the testimony has been tainted chronologically.


People are not that gullible, that is a whole new level.

I take it you also deny UFO's and discount all the eyewitness testimony there as well? People can just say..."its all tainted!"









[edit on 29-10-2009 by talisman]




posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Believe me, I want someone to prove to me that those videos were real.

I don't want to think the "no plane" theory is possible but this video is definitely doctored.

But WHY?



Also check out September clues in its entirety.

How can there be flaws in every single video?




And this one is just really interesting.





[edit on 30-10-2009 by BlindNoMore2]

[edit on 30-10-2009 by BlindNoMore2]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by JPhish
 

Then why are you so fast to discount testimony from amateurs, eyewitnesses on the ground including the very firemen who risked their lives to save lives?
don’t refer to the firemen like that, you’re appealing to emotion now . . . like I said, eyewitnesses in a situation like this are near useless.


So you believe then they were at the airport?

Perhaps.


You don't really hear the explosion. That "hiss" noise is not the explosion.

You’re probably right, it’s not the explosion; it’s probably a sound file placed into the clip.


There is a delay in the sound of the plane which is normal.

There isn’t a delay in the explosion, and there is too much of a delay for the sound of the "jet"; not normal at all.


The video is not tampered with at all.

What you are claiming goes against basic laws of physics.


That the audio wouldn't match has very rational explanations. Audio and Video sync being off on my own camera has happened.
perhaps, but not because it was a live TV broadcast, 1/10 of a second differential is the most you’ll ever get 99% of the time because of the cameras.


What you have here is a claim that the "audio" is off. Depends how the video was fed into the computer ect.
No it’s not a claim; it’s a 100% truth that the audio is off. Are there other versions of this clip with sound to compare this one too?

This is a bizaare question! One random person who stores his video is the one person who takes down the entire operation!

You can bring video cameras to magic shows; they won’t do you any good. Regardless of whether it is live or on tape, your eyes are still deceived.

The same reason Chriss Angel wouldn't like someone filming his film crew. The illusion could be exposed!
pretty sure Criss Angel wouldn’t care at all if someone filmed his film crew, they have nothing to do with his tricks. (As far as I know!)

Right about what?

What I believe happened.

Yet, it is logical to consult experts. Its not appealing to authority to consult with people who are familar with the material in question.
I disagree; my own experiences have shown me that you’re better off diagnosing your own illnesses, representing yourself in court, fixing your own car, making your own food, etc.


You can still consult with those things after consulting with experts.

You can, but you don’t have to. In fact, you’re better off doing it yourself if you are capable.


Using your logic--- autopsies should be thrown out the window because those experts don't know what they are talking about and we should just believe whatever we want?

No, by my logic, if someone you loved has died and you believe there was foul play, you should be able to research how to perform autopsies and thereafter, legally be allowed to perform it yourself under supervision.


History has to rely on opinions of others as does our court system. So I suppose you would want to see murder trials without DNA experts and the like.

You do not understand. I’m saying that the wrong people are performing these tests, not that they shouldn’t be performed.


In your world then OJ had no DNA matched evidence.
nice straw man.


Your original quote was there was not "just real planes". Your own words don't leave to many options.
if you choose to see it that way that’s fine. But there are many options.


But your own questions show that your own sketpical thinking could deny 9/11 as a real event!
Again, that is a VALID slippery slop. MEANING I am correct and it is possible that 9-11 did not happen at all. This is not what I’m advocating, but if you digress enough you will eventually reach this TRUTH.


There is no good reason to suppose such an event there wouldn't be cameras! Huge events attract eyewitnesses and cameras.

When you believe you are possibly about to die, recording stuff on a video camera is the last thing on your mind.


Right, but a single camera blows this out of the water.

It really doesn’t. Most cameras don’t have the shutter speed capabilities to properly capture something moving at 500 mph that close. Nor do most people have the proper hand eye coordination and reflexes to capture such an event.


A single diplomat from either the Russian side or Chinese blows this right out of the water.
I think you’re a little naïve if you really believe that China or Russia is against the U.S.


Do you think all these people have nothing better to do?
most of them are incompetent, no matter what they do with their time; they’ll likely fail at it.


"Tainted?" What is your yardstick for such?

There are not clear-cut rules. You need to rely on logic to deduce whether something can be trusted. I can assure you though, if someone is asked the question “did you see the plane hit the building?” Whatever the answer is, it falls from a “poisonous tree”.

So all the plane parts were planted right in the middle of New York without anyone noticing?

What plane parts?

So the damage that is consistent with a plane going into the WTC is just what then?
the damage is not consistent at all; an aluminum plane would not penetrate a concrete reinforced steel frame building in the manner in which it did. It simply would not happen.

Which anyone can use on your own testimony. But the problem here is your not well corroborated.

Corroborated for what?


That isn't reality.

Yes it is; there is plenty of evidence to be had that is untainted. There simply is none that supports that two 757’s crashed into the towers.


They would be in a court of law! But I forgot, you don't believe in lawyers or experts.

You are absolutely positively wrong. No they wouldn’t be. I’m currently a litigation representative in a medical malpractice Pro Se lawsuit. Medical malpractice deals with people all the time that say they feel pain when they don’t or that truly believe they are sick with some illness but they are not. Yet they are not lying, they really believe this. Some conditions are psychosomatic, others can be contributed to Münchausen syndrome by proxy; there are lots of ways that someone can be lying yet believe they are telling the truth.
Simply because you believe you are telling the truth does not mean that you are. Law 101.


Maybe that is the problem. You actually don't know what good testimony is.
Nope; the problem is, I know that people are dumb. You give them too much credit.


And weren't you at school that day?

Yes I was.


Did all your friends miss school as well?

I wasn’t talking about high school kids.


Where are all of these people nowadays?
what people?


Posting on the net wthout protesting this in the open?

If you’re referring to my friends I was speaking of in my previous posts, and not the children I went to school with; they’re in there 30’s and have very busy lives. But as usual, you assume too much.


I see a lot of NEw Yorkers protesting the IRAQ WAR/9/11 TRUTH,

I don’t


Its damned funny I don't see them rallying around your claim's.

Why would they need to? appeal to majority (5)


Guess what? Occam's Razor says your testimony is what is problematic.

Good thing for me that Occam's razor is outdated.


Not the testimony of the firefighers or the rest of the New Yorkers who see no need to hit the streets and proclaim there were NO PLANES!

the emotions you are trying to invoke are completely illogical.


What are you talking about? The United States admitted to bombing the Chinese Embassy in Serbia, and the Chinese were angry about it.

The U.S also admittedly nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima in retaliation of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.


It just says the plane past overhead. I don't know about you, but I have been to a lot of air shows and I can catch planes moving faster then 500 mph with a turn of my head.
not at less than 1,500 feet. Not with tons of high rise buildings obscuring your view, not without pre-knowledge of the event. You won’ see a plane under those conditions nearly every time without an impractical amount of luck.


People are not that gullible, that is a whole new level.

It’s really not. Watch what Derron Brown does to people. Look what Criss angel does to people for crying out loud. He has an entire cult following of people who believe he really has super powers despite him saying all the time that he doesn’t!


I take it you also deny UFO's and discount all the eyewitness testimony there as well?
until you’ve seen an anti-gravitational vehicle for yourself, you’d be a fool to say they exist.


People can just say..."its all tainted!"
it is all tainted
There is a very strong possibility that aliens do not exist at all and that the government has planted all of these whistle blowers and duped these “eyewitnesses” to convince you that there are aliens.

[edit on 10/31/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



I want to point out, what is pure bias.

My POST




I have a friend who used to work in the WTC who saw the plane that day. Luckily for him he was on the ground near the building, but had a very good view of it. I don't use that as evidence, because it can't convince anyone.



your response




And he’s probably full of $#!^. It is nearly psychically impossible for anyone directly under the towers to have seen the first plane hit. Your friend is either superman, was staring up at the impact zone the whole time, or is lying.



Again, where did I say "directly under the towers"
and how is that you didn't ask for clarification?

How is "on the ground near the towers"
the same as "directly under the towers"

You jumped on it being most likely the lies of someone, without throwing caution to the wind.

It seems You are tainted by your own bias here.

Perhaps, you should be more skeptical of your ideas and thoughts then of other people.





don’t refer to the firemen like that, you’re appealing to emotion now . . . like I said, eyewitnesses in a situation like this are near useless.


Call it what you like. It doesn't change the fact, that the very men who risked their lives reported seeing a plane. Those are the facts.



Perhaps.


(regarding the passengers of the flights being at the airport)
So you believe it is only possible that the passengers were at the airports?





You’re probably right, it’s not the explosion; it’s probably a sound file placed into the clip.


I also recall you mentioning how the sound of the Jet continued after the impact.


Here is a video of an actual Jet Crash into the Lake and the sound of the Jet carries after the impact, more then 2 seconds:




What also is interesting is that the spash occurs without delay.

Now what also is interesting is you judged the distance of the Jennifer Spell's video without first finding out what kind of lense was used and the FOV. Different lenses can make distance difficult to judge.

Having said that, I don't disagree with your assertion on the distance in the Jennifer Spell's video, just that one must make attempts at being more careful when judging such things from a camera.

Sound anamolies occur in real footage as I have just demonstrated, you can clearly hear the sound of the Jet continuing after the impact into the water.





You can bring video cameras to magic shows; they won’t do you any good. Regardless of whether it is live or on tape, your eyes are still deceived.


Not true. There are a number of Chriss Angel stunts that are sloppy and an extra camera could reveal that the audience is "in on it."




I disagree; my own experiences have shown me that you’re better off diagnosing your own illnesses, representing yourself in court, fixing your own car, making your own food, etc.



Your conflating "able to do" with "presently held ability"

No-one has the time to become all things and be the experts in all fields. That is why we logically and most astutely support our own thoughts with the thoughts of experts in the field.

An important part of science is the "Peer Review Process" which has experts in the said field analyze the work, to separate the wheat from chaff.




Again, that is a VALID slippery slop. MEANING I am correct and it is possible that 9-11 did not happen at all. This is not what I’m advocating, but if you digress enough you will eventually reach this TRUTH.



The method your employing leads or could lead to that conclusion. Which is absurd! Any conspiracy that becomes to large, becomes very difficult to keep secret. Human nature is a good example of such.

But also, if a person denies any line of evidence then there can be this problem.





When you believe you are possibly about to die, recording stuff on a video camera is the last thing on your mind.




Not every person who was filming would have to think they were going to die. They could be a good distance, to not worry about such. Why would you even posit that? New York has many vantage points, some at safe distances.





It really doesn’t. Most cameras don’t have the shutter speed capabilities to properly capture something moving at 500 mph that close. Nor do most people have the proper hand eye coordination and reflexes to capture such an event.



I see a ton of people doing just that at AirShows. I don't see the problem. Some of the planes captured are travelling well in advance of 500 mph.





I think you’re a little naïve if you really believe that China or Russia is against the U.S.



You don't know history very well. Serbia and Russia are brother cultures and nations. From the Balkan intervention to the Nato Troops on the ground, and then finally the war over Kosovo, Russia is an enemy and you would be very, very naive to think otherwise. Remember it was mostly western powers that supported the Islamic expansion into the Balkans.

In past history, Russia has gone to war over Serbia and there are deep roots between the two which include the religious/cultural-history.

Just a few years after the United States attack on Serbia 9/11 happened, you would be really out of touch to think Russia would just sit back with such information, --information that the videos all lied and tv fakery with a "sleight of hand" was used.





most of them are incompetent, no matter what they do with their time; they’ll likely fail at it.


Many people can be incomptetent at their jobs but they could be excellent witnesses to an event.





What plane parts?



When you say this, are you honestly telling me that you never saw the pictures of the plane parts in New York?




the damage is not consistent at all; an aluminum plane would not penetrate a concrete reinforced steel frame building in the manner in which it did. It simply would not happen.



And what do you base this assumption on? You do realize that a B-25 bomber going much slower penetrated the Empire State Building?




Nope; the problem is, I know that people are dumb. You give them too much credit.



Dangerous thinking. So I take it you discount UFO eyewitness testimony because it is been tampered with? Even though some of that testimony goes pre-Gov as we know it??

Or how about a girl who is chased by a nut down the street, and swears he has a knife, she could be tainted because of violent movies? Perhaps, she only saw a toy plane wrapped in foil?

You can play all those games all you want, but they are not reasonable.

YOu have a Major City with an incredible amount of eyewitness testimony.

You have the burden of proof and you haven't proven anything but silly conjecture that people are dumb and tainted. These are things anyone can say for anything. It doesn't prove anything and it is not even rational.







EDIT:

More amateur Footage that day: (click youtube link, embedding not working)











[edit on 31-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by JPhish
 



I want to point out, what is pure bias.

Not biased at all, if he was within 1,000 feet of the building his story doesn’t add up. He doesn’t have to be directly under it; only near it, as you said he was. If 1,000 feet or closer to a building isn’t “near it” in your mind, then perhaps you should rephrase your statement.


Again, where did I say "directly under the towers"

You said he was on the ground near the towers; that translates in my mind to, “underneath the towers”. When I say “underneath” I assume he’s at least within a thousand feet of the building. If he’s not, then he wasn’t near them in my opinion and I suggest you word your story differently.


and how is that you didn't ask for clarification?
because it doesn’t matter what he claims he saw? I wasn’t trying to disprove his claims; his claims are useless before they even start.

I was trying to give you a lesson in reality. When something moving incredible fast goes over your head and you’re not ready for it, you will miss it, nearly every time. There are magic tricks that take advantage of this EXACT type of exploitation.


How is "on the ground near the towers"
the same as "directly under the towers"

If you are directly under the towers, you are on the ground near the towers. It’s pretty simple.


You jumped on it being most likely the lies of someone, without throwing caution to the wind.

I don’t need to be cautious because I know that I have a VERY slim chance of being wrong if he was truly on the ground near the towers as you claim he was.


It seems You are tainted by your own bias here.

Bias of what? That people are sensationalist liars by nature and I don’t bother believing their stories most of the time? Sure, if you want to call that bias that’s fine, I call it being realistic. Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.


Perhaps, you should be more skeptical of your ideas and thoughts then of other people.
what ideas?




Call it what you like. It doesn't change the fact, that the very men who risked their lives reported seeing a plane. Those are the facts.

You’re still attempting to appeal to emotion, but that’s fine . . . I never doubted that firemen reported seeing a plane. I doubted that anyone saw the plane impact the first tower. Nice straw man though.





(regarding the passengers of the flights being at the airport)
So you believe it is only possible that the passengers were at the airports?
some of them, yes.




I also recall you mentioning how the sound of the Jet continued after the impact.

Yes, I said it’s supposed to continue after impact, but not for over 2 seconds; which it does.




Here is a video of an actual Jet Crash into the Lake and the sound of the Jet carries after the impact, more then 2 seconds:



Not enough information about the video to make a proper assessment.




What also is interesting is that the spash occurs without delay.

Like I said, not enough information is known about the video.

But if I had to give a guess, I’d say the crash happens no more than 1,800 feet away from the boat.

At sea level sound travels faster (they’re obviously at sea)

When it is humid, sound travels faster (a man can be seen with a baseball cap on so we can assume it is not winter).

All of these factors are unavailable to us regarding this video, so it’s rather useless.



Now what also is interesting is you judged the distance of the Jennifer Spell's video without first finding out what kind of lense was used and the FOV.

Different lenses can make distance difficult to judge.

I said at least 2,000 feet. I’m fairly confident that she was further away than that.



Having said that, I don't disagree with your assertion on the distance in the Jennifer Spell's video, just that one must make attempts at being more careful when judging such things from a camera.

I’m aware of these factors.



Sound anamolies occur in real footage as I have just demonstrated, you can clearly hear the sound of the Jet continuing after the impact into the water.

I already stated that you’re supposed to continue to hear the air disturbance from the plane after impact; just that it shouldn’t last as long as it did.

Not enough is known about the airplane “splash” video.



Not true. There are a number of Chriss Angel stunts that are sloppy and an extra camera could reveal that the audience is "in on it."
the audience isn’t in on it . . . one or two people may be for some of the tricks, but the whole audience is not in on it.



Your conflating "able to do" with "presently held ability"

No-one has the time to become all things and be the experts in all fields.

Yes they do; because our educational system is terrible, people are legally unable to.



That is why we logically and most astutely support our own thoughts with the thoughts of experts in the field.

You obviously have never had to deal with incompetent “professionals” before. TRUST ME there is a lot of them. I take what they say with a grain of salt.



An important part of science is the "Peer Review Process" which has experts in the said field analyze the work, to separate the wheat from chaff.
This is relevant how??



The method your employing leads or could lead to that conclusion. Which is absurd!
it’s not absurd at all, it’s completely logical.



Any conspiracy that becomes to large, becomes very difficult to keep secret.

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed”
-Adolf Hitler



Human nature is a good example of such.
of what?



But also, if a person denies any line of evidence then there can be this problem.
denies what line of evidence? What problem?



Not every person who was filming would have to think they were going to die. They could be a good distance, to not worry about such. Why would you even posit that? New York has many vantage points, some at safe distances.

I think you’re over estimating just how many people have cameras able to capture such an event, a vantage point to capture such an event, or the obscene amount of luck needed to capture such an event. But like I said, I think that filming this was the last thing on most people’s minds.



I see a ton of people doing just that at AirShows. I don't see the problem. Some of the planes captured are travelling well in advance of 500 mph.

You bring cameras capable of capturing such things to an air show. You expect to see jets at an air show. You know where the jets are coming from at an air show. Planes are flying farther away at an air show. It’s like comparing apples to oranges in my opinion . . .


You don't know history very well.

I’m actually a bit of a history buff.



Russia is an enemy and you would be very, very naive to think otherwise.

Ok, your opinion, my opinion, we can leave it at that. I disagree with you 100 percent.



Just a few years after the United States attack on Serbia 9/11 happened, you would be really out of touch to think Russia would just sit back with such information, -- information that the videos all lied and tv fakery with a "sleight of hand" was used.

If you believe that Russia and the U.S. are enemies you would be. But I don’t believe they are enemies.



Many people can be incompetent at their jobs but they could be excellent witnesses to an event.
Yes, in theory. But realistically? In most cases? No.



When you say this, are you honestly telling me that you never saw the pictures of the plane parts in New York?

I didn’t say I’ve never seen these photographs that purportedly show plane parts from 757’s that crashed into the trade centers in New York. I asked you what plane parts? Which* pictures? Show me the ones you’re referring to.


And what do you base this assumption on? You do realize that a B-25 bomber going much slower penetrated the Empire State Building?

Yes I am, and the damage was consistent with that of a B-25 bombers shaft and engines narrowly making it into the building in-between two main vertical steel beams. No steel was sliced or broken off. The wings of the plane also sheered off.



Dangerous thinking. So I take it you discount UFO eyewitness testimony because it is been tampered with?

yes




Even though some of that testimony goes pre-Gov as we know it??
what testimony would you be referring to?



Or how about a girl who is chased by a nut down the street, and swears he has a knife, she could be tainted because of violent movies?

Very much so



Perhaps, she only saw a toy plane wrapped in foil?
exactly



You can play all those games all you want, but they are not reasonable.
yes they are actually; people will see what they expect to see or what they are predisposed to see.



YOu have a Major City with an incredible amount of eyewitness testimony.
just a larger audience



You have the burden of proof and you haven't proven anything but silly conjecture that people are dumb and tainted.
I’ve proven that the one video you presented has flawed audio.



These are things anyone can say for anything. It doesn't prove anything and it is not even rational.
like I said, I’ve proven that the one video you presented as “amateur evidence” is fallacious. The audio is inconsistent with reality.

[edit on 11/2/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
EDIT:

More amateur Footage that day: (click youtube link, embedding not working)




1. Not amateur footage
2. Fallacious



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 







Not biased at all, if he was within 1,000 feet of the building his story doesn’t add up. He doesn’t have to be directly under it; only near it, as you said he was. If 1,000 feet or closer to a building isn’t “near it” in your mind, then perhaps you should rephrase your statement.


I disagree. I have seen enough air shows in my life to know that you can watch a fast plane fly by. Its been done many times, by many different people.

The point I was making, is before assuming he was "directly under the towers" is that you should have clarified his position.





I was trying to give you a lesson in reality. When something moving incredible fast goes over your head and you’re not ready for it, you will miss it, nearly every time. There are magic tricks that take advantage of this EXACT type of exploitation.



This is not true. There have been many times, unexpectedly, people have run from fast moving planes or drones in war time. If something is making a large sound and you happen to be facing the direction its coming in, and its moving fast, there is no reason not to see it.




If you are directly under the towers, you are on the ground near the towers. It’s pretty simple.


If I was going to meet my friend, and I told him/her that I was near the Empire State Building, that does not mean I am right *At* the Empire State Building.


Again, if you were confused by the wording, or they seemed ambigious, you should've sought an explanation first, but it shows that you were biased and only wanting to push this idea so you ran with what you wanted to think.




I don’t need to be cautious because I know that I have a VERY slim chance of being wrong if he was truly on the ground near the towers as you claim he was.



Why? Because, someone can't see a fast moving object? That is ludicrous. Listen, I have been at hockey games where I have had to in a moments notice and unexpectedly had to duck from very fast moving hockey pucks that are very difficult to see. The distance doesn't give you much time.

It happens a lot.





Bias of what? That people are sensationalist liars by nature and I don’t bother believing their stories most of the time? Sure, if you want to call that bias that’s fine, I call it being realistic. Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.



Here is the problem. You have no real theory or reasonable inference that you could possibly use, to make a case for almost anything.

If that is your view, then maybe 9/11 not happening might be a real possibility in your "realistic world." Maybe, only the Towers fell that day and no-one died because everyone has nothing better to do then just lie.





what ideas?


(response to my question on you being skeptical of your own ideas)

These short quick answers, when you fully know what I am talking about, surely doesn't help your cause.

If you don't know what your own "ideas" are, then how can I assist you?





You’re still attempting to appeal to emotion, but that’s fine . . . I never doubted that firemen reported seeing a plane. I doubted that anyone saw the plane impact the first tower. Nice straw man though.



Now your contradicting something you said earlier. You don't really believe anyone could've seen the Plane "close" to the Towers, and yet the very firemen who were "close to the Towers" were reporting seeing the Plane and some of them saw the impact of the Plane.





some of them, yes.


So you believe there were *REAL FLIGHTS?*

Flight 11 and Flight 175?




Not enough information about the video to make a proper assessment.


There is enough information to say there is an anomaly that is very similar to the other video.

You don't have to know all the rules of chess to figure out how some of the pieces might move.

Video's have anomalous things, but this does nothing to suggest a video is fake.






Like I said, not enough information is known about the video. But if I had to give a guess, I’d say the crash happens no more than 1,800 feet away from the boat. At sea level sound travels faster (they’re obviously at sea) When it is humid, sound travels faster (a man can be seen with a baseball cap on so we can assume it is not winter). All of these factors are unavailable to us regarding this video, so it’s rather useless.



None of what you said, is going to make a large difference. What we are seeing, is a piece of footage that has some of the same types of things occuring in it that some find suspicious.

I see no reason at all to say Jennifer Spell's Video is suspicious. Its a bad shot, a shaky camera and it barely gets the impact.

I mean, is that what you honestly think? All these actors and actresses and a bunch of CGI people put all of this together to fake this all? They had nothing better to do?

That is just absurd!




I said at least 2,000 feet. I’m fairly confident that she was further away than that.



You know there are the little things, that are very suggestive that the video is real.

Take for example the white flash that appears for a brief second as the Plane Enters the building.




There is a close up for you.

Compared with:




That white flash is the same flash that occurs for a brief split second in the "OFFICIAL VIDEO"S"

Why would they insert such a thing?

A similar "FLASH" occurs in this older video of a plane going into a concrete building.




Now, granted the very quick split second flash occurs more inward, but I believe this has to do with the type of material the plane was penetrating. Here solid concrete, with the Towers, Steel.


That flash seems to real to be an effect(possibly static discharge), and it is seen in different video's where it is barely noticeable unless one really looks for it.




the audience isn’t in on it . . . one or two people may be for some of the tricks, but the whole audience is not in on it.


Floating from one building to another, walking on water, of course the audience is "in on it."

There are some video's where it is obvious the audience is "in on it" and mistakes are made.





You obviously have never had to deal with incompetent “professionals” before. TRUST ME there is a lot of them. I take what they say with a grain of salt.



I think you misunderstand what I am saying and what we try and do when we look for reasonable conclusions.

First and foremost, this is inductive reasoning. Its not perfect, but presently it is the best we have. While experts can be wrong, so can the average person.

The difference is that when one builds a hypothesis, one looks to see if that hypothesis can be reasonable held and that there might be "good reasons" for that hypothesis to be held.

When one points to experts in the field, one is merely giving some "good reasons" to suppose that there is "good reasons" available for one to believe a certain way.

I mean, if you want to believe whatever you want to believe, then go ahead.



This is relevant how??


It shows that when one wants a theory to be taken seriously, one looks to other experts in the field and not just any "joe off the street"

Are you now, at this point arguing against Peer Review? The very process which consults other experts seems at odd's with your worldview.





it’s not absurd at all, it’s completely logical.



It isn't very reasonable to hold to a method that in the end could be used to conclude that 9/11 didn't happen.





“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed” -Adolf Hitler


And he failed. AS does the idea that a tremendous amount of people are going to having nothing better to do then fake a bunch of video's for the news and amateurs. A conspiracy that large can't work.





of what?



Human Nature is a good example of "gossip"

Haven't you noticed this yet?




denies what line of evidence? What problem?


The evidence that Planes slammed into the Trade Towers.

EVerything you say to refute this, can be turned around to refute 9/11 from even happening.

You have nothing to believe but what you want to believe.




I think you’re over estimating just how many people have cameras able to capture such an event, a vantage point to capture such an event, or the obscene amount of luck needed to capture such an event. But like I said, I think that filming this was the last thing on most people’s minds.


Say's only you.

People have caught all kinds of tragedies on video.

And your idea about "luck" capturing the event is incorrect.

EVeryone's attention would be turned toward the Towers after the first strike.





You bring cameras capable of capturing such things to an air show. You expect to see jets at an air show. You know where the jets are coming from at an air show. Planes are flying farther away at an air show. It’s like comparing apples to oranges in my opinion . . .
.


Sorry it isn't. The Air shows sometimes have quick unexpected moves or accidents.

Also to refute what your saying:

There was a Plane Crash unexpected in Chicago in 1979. Someone just happened to have a camera and caught it the image of the plane in the air as it lost controlled.

univers-cite.qc.ca...







[edit on 3-11-2009 by talisman]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 





I’m actually a bit of a history buff.


You certainly are not up on your Russian/Serbian History.




I didn’t say I’ve never seen these photographs that purportedly show plane parts from 757’s that crashed into the trade centers in New York. I asked you what plane parts? Which* pictures? Show me the ones you’re referring to.



I thnk they are publically available for all to see. You mean you haven't see them so your asking to see them now? You haven't seen them up and until now?





Yes I am, and the damage was consistent with that of a B-25 bombers shaft and engines narrowly making it into the building in-between two main vertical steel beams. No steel was sliced or broken off. The wings of the plane also sheered off.



The Engine went Right through the Front and out the Back. The plane also was travelling much slower then the ones on 9/11.

Planes can penetrate buildings.





yes



regarding Ufo's.

So Ufo's to you is another gov plot?



what testimony would you be referring to?


Testimony that comes to us through Art.




I’ve proven that the one video you presented has flawed audio.



No, it failed. I showed a video with a similar audio. If you look hard enough you will see only what you want to see.

As for the other amateur footage I presented, you just asserting its fake doesn't make it so.



As for the Girl being chased. I take it the next time a girl comes crying for help,. you would doubt her story because she might be tainted by violent movies and that a lot of people can't be trusted and lie?



[edit on 3-11-2009 by talisman]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by JPhish
 

I disagree. I have seen enough air shows in my life to know that you can watch a fast plane fly by. Its been done many times, by many different people.

Of course you can watch a fast plane fly by, I never said you couldn’t. Straw man..



The point I was making, is before assuming he was "directly under the towers" is that you should have clarified his position.

Why should I clarify his position? I already told you his testimony is worthless. Not to mention, as I already exclaimed . . .

If you are right under the towers, you are on the ground near the towers. Was he not on the ground near the towers? If he was not under the towers, he was not on the ground near them.


This is not true. There have been many times, unexpectedly, people have run from fast moving planes or drones in war time. If something is making a large sound and you happen to be facing the direction its coming in, and its moving fast, there is no reason not to see it.
well if it’s making noise and you see it coming, you’re ready for it. So you are agreeing with me and what I said is true. Thanks.


If I was going to meet my friend, and I told him/her that I was near the Empire State Building, that does not mean I am right *At* the Empire State Building.

No, but it almost always means you can see it. And if you are on the streets in the city, you have to be very, very, close to a building to be able to see it because other buildings obscure your view. You’ve pretty much just proved that I was not mistaken . . . Nice one.


Again, if you were confused by the wording, or they seemed ambigious, you should've sought an explanation first,
nope, you just proved my case that your wording was not ambiguous and that I made the proper assessment of where your friend was based on the information you gave me.



but it shows that you were biased and only wanting to push this idea so you ran with what you wanted to think.
ran with what idea? Based on the information you presented, your friend was under the towers.



Why? Because, someone can't see a fast moving object?

It’s not as simple as that.




That is ludicrous.

In your oipinion.

Listen, I have been at hockey games where I have had to in a moments notice and unexpectedly had to duck from very fast moving hockey pucks that are very difficult to see. The distance doesn't give you much time. It happens a lot.

An object heading strait towards you is not the same as an object flying over your head.



Here is the problem. You have no real theory or reasonable inference that you could possibly use, to make a case for almost anything.

Oh yes I do. I have my own personal inferences which I trust with varying degrees of certainty.



If that is your view, then maybe 9/11 not happening might be a real possibility in your "realistic world." Maybe, only the Towers fell that day and no-one died because everyone has nothing better to do then just lie.
that’s a straw man; I never said that 9-11 didn’t happen.



These short quick answers, when you fully know what I am talking about, surely doesn't help your cause.

What cause is that? You apparently have absolutely no idea what you’re even talking about.



If you don't know what your own "ideas" are, then how can I assist you?
you don’t know my ideas, which is why it’s ironic you think I am wrong.

I do know what you believe though. I know you believe the footage of 9-11 is real when it is fallacious.

I know the speed of sound at 76 degrees Fahrenheit, at 1,000 feet above sea level is 1,330 feet per second. I know that the video you showed me goes against the laws of physics. I know that you are wrong.



Now your contradicting something you said earlier. You don't really believe anyone could've seen the Plane "close" to the Towers, and yet the very firemen who were "close to the Towers" were reporting seeing the Plane and some of them saw the impact of the Plane.
I said the first plane. Read more carefully.



So you believe there were *REAL FLIGHTS?*

Flight 11 and Flight 175?

It’s not that simple.



There is enough information to say there is an anamoly that is very similar to the other video.
it’s only an anomaly at roughly 1,000 feet above sea level when it’s 75 degrees Celsius.



You don't have to know all the rules of chess to figure out how some of the pieces might move.
false analogy, you need to be able to differentiate the pieces.



Video's have anamolous things, but this does nothing to suggest a video is fake.
I didn’t say it meant the video was faked %100, I said that the video is fallacious and does not follow the LAWS of physics which may mean the video is faked.



None of what you said, is going to make a large difference. What we are seeing, is a piece of footage that has some of the same types of things occuring in it that some find suspicious.
it’s unknown what the source of the video is, how far away the plane is, and what the temperature/density of the air is. These things all make a big difference.



I see no reason at all to say Jennifer Spell's Video is suspicious.

It 100% goes against the laws of psychics. Speed does not travel instantaneously with those conditions. There’s no debate it’s a scientific law. 100% not realistic.



Its a bad shot, a shaky camera and it barely gets the impact.
the camera being shaky of barely catching the impact doesn’t make sound move faster than it psychically can.



I mean, is that what you honestly think? All these actors and actresses and a bunch of CGI people put all of this together to fake this all?

They had nothing better to do?

That is just absurd!

Appeal to ridicule.



You know there are the little things, that are very suggestive that the video is real.

Take for example the white flash that appears for a brief second as the Plane Enters the building.
except that the sound in the video is moving faster than sound actually can. Which means that the sound is not authentic; which means it is not an “original” video.







There is a close up for you.


That white flash is the same flash that occurs for a brief split second in the "OFFICIAL VIDEO"S"

It’s one of the few things that actually happened in real life in my opinion.



Why would they insert such a thing?
um they didn’t?



A similar "FLASH" occurs in this older video of a plane going into a concrete building.

not even close in my opinion.



Now, granted the very quick split second flash occurs more inward, but I believe this has to do with the type of material the plane was penetrating. Here solid concrete, with the Towers, Steel.
but both videos do not show a plane penetrating anything . . .



That flash seems to real to be an effect, and it is seen in different video's where it is barely noticeable unless one really looks for it.
yes I’m fairly certain it is real. The same can not be said for the planes.



Floating from one building to another, walking on water, of course the audience is "in on it."
do you know how he does the trick?



There are some video's where it is obvious the audience is "in on it" and mistakes are made.
by mistakes do you mean misdirection?




While the educational system needs improving to be sure, there is something to be said for what one can do presently with regards to present day activities and what "could" or "possibly" achieve and I don't think we should be conflating those different things.

People could achieve a lot more if there wasn’t an educational system.



I mean, if you want to believe whatever you want to believe, then go ahead.

I don’t believe what I want to, I believe what makes sense. If an “expert” told you something that goes against common sense and scientific laws would you believe them? I think not. So why on earth would you believe that an aluminum alloy plane can penetrate aconcrete reinforced steel frame building???



It shows that when one wants a theory to be taken seriously, one looks to other experts in the field and not just any "joe off the street"

I don’t need my theory to be taken seriously. Anyone with an iota of free thinking ability will realize what I’ve realized given enough time.



Are you now, at this point arguing against Peer Review? The very process which consults other experts seems at odd's with your worldview.
I’m not arguing against peer review;

I’m saying it isn’t necessary in regards to what I’m talking about. Peer review is for when you are introducing a new idea.

The speed of sound.

Newton’s terrestrial laws.

Basic laws of physics that say it is impossible for an aluminum plane to penetrate a concrete reinforced steel frame building, make an explosion and then have a witness in excess of 2,000 feet away hear the explosion the moment they see it; is not up for peer review.

They are truths and they are not debatable.

[edit on 11/4/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   


It isn't very reasonable to hold to a method that in the end could be used to conclude that 9/11 didn't happen.
yes it is; in fact, it’s more reasonable than trying to break the laws of physics.



And he failed. AS does the idea that a tremendous amount of people are going to having nothing better to do then fake a bunch of video's for the news and amateurs. A conspiracy that large can't work.
What do you mean he failed? Russia and its allies (including the U.S.) proved that he was right. Russia and its allies told a lie so big that everyone believed it. They made the entire world belie the over 5 million Jews were gassed to death at a place called Auschwitz. In the 60’s the number was recalculated to 4 million, in the 80’s down to 3 million and recently the number is nearly below 1 million. They made up over 4 million imaginary people and blamed Germany for killing them. They even made outrageous claims that they turned Jews into soap. People believed this crap because the lie was big enough and told often enough. Hitler was right.



Human Nature is a good example of "gossip"

Haven't you noticed this yet?

Your sentence doesn’t make grammatical sense. Gossip might be a good example of Human Nature, but it can’t be the other way around.



denies what line of evidence? What problem?




The evidence that Planes slammed into the Trade Towers.

There is no evidence that those planes crashed into the trade centers. In fact, the only evidence that can be readily tested and observed all points to the fact that those planes did not penetrate those buildings. Considering readily observed and testable evidence is the only good evidence. It’s fair to say that there is no evidence that those planes hit those towers.



EVerything you say to refute this, can be turned around to refute 9/11 from even happening.
which is completely valid reasoning, so you’re rather imprudent for continuing to bring it up.




You have nothing to believe but what you want to believe.
yes, I and I choose to believe in science, not “eyewitness testimony”. If the whole world told you the world was flat would you believe them? No? Then why on earth would you believe that a concrete reinforced steel building can be penetrated by an aluminum alloy plane when it goes against all the laws of physics?


Say's only you.

People have caught all kinds of tragedies on video.
straw man i never said you couldn't catch a tragedy on video.


And your idea about "luck" capturing the event is incorrect.

bare assertion


EVeryone's attention would be turned toward the Towers after the first strike.

100% wrong, the majority of people had their attention on their TV sets.


Sorry it isn't. The Air shows sometimes have quick unexpected moves or accidents.

Also to refute what your saying:

There was a Plane Crash unexpected in Chicago in 1979. Someone just happened to have a camera and caught it the image of the plane in the air as it lost controlled.

univers-cite.qc.ca...


That “crash” occurred in an open area, not a high-rise building city with skyscrapers obscuring your view. Not even comparable. Use logic, please.


[edit on 11/4/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


That "Dot" has been bugging me for ages. It's in so many different videos, and is in differnt places around the towers.

I know there was a white helicoptor around the towers at the time of the attacks or just after, but It's certainly not a helicoptor.

One theroy i have is that maybe its some kind of homeing becon/lazer/light that is aimed at the towers to guide the planes into there impact point. (If you go along with remote guided planes/missiles.)

But in reality I have no idead what it is.

It is in a hell of a lot of 911 videos though.

Can anyone shed some light on it. (no pun intened)



[edit on 4-11-2009 by Agent-ATS]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by JPhish
 

You certainly are not up on your Russian/Serbian History.

You believe what they write in history books, that’s your first mistake.



I thnk they are publically available for all to see. You mean you haven't see them so your asking to see them now? You haven't seen them up and until now?

Is English your second language? Seriously, I’m not trying to be mean, you have me wondering now. . . I just said . . .


Originally posted by JPhish
I didn’t say I’ve never seen these photographs that purportedly show plane parts from 757’s that crashed into the trade centers in New York. I asked you what plane parts? Which* pictures? Show me the ones you’re referring to.



Originally posted by talisman
The Engine went Right through the Front and out the Back. The plane also was travelling much slower then the ones on 9/11.
it’s expected for the engine to do that, since the engines are the heaviest parts on a plane.


Planes can penetrate buildings.

Yeah and some apples are red. Your logic is failing.


regarding Ufo's.

So Ufo's to you is another gov plot?
could be



Testimony that comes to us through Art.
what art?



No, it failed. I showed a video with a similar audio. If you look hard enough you will see only what you want to see.

You can’t be serious. The video you showed could be 100% fake too. You obviously have no grasp of what a reliable “constant” is in a science experiment. You have to find a video that you know is not tampered with before you can prove me wrong. Until then, I am 100% right.



As for the other amateur footage I presented, you just asserting its fake doesn't make it so.
nope, I know it's not amateur footage.

but at this point, until you admit that the speed of sound is 1,300 feet per second, at 1,000 feet above sea level, at 75 degrees Fahrenheit and the Jennifer Spell video you presented goes against the laws of physics, I’m no longer going to entertain your ignorance.



As for the Girl being chased. I take it the next time a girl comes crying for help,. you would doubt her story because she might be tainted by violent movies and that a lot of people can't be trusted and lie?
That’s a loaded question because it depends on the circumstances.

[edit on 11/4/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 






Of course you can watch a fast plane fly by, I never said you couldn’t. Straw man..


Good! Now you agree. So people could've seen the planes on 9/11 fly by.





Why should I clarify his position? I already told you his testimony is worthless. Not to mention, as I already exclaimed . . .

If you are right under the towers, you are on the ground near the towers. Was he not on the ground near the towers? If he was not under the towers, he was not on the ground near them.



You said "Directly Under the Towers." That is clearly not the same as "Near" the Towers.

I never said he was "At" the Towers. He was "Near" the Towers, two different things. Again, you could've asked for clairification but you didn't bother.







well if it’s making noise and you see it coming, you’re ready for it. So you are agreeing with me and what I said is true. Thanks.


Yes, and there are times when people "are not ready" for it. Like in times of war etc. There are also days, where fast moving-unexpected war planes fly over a city unannounced. That happens as well.





No, but it almost always means you can see it. And if you are on the streets in the city, you have to be very, very, close to a building to be able to see it because other buildings obscure your view. You’ve pretty much just proved that I was not mistaken . . . Nice one.



Depends on how tall the other building is, exactly where you are and how familar you are with the buildings in question. I don't see anything you have said here that makes much of a case. The Naudet Footage which you no doubt will think was doctored at least shows that the Towers were visible from the ground, and they would be for some time depending on your direction of travel.





nope, you just proved my case that your wording was not ambiguous and that I made the proper assessment of where your friend was based on the information you gave me.


I only stated that if the words "near" were problematic, then you could've sought clarification.

Its that simple. Most people understand the difference between "near" or "at".

Near Madison Gardens as opposed to At the Gardens...



ran with what idea? Based on the information you presented, your friend was under the towers.


He was "near" not "at" the towers. You should be able to understand this simple fact.





An object heading strait towards you is not the same as an object flying over your head.



Right, but people can see incredibley fast shooting stars that are not announced! In my referene to "hockey" there are times when a puck can fly "over your head" or "toward your head". If you have your head turned, such can happen.




that’s a straw man; I never said that 9-11 didn’t happen.



Sorry, but that is not a straw man. It is where you method leads.






I know the speed of sound at 76 degrees Fahrenheit, at 1,000 feet above sea level is 1,330 feet per second. I know that the video you showed me goes against the laws of physics. I know that you are wrong.


I recall you saying you don't believe in "experts" yet now you are relying on their experiments! So which is it?
Also, the video of the sound is "over water and through the air" as opposed to "in the water."





I said the first plane. Read more carefully.



So you do believe that the firemen saw the plane fly into the South Tower?




It’s not that simple.



Well Flight 11 and Flight 175 did exist.





I didn’t say it meant the video was faked %100, I said that the video is fallacious and does not follow the LAWS of physics which may mean the video is faked.


I don't see the distinction. You can't offer any rational explanation as to how the military could do something like this, somehow they knew when all these amateurs would be filming, then stop people from talking and uploading things to the web.

If that convinces you, fine.





it’s unknown what the source of the video is, how far away the plane is, and what the temperature/density of the air is. These things all make a big difference.


Well, its not that unknown. It was a hot day, not humid in the sun on Sept-1995, much cooler by the lake (the lake in the video is Ontario which is a very cool lake even in summer).

Probably a bit warmer then Sept 11 but by the lake it would have been cooler.





It 100% goes against the laws of psychics. Speed does not travel instantaneously with those conditions. There’s no debate it’s a scientific law. 100% not realistic.



Yes, but your method rejects "experts" so I don't understand you talking about "Scientific Laws". Perhaps, those "laws" are products of your "tainted" mind? How would I know?





except that the sound in the video is moving faster than sound actually can. Which means that the sound is not authentic; which means it is not an “original” video.


sound mismatching happens, not just in these video's but in others as well. Also, the point your missing is that the "HISS" in the video, is NOT the explosion. I don't hear the explosion so I don't know what your on about.




but both videos do not show a plane penetrating anything . . .



Eh? The flighter Jet penetrated the concrete wall. Do you deny this?




yes I’m fairly certain it is real. The same can not be said for the planes.



So they put a split second flash on a fake plane in different video's but forgot to do the sound properly?? Well, again, this is not very convincing, but if it convinces you then go for it!




do you know how he does the trick?






Of course, the audience is "in on it" as they would have easily seen the crane!




by mistakes do you mean misdirection?



No I mean mistakes.




People could achieve a lot more if there wasn’t an educational system.


Yet you quote scientific laws.





I don’t believe what I want to, I believe what makes sense. If an “expert” told you something that goes against common sense and scientific laws would you believe them? I think not. So why on earth would you believe that an aluminum alloy plane can penetrate aconcrete reinforced steel frame building???


If it really did contradict known laws, then I would agree with you. But it would have to be a major thing. What your talking about there, shows certain misunderstadings.


--on each wing you have 2 tons engines and are built of very strong alloys and they also use Titanium.

Also the plane itself is not "SOFT ALUMINIUM" It is very strong.

Structural steel Ultimate strength = 400 MPa
High strength steel Ultimate strength = 760 MPa

Aluminum alloy Ultimate strength = 455 MPa
en.wikipedia.org...

Also see this to just see how strong it is
en.wikipedia.org...



Aluminium is used extensively in modern aircraft due to its high strength to weight ratio.



You can also see this old picture of the damage done to a Warship from a plane.
en.wikipedia.org...

Remember, when the wings hit the buildings, it is the connections that have to fail, not the columns of steel.

The calculations are done here on ATS
www.abovetopsecret.com...






I’m not arguing against peer review; I’m saying it isn’t necessary in regards to what I’m talking about. Peer review is for when you are introducing a new idea.



Sure you are. Your method is against experts and anything can be "tainted." Perhaps, what you think are "laws" might only be "make believe" in your mind, made by the suggestion of a military that keeps us daydreaming. So, what need for Peer Review then?













[edit on 4-11-2009 by talisman]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 






You believe what they write in history books, that’s your first mistake.




Why are you a history buff, if you don't believe anything in history books? Or are you saying, you only believe in history books that you want to believe in?

Do you have any evidence to counter what I said about Russia and Serbia? Or are you left to the whims of whatever you want to say and believe without any reason or evidence?













[edit on 5-11-2009 by talisman]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
absent aircraft

this series defends no planes on 911



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


Here is a better explanation as to why "September Clues" is a bunch of bunk:


Google Video Link





top topics
 
4
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join