What could this Be?? 911 - Second Strike Footage... Wing Disapears

Originally posted by stucoles
It's such a shame this kind of thread/garbage gets so much attention whilst more informative, fact based and intelligent discussions about the the possible 911 truth goes on elsewhere. largely unnoticed.

[Link Removed]

S

I don't like post advertising and I’m pretty sure there is an ATS rule against it somewhere... if not there damn well should be...

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Though thank you for your support

Korg.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

This is the kind of flawed logic I just can't believe intelligent people swallow...

Have you heard yourself... Only one of the flights was impossible!!

If it was impossible then it shouldn't have happened and couldn't have happened... now since it was reported as happening and shown happening in the media that must mean using deduction that the media must be telling lies.... If they are telling lies then all bets are off on all media presented on all events as all events are linked to the impossible one.

Simple logic really...

Korg.

Maybe you misread. He said SHE thought only one was impossible.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

This is the kind of flawed logic I just can't believe intelligent people swallow...

Have you heard yourself... Only one of the flights was impossible!!

If it was impossible then it shouldn't have happened and couldn't have happened... now since it was reported as happening and shown happening in the media that must mean using deduction that the media must be telling lies.... If they are telling lies then all bets are off on all media presented on all events as all events are linked to the impossible one.

Simple logic really...

Korg.

Maybe you misread. He said SHE thought only one was impossible.

No I didn't but the flawed logic was in highlighting flawed logic as an argument against what was proposed...

Geeze, is that hard to understand where I am comming from?

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


No, but you are still assuming that Tiffany is right in that regard. Since she has been opposed by people who "actually fly planes," wouldn't it seem logical to take her conclusion with a grain of salt? IF she is right, then yes, it throws the whole of 9/11 planes into question. But if she is wrong, which is far more likely considering eyewitness testimony and recovered plane part evidence, then that's all there is to it. What Tiffany tries to say is that if you exceed the design specs on a plane it will instantly fall apart and become impossible to fly. Others say that the design specs are made for comfortability of the passengers and maximum safety/lifetime of the airplane. The airplane can exceed those specs by a variable amount and be fine.

The original point of this thread has been whether the plane in the video was real or not. It essentially still is.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Here we go with comprehension ability again.. he clearly stated "Even Tiffany agrees that only one of the flights was impossible"

let me explain how that should be comprehended...

He was NOT saying that only one flight was impossible.. He was stating that even the most staunch conspiracy nut will agree that the other flight was possible and that she has admitted that only the 2nd plane was allegedly "impossible"

He was not saying that he agreed.. So to immediatly jump up and point out that if one is impossible.. then it must mean that your theory is correct..

Sorry for the confusion.... but it was all yours.

Have a good day!

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by Kilber


Interesting how the "Holograms'" wings damage the building on impact... Just saying...

check this....

Korg...

So anyone how took videos of the crash the MAGIC VIDEO EDITING FAIRIES tampered with them all Nearly died laughing there.

woah woah woah hold on guys. The f*ck are you guys doing?
Inter-dimensional space holes. Oh jesus christ what are you guys saying.
Want to know the real deal?
All I have to say, the video is messed up. Either the camera or the lens.
look at this video and you will notice that the wing doesn't "vanish"
www.youtube.com...
but thats because the camera is looking up.
However this video shows the plane slowly lifting its wing from a different angle which doesnt show on OP's video.
This proves that from an angle you will believe that the wing is vanishing but that happens when you are recording from far away.
www.youtube.com...

And please end this flame war.

Heres another shot from another video (The Obama deception)
These are simply reflections. The problem was bad quality

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

No, but you are still assuming that Tiffany is right in that regard. Since she has been opposed by people who "actually fly planes,"

I agree with Tiffany in that regard and Ironically so do other highly qualified pilots whom actually fly planes....

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


In other words, the argument is "I only listen to people who agree with my point of view on the impossibility of certain things." If something is even the slightest bit possible under the circumstances, then it must be considered possible. Trust me, it's a lot harder to prove an impossibility, because you have to show that every time the idea is tested, that it will fail. This is the only reason I still have an open mind about explosives in the towers. I think it is a possibility, albeit slim.

The way I see this going is:

Expert #1: It's impossible to fly like that. I couldn't.

Expert #2: It's very possible. I can do it, and anyone with some experience on a simulator could do it.

Arguer #1: See, no one can do it. Case and point.

Arguer #2: See, it must be possible. Case and point.

Until you prove that a Boeing 767 cannot do what was done on 9/11 under any circumstances, then your theory is moot. The possibility still stands.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by Kilber


Interesting how the "Holograms'" wings damage the building on impact... Just saying...

check this....

Korg...

So anyone how took videos of the crash the MAGIC VIDEO EDITING FAIRIES tampered with them all

Nearly died laughing there.

edit on 1-11-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

So I take it you refute video editing is possible then? Woow I am flabbergasted at how out of touch people seem to be with where things are at today!!!

Perhaps it's easy for me to understand this kind of tech cause I deal with it daily in my job, but I thought everyone understood what modern technology allows you to do.

Nothing and I mean nothing you see on TV or the internet in terms of video can you believed 100%. There are ways to make things appear exactly as you want them, with very little evidence that editing took place.

You should do some research it may shock you!!

Korg.

And whats with the over reaction on the laugh smiley? it's like the person whom laughs hardest at thier own jokes when no one around gets it??

so what gives??

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Your "experts" in aviation (a mere handful) compared to tens and tens of thousands of others who DISAGREE?

How about this...ever heard of Lord Kelvin? (Yes, THAT Kelvin. There's a temperature scale named after him). A man of science, an "expert" in a variety of fields, a physicist (such as physics were, in his day)....
...and, he said this:

Late in life, he resisted the new scientific revolution that was beginning, so different from the science he knew:

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." (1895)

www.todayinsci.com...

On science:

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."

When asked if he leaned toward the acceptance of any particular theory of gravitation: "No, no, no, I accept neither theory, I accept no theory of gravitation. Present science has no right to attempt to explain gravitation. We know nothing about it. We simply know nothing about it."

zapatopi.net...
This, from one of the most preeminent "experts" of his era.

In the early part of the 20th century, a great deal of "consensus" existed amongst many aviation and aerodynamic "experts" that no aircraft could be built to "break the sound barrier":

Also, some theoretical work had been carried out which suggested that the pressure exerted on a body as it neared Mach 1 would rise without limit, so that the drag would make it impossible to break through the barrier. This theory, however, turned out to rest of faulty assumptions that were not valid at transonic speeds.

www.daviddarling.info...

That is not a comprehensive list, by any means, of the fallacies and mistakes made and vehemently claimed as "fact" throughout history, only to be shown to be wrong.

One can do one's own research to find plenty of other examples....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Your "experts" in aviation (a mere handful) compared to tens and tens of thousands of others who DISAGREE?

Source? Where are your tens and tens of thousands professional testimony that it is possible and probable that newbie pilots could take a 767 beyond operational limits to strike with 100% accuracy??

Korg.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by stucoles
It's such a shame this kind of thread/garbage gets so much attention whilst more informative, fact based and intelligent discussions about the the possible 911 truth goes on elsewhere. largely unnoticed.

[Link Removed]

S

I don't like post advertising and I’m pretty sure there is an ATS rule against it somewhere... if not there damn well should be...

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Though thank you for your support

Korg.

edit on 1-11-2010 by Korg Trinity because: To add Sarcasm. as this is how it should be taken

Again you refuse to listen to fact. Therefore you are a debunker and anti-truther of the worst kind.
Fact.

S

What I can't understand about Anti-Truthers that claim they don't believe the OS...

So they believe that the collapse was not natural and that it was demolition right??

So if the WTC was planned demolition... why do they then think that it was Terrorist in 767's?? I mean surely to leave such a weak chain in a carefully laid plan would be foolish.

In other words, if you believe that the WTC was demolished it is then logical to think that the planes themselves were not of the origin the OS states.

It is simple deductive reasoning, and is totally unreasonable of someone to say they don’t believe the OS but they do believe it was terrorists in 767's.

So tell me exactly what the anti-thruthers actually do believe??

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Because the world is not black and white. We are not cut and dry people. Everything is not truther and debunker. We are all humans in search of what is truth. And back on the topic at hand, it still seems entirely obvious to me that the plane did indeed keep its wing the entire time.

Here are 77 angles of the second plane:



And here's a video that I found particularly interesting because of how it shows the plane in the distance (2:50):

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Krog.. I have a couple of questions for you . Was it day light when the 2nd plane hit the WTC? I am curious as to what you think about this.

Simple yes or no answer.
1)Was it daylight when the 2nd plane hit the WTC.. oh wait.. Was it daylight when the "missle" with a CGI overlay of wings hit the WTC.
2) Did the buildings come crashing down?
3) Were there 3 buildings that colapsed?

I am not poking at you. I seriously want to know what your answer is for these 3 questions.
Please and Thank you

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Because the world is not black and white.

What is 2+2?

What is the entropy of a caesium atom??

The answer to these questions is indeed black and white... there is no grey area...

When it comes to the OS of 911... You have to believe it or not believe it... There is no middle ground. Either they are telling the truth or they are lying.

If the WTC was indeed planned demolition, then it is illogical to think that the planes that hit were the hijacked planes piloted by Al-Qaeda agents as reported by the OS.

you can't have it both ways, if you believe that Al-Qaeda did a surprise attack using passenger jets then how could you reconcile that with a planned demolition??

Here are 77 angles of the second plane:

I say, here are 77 shots that have been manipulated and edited to show what the people behind the event and the OS want you to see.

Just smoke and mirrors.

And here's a video that I found particularly interesting because of how it shows the plane in the distance (2:50):

Here is another shot that has been doctored to show you what they want you to see.

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Well then, you admittedly believe the OS.. according to your logic. If you believe any part of the official story, you believe the OS.. You have said EXACTLY that!

Thanks, argument over.. Krog believes the OS now..

Thank you, for coming around. Have a good one!

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I suggest you read this little bit about a certain logical fallacy you used:
en.wikipedia.org...

You are saying "If you believe that any part of the OS is false, then all the OS must be false." Then, you go as far as to say, "Because all the OS is false, then my idea about what happened that day is absolutely correct."

Also, show some evidence to back up that the videos were ALL edited. Surely some kind of trace was left that makes it obvious?