It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11? [HOAX]

page: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Oh, I agree.....no discernible, to the naked eye, deceleration.

If you wanted to get technical (referring to the second video, above, of airplanes touching down), as SOON as the tires get any "grab" on the concrete, some deceleration begins....energy is diverted from the aircraft's forward momentum, to "spin up" the wheels, as the friction interacts with the tire treads....like I said, way up above, this is all PHYSICS 101!!


But, to the naked eye? Can't see it, certainly. Same with United 175....way too fast, and too minor, to be seen.


edit on 7 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You have to be careful, you know where this is going, "even debunkers agree, there should have been deceleration and none was observed"! Ergo, no planes!



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I concur, however, that is not say that there was no deceleration, if there was it probably could only be measured in milliseconds and none of the records that we have are sufficient for the purpose of measuring deceleration in milliseconds.


Exactly my point. We do not see any deceleration, due to the relitively slow frame rate of most cameras. 2/10ths of one second is what I calculated. This may be off by about 1/10th of a second, if that.

The only way we would have been able to measure that amount of deceleration, would have been to have a camera that would film at a rate of 1,000 frames per second or better.

Most camera record at around 30 fps. So, at best, we would be able to get 6 frames of video. And Jim expects us to see a measurable deceleration from that.

Appeal to perfection noted.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
I'm sorry. I wasn't sure you were serious. Some of the firemen at certain key positions were in on it. Others, who may have figured out something funny was going on, were not keen on losing their jobs. More than 100 witnesses in the JFK assassination wound up dead. (See JFK: THE DEAD WITNESSES (1994) by Craig Roberts and John Armstrong.) Maybe the didn't want to join them. Has it occurred to you that the government that would murder some 3,000 citizens might be willing to add a few firemen to the list if they spoke their minds? I hope that you will give it some thought.


Jim your comments about some of the fire fighters were "in on it" makes no sense at all!

Firstly where is your proof?

Secondly the Fire Department City of New York lost 343 members including First Deputy Commissioner William M. Feehan, Chief of Department Peter Ganci and Department Chaplain Mychal Judge....do you really thing certain key figures would allow that to happen to their family of Fire fighting colleagues.
It's in a Firefighters make up to put their lives at risk to save others........NOT saving themselves first!

And thirdly the Naudet brothers themselves went inside the striken buildings.....now why would they do that for If they knew the buildings were going to collapse?
Indeed Jules Naudet filmed whilst running for his life with Fire Battalion Chief Joseph Pfieffer as tower 2 had just collapsed.
This aspect of the Naudet filming so dangerously close to the action especially makes NO sense if they were going to fake the plane impact in any case.

I know talking about the Naudet film Jim makes you uncomfortable, and that's why you like to concentrate on the minutiae instead.

Jim, sadly your reasoning here just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.
















edit on 7-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


HE SAID WHAT???!!!



Originally posted by JimFetzer
...... Some of the firemen at certain key positions were in on it....



I missed that, in the mess a few pages back. Well. What can one say?

Need any more BE said, on that kind of disgusting, delusional thinking? What a shame. :shk:



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
All these speculations are based on video clips that have been shown to be computer generated images of the crime scene. It is simply ridiculous to spend so much time and effort debating the viability of physical and scientific realities of a scenario that have been proven to have been artificially contrived. Other aspects of all videos concerned prove that they are artificially generated. Why not talk about the video fakery that reports to represent desperate individuals leaping to their deaths from the ailing towers. It is in this area that refutation will become more difficult, and will have a greater impact on the people who are yet waiting to be convinced. Don't also forget the fakery that is the vast majority of victim photographs and life histories, as represented by all memorial tributes. Cut to the damn chase as lets quit skirting around the peripheries.

ps i told you previously jim to beware of getting involved with people like hooper, weedywacker, fdny343, logical1 etc. You will end up running hard just to stand still. its been ten years for gods sake. lets cut to the damn chase.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 



Don't also forget the fakery that is the vast majority of victim photographs and life histories, as represented by all memorial tributes. Cut to the damn chase as lets quit skirting around the peripheries.

ps i told you previously jim to beware of getting involved with people like hooper, weedywacker, fdny343, logical1 etc. You will end up running hard just to stand still. its been ten years for gods sake. lets cut to the damn chase.


Yeah, lets quit pussyfooting around. Everything is fake and everyone knows it, even the victims are fake, even the victims families, even the eyewitnesses are fake. Its all fake.

So where is the chase and how do we get there?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   


All these speculations are based on video clips that have been shown to be computer generated images of the crime scene.


Care to prove it? Without useing Google and Youtube!



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I have finally watched a video that Chuck Boldwyn has been encouraging me to watch. It provides an empirical disproof of Jeffrey Orling's theory of progressive collapse, but it also applies to the impossible entry question:

"9/11 Experiments: The Arbiter of Competing Hypotheses"
911scholars.ning.com...

by Jonathan Cole. As Richard Feyman observes, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn't matter how smart you are, if it doesn't agree with experiment, it is wrong." The same principles apply on the horizontal.

reply to post by FDNY343
 



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
All,


(3) As Joe Keith has observed, the interaction observed here also violates all three of Newton's laws of motion. According to the first law, objects in motion remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. According to the second, an object accelerates in the direction of the force applied. According to the third, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. But the plane moves at uniform motion through both air and building, which would violate Newton's laws unless the building provides no more resistance (force) than air, which is absurd. By most counts, the plane moves its length through air in 8 frames and also moves its length into the building in the same number of frames, which cannot be the case if these are real objects and real interactions. This is the argument that convinced me that video fakery had to have been taking place on 9/11.





Originally posted by JimFetzer
A study of the Naudet brothers footage reveals a secondary explosion after the initial impact and fireballs that actually causes the cut-out in the North Tower. Indeed, an extension of the right wing's cut-out was even "penciled in." Take a look at the study of this phenomenon under "9/11 Amateur, Part 2." It is fair to infer that the same technique was employed to create the cut-out images in the South Tower.

It's smoke. Try another angle:



Originally posted by JimFetzer

The third is the possible use of sophisticated holograms to project the image of a plane that is in fact not there.





posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


What can we conclude?

That dropping ice cubes on each other has nothing to do with 9/11 and the collapse of the twin towers.

But lets play a little bit anyway.

Remember in the video where he dropped one ice cube on top of ten (?) other cubes? Well what if we were to remove that nice convenient metal guideway - remember there was no external guides on the corners of the tower buildings to support them - then what happens to the little stack of ice cubes? Guess what? They collaspe!!! Now mind you, they collapse in a manner that compliments what they were - solid blocks of ice, but regardless, they no longer remain standing! Same as 9/11!

Thank you for proving, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the only way the towers would have remained standing under the conditions of 9/11 was if God installed HUGE metal guideways to support and contain the tower structures. Mystery solved.

You're welcome!



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper


What can we conclude?


That Mr Fetzer lives in a fantasy bubble.

He has invested and spent so much time preaching that 9/11 was an inside job and that no planes hit the buildings,
I've a feeling that if Jim was actually onboard one of the planes that hit the towers, Jim in the afterlife would still be denying that a plane hit the building.......

edit on 7-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by hooper


What can we conclude?


That Mr Feltzer lives in a fantasy bubble.

He has invested and spent so much time preaching that 9/11 was an inside job and that no planes hit the buildings,
I've a feeling that if Jim was actually onboard one of the planes that hit the towers, Jim in the afterlife would still be denying that a plane hit the building.......


Along with easy money. Most of these guys are kicking themselves that they couldn't produce a 9/11 book fast enough as per Thierry Meyssan. There is easy, easy money to be made in such conspiracies and what was more perfect for them than 9/11?

Create a website, or blogsite, and put a donate button on it. Advertise books and DVDs. Ching, ching! Create sob stories of losing money on debating events, etc on the same page as the donate button. These are intelligent people but also see the easy way to make a living out of conspiracy. Promote, spin, wash, rinse and repeat and more and more gullible people are suckered in and only too eager to donate or buy merchandise.

TJ



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by hooper


What can we conclude?


That Mr Feltzer lives in a fantasy bubble.

He has invested and spent so much time preaching that 9/11 was an inside job and that no planes hit the buildings,
I've a feeling that if Jim was actually onboard one of the planes that hit the towers, Jim in the afterlife would still be denying that a plane hit the building.......


Along with easy money. Most of these guys are kicking themselves that they couldn't produce a 9/11 book fast enough as per Thierry Meyssan. There is easy, easy money to be made in such conspiracies and what was more perfect for them than 9/11?

Create a website, or blogsite, and put a donate button on it. Advertise books and DVDs. Ching, ching! Create sob stories of losing money on debating events, etc on the same page as the donate button. These are intelligent people but also see the easy way to make a living out of conspiracy. Promote, spin, wash, rinse and repeat and more and more gullible people are suckered in and only too eager to donate or buy merchandise.

TJ


Now you're not implying that there is a conspiracy here are you TJ?
Oh the irony!



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


What about this re the Empire State crash

One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.

Do you still think its not relevent.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I have been lurking here in the thread since the start and the one thing that kept coming back in my mind is his analogy of " hang just one floor of the WTC in the air and run a jetliner into it at full speed"
Now after reading all of the posts I have yet to see this addressed.
We can all agree from what I have read here that at least 7 floors were involved in the impact.....after reading this whole thread twice I would go with 8 floors but lets stick with 7 so everyone is at least partly happy.
What would become of the jetliner after hitting 7 floors hung/floating in the air and not even anchored to the ground? Would it exit the other side ?
We are talking 70 feet of steel and some concrete flooring and then the bigger than your house center support beams.
I also read in this thread that the flooring concrete is not a sturdy construction type but very weak, I never saw a link that said that it is weaker than the usual construction concrete.
If the OP is correct in his statement of on acre per floor at a minimum of 4 inches then with 7 floors we are going to have 28 inches MINIMUM of concrete alone.
Now toss into the mix a huge amount of very top of the line structural steel and there is where my common sense tells me this could not have happened as is.
In the above situation I think even Weedwacker would have a hard time seeing blue skies again for it is not possible he would see the other side of the "floating/hanging in the sky 7 floors" nor would his beloved jetliner see the other side.

Back to the flooring concrete, lets go with the unproved statement that it is not a very strong concrete but a sub par substance they use in all construction in NYC. (note to self do not buy a condo made of cement in NYC)

If it is one acre of cement per floor and I have yet to read that this is not true(Please correct me if this has been proven false) then we are talking a massive amount of cement, poor quality or great quality cement is cement and it is very heavy.
Have you ever looked out over a 7 acre parcel of land? It is a big chunk of real estate and now imagine 4 inches of concrete covering the whole parcel, toss in some top quality steel per acre and some nuts and bolts and you have one hell of a death ship to airliners that stray near.

Poor quality concrete will make no difference to a jetliner flying into it, as it is the mass that counts and the mass of the poor concrete should be very close to good quality concrete.

To the OP JimFetzer Star and Flag.
A real good post with lots of links and your slide show was a killer.
Regards, Iwinder




edit on 7-2-2011 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


WOW Jim a142 mesh 6mm wire in a 200mm sq mesh now do you know why its used, you see concrete is good in compression but bad in tension steel is used to take up tensile loads. That stops cracks in the concrete when under load BUT that little mesh would not provide much resistance to the loads on impact.

So can you explain how the 22000lb B52 caused so much damage to the 365,000 ton Empire State building because under your laws of physics it couldn't happen!!!!



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 



Hi Please look for the images of the Empire State building crash a plane weighing about 10t punched a hole in a solid masonry facade doing approx 200 mph.

That is a far stronger construction than the WTC, also re the floor slab they are lightweight concrete to save on costs.

So if the little B52 could cause that amount of damage what would the planes do to WTC exactly what we saw.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 



Hi Please look for the images of the Empire State building crash a plane weighing about 10t punched a hole in a solid masonry facade doing approx 200 mph.

That is a far stronger construction than the WTC, also re the floor slab they are lightweight concrete to save on costs.

So if the little B52 could cause that amount of damage what would the planes do to WTC exactly what we saw.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Nice pictures, we are addressing the OP's thread and I don't see any mention of the Empire State Building in the op thread.

Maybe start your own thread about that one, you seem really keen on not addressing the Original Post.

No disrespect intended here but lets stick to the thread.
Regards, Iwinder



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join