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: 20
11
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Hi bib or should that be Jim, let Jim answer its his claim that a softer object cant damage a harder object so how does the FAR SOFTER PAINT cause the damage to the FAR HARDER WINDOW.

OH by the way your answers so far show YOU dont understand whats happening prove me wrong by answering the question re the paint fleck if you do it will show you understand but then of course that will show that Jim is wrong LETS SEE what you do


So are you as uneducated as Jim or not?




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   




Blah blah blah.....

Hey, how long have they had this technology?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


This is a minor point, but Bush was in the air in Air Force One after it took off from Sarasota, where he had been reading with children about a pet goat. "By 3 p.m., Air Force One touched down at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska." But he took off from Sarasota shortly before 10 AM. "At 9:57 a.m., Air Force One thundered down the runway, blasting smoke and dust in a full-thrust take off."


If AF1 touched down in Nebraska 3 pm Central, that would make it 4 pm Eastern, which would be a whopping 6 hour flight from Florida to Nebraska. Maybe the pilot was pounding down a few with Bush, got drunk and lost his way.


No, Jim is actually right about that. AF1 (IIRC) flew around untill the SS could determine a good place to go.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Well, since you ask, I graduated magna cum laude in philosophy from Princeton, served four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, resigned my commission as a captain in 1966 to enter graduate school at Indiana where I earned my Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science. I spent most of my 35-year career teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. I have over 150 articles and reviews and have just published my 29th book, THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010). What I don't understand is how, after I have offered link after link to a diagram that shows the plane would have been intersecting with eight (8) floors of 4-8" of concrete poured onto steel trusses anchored to the core columns at one end and the external support columns on the other--each of which represented more than an acre of concrete apiece--that you can possibly doubt that this plane could not have entered the building without crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, and all the rest. Don't you care about logic and evidence? Are you really that dumb? I think you ought to go to "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?" and review the first 15 slides. OK?


reply to post by wmd_2008
 



edit on 16-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: adding a sentence



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, since you ask, I graduated magna cum laude in philosophy from Princeton, served four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, resigned my commission as a captain in 1966 to enter graduate school at Indiana where I earned my Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science. I spent most of my 35-year career teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. I have over 150 articles and reviews and have just published my 29th book, THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010). What I don't understand is how, after I have offered link after link to a diagram that shows the plane would have been intersecting with eight (8) floors of 4-8" of concrete poured onto steel trusses anchored to the core columns at one end and the external support columns on the other--each of which represented more than an acre of concrete apiece--that you can possibly doubt that this plane could not have entered the building without crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, and all the rest. Don't you care about logic and evidence? Are you really that dumb? I think you ought to go to "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?" and review the first 15 slides. OK?


reply to post by wmd_2008
 



edit on 16-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: adding a sentence


Are you intentionally missing the point of over a BILLION joules of KE in the impact alone?

Why do you think it is good form to insult people?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Lets assume that you are James H Fetzer...... Are you going to deny profiting from 9/11 and your websites?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


What about some REAL SCIENCE Jim still NO ANSWER re the paint fleck come on Jim explain how the soft paint can damage the glass of the space shuttle window because according to your logic it cant happen,so come on Jim lets see some real science I know you cant and wont answer because it will show that you have no idea re the following.

PHYSICS,BUILDING CONSTRUCTION,KINETIC ENERGY,ELASTIC AND INELASTIC COLLISIONS.

Some of your followers should have a good look at these subjects

So if you need any help with those (which you do) myself and a few others on here can help!



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack
 


Hi bib or should that be Jim, let Jim answer its his claim that a softer object cant damage a harder object so how does the FAR SOFTER PAINT cause the damage to the FAR HARDER WINDOW.

OH by the way your answers so far show YOU dont understand whats happening prove me wrong by answering the question re the paint fleck if you do it will show you understand but then of course that will show that Jim is wrong LETS SEE what you do


So are you as uneducated as Jim or not?


Honestly, what part of my post was wrong WMD ???
Your mocking approach is kind of childish and boring..
Maybe you should grow up and debate in a mature fashion rather than the childish insults..



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
What I don't understand is how, after I have offered link after link to a diagram that shows the plane would have been intersecting with eight (8) floors of 4-8" of concrete poured onto steel trusses anchored to the core columns at one end and the external support columns on the other--each of which represented more than an acre of concrete apiece--that you can possibly doubt that this plane could not have entered the building without crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, and all the rest.


JimFetzer,

Are you familiar with a fairly common kitchen implement known as a cheese grater? Are you familiar with the very basic principal of how cheese grater works? Can you see how on a rather simple, straightforward level a cheese grater scales quite decently to explain the processes that explain why neither airplane ended up looking like Wile E. Coyote on a bad day?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


You dont understand the concepts of KINETIC ENERGY in these collisions thats why the little fleck paint didn't splatter on the space shuttle window but instead damaged it thats what Jim either ignores or denies!!!

It's the same with the planes NOW do you understand thats why Jim wouldn't answer the question of the paint fleck!!!! IT WOULD PROVE HE TALKS BS!!!!!



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


What utter nonsense and drivel!


HOOPER, who are you to contest the experts who have certified that it was flying at an impossible speed? See "Pandora's Black Box" for those who have any doubts. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed this precise point.


That video is garbage....you, and your self-acclaimed "critical thinking" tool-set, and you cannot see it for the idiocy and fallacious, specious reasoning that it is??



HOOPER has no idea what he is talking about. Anyone who reads the affidavit can see for themselves that John Lear has explained why, at that altitude, the turbine would function as "breaks" on its forward thrust.


LOL!! John Lear is completely wrong!! And, did you intend to write the word "brakes" there??


Use you infinite wisdom and using a forward view of a Boeing 767, calculate out ALL of the square footage of the area it presents in forward flight...and then figure the small percentage of that forward area that exists as JUST the two engine N1 fans. THEN, tell us again about John Lear's "opinions"...


But, seeing as how YOU are in no way educated, nor expert, regarding airplanes and aerodynamics, I can see how you fell into the trap of "expert" testimony, in your continuing skewed conformation bias slanted view of the situation.....

....but, THIS seems to come right out of your own gray matter....and as a "scholar" I'd think one would be embarrassed to actually state something like this with a straight face:



Most of the plane's velocity should have fallen to zero, with crumpling, the tail and wings breaking off, and bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground.


Seriously? You have absolutely ZERO understanding of physics, IF you truly believe that rubbish.

Also, you apparently (conveniently??) overlooked the very informative video posted a while back, by BrainsandGravy. It clearly shows that there was some deceleration as the airplane impacted, and continued into, the building.


You can count the frames on either of the primary films and they produce equal numbers in both cases.


You're trying to "eyeball" something captured on a video camera at a frame rate of about 30 fps....for an object moving at 750 to 800 feet/second!!


This is SO embarrassing, this baloney of "No planes" or "video trickery" (in light of the sheer ridiculousness of the whole "idea") that....one has to wonder IF you are actually doing this in order to discredit the so-called "truth movement" in general, and make them all seem like crackpots. If so, you're doing a swell job!!



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


Yes.....as I pointed out, the tip-off was in a post or two back.....under the guise of the name "JimFetzer", this individual slipped up, and entered his full name ("Abraham"-somebody) and his status as a Med student somewhere....the SAME exact information that was included under the ATS username "PootzkA". Further tip-off was a YouTube video that ALSO was made by a YT member-name of "pootzka".

Ladies and gentlemen of ATS, you have been HAD!!

This one individual, "Abe", with two ATS accounts...and attempting to "pose as" a real person named James Fetzer, an actual person who is well-known as a co-founder of a "truth movement" web group.

This is disgusting, and shameful. Mods shall take care of the matter, as they deem appropriate.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
It is probably all of those things. But it's also just deeply sad. In the sense of being really pathetic.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


IIRC was one of the conspiracy loons pushing the "nuke in the basement" theory of how WTC was destroyed



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Well, I lost around $10,000 from the Madison conference when it was blackballed by Steve Jones and Kevin Ryan, even though I had invited both of them to speak. Why do you think web sites produce money? Because in the past year I added a "Donate" button? And I lost another $5,000 this past summer when I produced a symposium in London on "Debuking the 'War on Terror'" with Kevin Barrett, Gilad Atzmon, and Ken O'Keefe, the hero of the "Freedom Flotilla" headed to Gaza, who disarmed two of the Israeli commandos as they boarded the ship. He served as our master of ceremonies. You can see our presentations at noliesradio.org... Check 'em out. If you can figure out how I can recover and get back in the black, let me know. Scholars could use some support.

i]reply to post by Resurrectio
 



edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
No, weekwhacker. It is the other way around. I liked his post, so I put it here. I am who I claim to be. And after some additional interaction with Abraham, I think he is more than a little misguided and affected by misinformation about my relationship with Judy, where she has refused to even acknowledge my invitations to appear on "The Real Deal" since, several years ago, during a joint appearance with John Hutchison, she was annoyed that I asked him about his background and training, since the area in which he claims to be making "discoveries" is among the most complex in physics. He told me he had "flunked crayons and coloring books"--and she and I haven't spoken since. Abraham is a medical student, apparently. You can find my vita at www.d.umn.edu... .

i]reply to post by weedwhacker
 



edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Where do you come up this non-sense? I am a member of ATS and like this forum. Anyone who claims to have emailed me and discovered the opposite actually is lying, because it is not true and they have to know it. Why in t he world would anyone be here posing as me? and who else could be creating these threads? I AM HERE AND I LIKE IT HERE AND I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF THIS DISINFO CAMPAIGN WERE TO CEASE. As I have explained, I have quoted a couple of posts from a person who presents himself as a medical student by the name of Abraham. They were his posts and I did not want to take credit for them. I thought it was obvious at the time. I had no idea anyone would try to convert my acknowledging my source into a petty op against me. I AM HERE. I am sorry I don't visit more often or I would have caught this sooner. Rest assured, no one has "been had"--except Resurrectio, I presume, since he seems to be the one who originated the false reports.

reply to post by Resurrectio
 



edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Have you watched even the first fifteen (15) slides of my Buenos Aires' presentation, "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?", which is archived at twilightpines.com... Do you understand that the impact between the stationary building and the plane at over 500 mph would be the same if the plane were stationary and the building hit it going over 500 mps? I think you haven't given this quite enough thought.

reply to post by FDNY343
 



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I don't have any idea what you are suggesting. The plane is made of aluminum and is very fragile. The building is a 500,000-ton steel and concrete structure with an intricate lattice design. The plane would have been intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8" of concrete apiece, connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other. The less dense object would have crumpled upon impact, with the wings and tail breaking off, the fuselage crumpling, and seats, bodies, and luggage falling to the ground. None of that happened. The engines and other parts would have entered the building, but an actual collision between a real Boeing 767 and the South Tower would have looked entirely different. I can't imagine how anyone who has even the most elementary knowledge of physics could not follow this. It is not especially complicated. Think of a car driving at high speed into a massive tree. Or just think of a single acre of concrete on one of those trusses, suspended in space, and the plane flying into it. JUST ONE!

reply to post by wmd_2008
 



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join