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: 23
11
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Now the reality is that it doesn't matter what he thought or wrote in the past.

How can that be?

Can you explain how such an accomplished pilot can say one thing -- it's possible for the aircraft to travel at high speeds at low altitude -- at one point, then something else at another point?

Perhaps the sudden increased attention from the "no plane" crowd inspired him to craft fantasies in oder to enamor himself?

What do you have to say about his theories that the aircraft seen above Manhattan on 9/11 were holograms projected from airborne platforms? That is an integral part of his no-plane nonsense.




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
I'm sorry, wmd-2008, but you have a diminished understanding of these things. See my last post.

i]reply to post by wmd_2008
 



edit on 20-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)


The fact that you dont answer questions shows YOU dont have a clue do you Jim, answer this then why are the military spending lots of money on high energy KINETIC WEAPONS thats a weapon that can destory a target due to the velocity of the projectile it fires!! NO EXPLOSIVE REQUIRED! I mean using your laws of physics it would bounce off!!!



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



The fact that you dont answer questions shows YOU dont have a clue do you Jim, answer this then why are the military spending lots of money on high energy KINETIC WEAPONS thats a weapon that can destory a target due to the velocity of the projectile it fires!! NO EXPLOSIVE REQUIRED! I mean using your laws of physics it would bounce off!!!


You really keep going on about this with all your .


But what does this new weapon have to do with 9/11??
I'm pretty sure the velocity and density far excede that of a flimsy plane with plenty of airspace between the fuselage..
Atleast argue apples with apples..
A plane in NOT a bullet or even an arrow.
It's effectively a tin can..
Very low weight to volume, especially in the fuselage..



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well no-one has disputed that a flimsy, as you describe it, ten ton bomber at 200 mph punched this 20 ft by 18 ft hole in the Empire State Building :-

www.corbisimages.com...

Nor has anyone disputed my calculation that UA 175 into the South Tower was the equivalent in kinetic energy of at least a hundred B 25 impacts at the same place and at the same moment. 40 million joules in the case of the B 25 and over 5 BILLION joules for UA 175.
edit on 21-2-2011 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well done bib showing you have no idea re the physics of this, it's a lot like your lack of understanding re photography on another thread dont you think!

If you think a plane is a tin can why dont you make one from tin cans and you can fly it first that should be good for a

edit on 21-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: new lines added



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well no-one has disputed that a flimsy, as you describe it, ten ton bomber at 200 mph punched this 20 ft by 18 ft hole in the Empire State Building :-

www.corbisimages.com...

Nor has anyone disputed my calculation that UA 175 into the South Tower was the equivalent in kinetic energy of at least a hundred B 25 impacts at the same place and at the same moment. 4 million joules in the case of the B 25 and over 5 BILLION joules for UA 175.


Well it would have to be much more kinetic energy as you pic clearly shows the damaged only penetrated a few feet..
We see people standing mere feet inside the impact point..
I also notice wreckage of the plane hanging from the outside walls..

Is this really meant to prove anything????



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well done bib showing you have no idea re the physics of this, it's a lot like your lack of understanding re photography on another thread dont you think!

If you think a plane is a tin can why dont you make one from tin cans and you can fly it first that should be good for a

edit on 21-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: new lines added


I can fly a plane, can you??
I have passes to CPL standard, do you?
Why not tell us what your credentials are..



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well no-one has disputed that a flimsy, as you describe it, ten ton bomber at 200 mph punched this 20 ft by 18 ft hole in the Empire State Building :-

www.corbisimages.com...

Nor has anyone disputed my calculation that UA 175 into the South Tower was the equivalent in kinetic energy of at least a hundred B 25 impacts at the same place and at the same moment. 40 million joules in the case of the B 25 and over 5 BILLION joules for UA 175.


Well it would have to be much more kinetic energy as you pic clearly shows the damaged only penetrated a few feet..
We see people standing mere feet inside the impact point..
I also notice wreckage of the plane hanging from the outside walls..

Is this really meant to prove anything????


What it indicates, unless you are resolutely determined not to see it, is that a relatively small aircraft at low speed punched a 20 ft by 18 ft hole clean through the facade of the Empire State Building and killed and injured people inside. One engine completely traversed the building and came out the other side and the other engine went down an elevator shaft.

And yet, this was a flea-bite compared to UA 175 which was about 15 times the mass and going nearly 3 times faster.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
The subject of "no planes" over Manhattan on 9/11 has come up here several times, and I say such a notion is idiotic nonsense at best, or the result of purposeful misinformation at worst. I tend to believe the latter. A list of several hard questions on the matter continues to be ignored by these people who appear to be perpetuating purposeful, agenda-driven, misinformation.

I've shown how the creators of these videos are being intentionally deceptive, something that is a hallmark of disinformation. Further evidence of deliberate deception is seen as the purveyors of this nonsense regularly insult those who apply critical thinking and expose the crap theory for what it is.

My request here and here for examples of "TV Fakery" and/or "no plane" analysis that utilizes original high-resolution footage has gone unanswered. In fact, to this day, no claim of "TV Fakery" is based on original source footage. It's all based on garbage "evidence" of poor-quality YouTube videos, for which there is no evidentiary trail that indicates the source footage had not be altered.

Apparently, after my accurate analysis of this "no-plane" video, it has been removed by the user.

The "nose-out" concept, an idea embraced early by the "TV fakery" crowd, has been proven not to be that.

One of they key "fakery" concepts has been proven to be intentional deception yet again. But the nonsense continues. If such a crap theory is proven, over and over again, to be of no value, yet it lives on through the continued efforts of the purveyors, then there is no conclusion one can draw other than an agenda of misinformation.


And now, the "founder" of Scholars of 9/11 Truth has embraced the agenda of purposeful misinformation, the intent of which is yet to be discovered.


Those who engage in reasoned speculation on conspiracy theories might come to a supportable conclusion that Mr. Fetzer has sided with those who have taken it upon themselves to disseminate an overwhelming amount crap 9/11 theories on the Internet so as to discredit any and all conspiracy theories related to the events of that day. In such a situation, the "shill" and "disinfo agents" are Mr. Fetzer and his band of merry conspiracy fakery fiction writers.


If Mr. Fetzer honestly believes there were no planes that flew over Manhattan and impacted the World Trade Center, I ask him to post what he feels to be the single most-compelling evidence for that claim. And please, not another "September Clues" collection of contrivances -- just one compelling video. Then we can all engage in a reasoned analysis of that singular piece of evidence to gauge its value.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well done bib showing you have no idea re the physics of this, it's a lot like your lack of understanding re photography on another thread dont you think!

If you think a plane is a tin can why dont you make one from tin cans and you can fly it first that should be good for a

edit on 21-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: new lines added


I can fly a plane, can you??
I have passes to CPL standard, do you?
Why not tell us what your credentials are..


Whats flying a plane got to do with it gave you my background before re the contruction industry.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well no-one has disputed that a flimsy, as you describe it, ten ton bomber at 200 mph punched this 20 ft by 18 ft hole in the Empire State Building :-

www.corbisimages.com...

Nor has anyone disputed my calculation that UA 175 into the South Tower was the equivalent in kinetic energy of at least a hundred B 25 impacts at the same place and at the same moment. 4 million joules in the case of the B 25 and over 5 BILLION joules for UA 175.


Well it would have to be much more kinetic energy as you pic clearly shows the damaged only penetrated a few feet..
We see people standing mere feet inside the impact point..
I also notice wreckage of the plane hanging from the outside walls..

Is this really meant to prove anything????


8" thick limestone over a brick skin zoom in on pic and see how thick the walls are, floor slab on Empire State Building was also thicker than WTC has been damage , the steel section beam its rests on is buckled, the engine that went through the building passed through several room walls and out the exterior wall so another few layers of brick then limestone!!

YOU think the planes that hit WTC would not have done what they did, seriously whats happened to science education over the last few years, if people think like Jim and you we will be back in the dark ages in no time!!!

Thats the effects of kinetic energy are you reading this Jim or bib as you like to answer for Jim!



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
seriously whats happened to science education over the last few years, if people think like Jim and you we will be back in the dark ages in no time!


Apparently people such as Mr. Fetzer are easily swayed by the inarticulate and contrived ramblings of the likes of John Lear. One should ask the hard question -- why did a former CIA employee suddenly change his story in regards to the behavior of the passenger aircraft over Manhattan on 9/11? Did his "handler" give him new instructions that he should inject supportive obfuscation into a new and growing fake conspiracy?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
This is a very curious post. You can't explain the impossible speed, the impossible entry, the plane passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air or the absence of the strobe lights on the top and bottom of the fuselage and on the wing tips--so instead you address an issue I DID NOT RAISE about the "nose out"! That's quite a sleight-of-hand, minster.old.school. And for that you receive a mass of compliments? That's pretty rich and suggests when it comes to explaining the data, you don't have a clue. PLUS if we take the witnesses who claim to have seen a plane seriously--which, since they are all over the place, is not strictly necessary--then the solution to the problem appears to be the use of a hologram, which could be projected at a speed that would be impossible for a real plane, enter the building in a fashion that would be impossible for a real plane, pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, and fly without strobe lights. The cut-outs, of course, have to have been prearranged and, significantly, are not created at the time the plane is seen passing into the building. So I think you are going to have to return to the drawing board. You have explained nothing.

reply to post by mister.old.school
 



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
This is pretty bad, mister.old.school. I have explained that his affidavit presents the arguments that I take to be correct. So ASSUME I PRESENTED THEM. It really doesn't matter who. THEY APPEAR TO BE CORRECT. And, of course, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed that the plane shown in the videos is traveling at an impossible speed for a real Boeing 767. So why are you performing magician's tricks of distraction instead of offering answers? Ah! But the, of course, the explanation is obvious: You don't have any!

reply to post by mister.old.school
 



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Here is a link for those, like mister.old.school, who haven't a clue: pilotsfor911truth.org...

reply to post by mister.old.school
 



edit on 22-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
It becomes tedious to reiterate the obvious in cases like this: if it had been a real Boeing 767, then because it was intersecting with eight (8) floors of 4-8" of concrete on steel trusses, which were connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other, which created enormous horizontal resistance, most of the plane would have crumpled, where the wings and tail would have broken off with bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. Some parts, including the engines, would have entered the building and strips of other parts, but most of it would have crumpled against it (with minor indentation). Its velocity would have dropped to zero. None of that happened. Instead, its velocity did not drop to zero as the pass passed as effortlessly through a 500,000-ton building as it passed through air. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in physics to know this is as impossible as a car traveling at high speed impacting with a massive tree and passing through it without slowing down. Don't any of you have any experience with real life crashes and the physics of collisions?

reply to post by wmd_2008
 



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
You can't explain the impossible speed,

Your expert explained it for you, several years ago. It's possible.



the impossible entry, the plane passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air

Can you provide what has been requested? One video you feel conclusively proves the above?

I've yet to see one, but perhaps you've seen more than I.



so instead you address an issue I DID NOT RAISE about the "nose out"! That's quite a sleight-of-hand, minster.old.school.

As has been explained in the post, it was presented as an example of prior "no-plane" shenanigans on this Above Top Secret.



then the solution to the problem appears to be the use of a hologram

Since when were daylight holograms possible? And since when did those holograms project sound? And can you postulate on how a sound-projecting hologram, apparently projected from a very-high altitude on a bright day, can both dynamically reflect sunlight -and- connect with an occupied building directly in line with apparently pre-planted high-explosives?



The cut-outs, of course, have to have been prearranged and, significantly, are not created at the time the plane is seen passing into the building.

"Cut-outs" apparently applied in pre/post production in a video studio sophisticated enough to predict the actual size and shape of the holes in the buildings?



So I think you are going to have to return to the drawing board.

Are you unwilling to present one video, which you feel conclusively proves your theory?

Let's bring the conversation to a productive focus, shall we?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
This is pretty bad, mister.old.school. I have explained that his affidavit presents the arguments that I take to be correct. So ASSUME I PRESENTED THEM. It really doesn't matter who.

Shall I remind you?

You presented data from a "former" CIA employee (I assume that anyone studying government conspiracies would know that no one ever "stops" working for the CIA) who publicly stated, years ago, that the flight speed at low altitude was possible. That "former" CIA employee, whom you held on a pedestal as a highly accomplished pilot.

Some years later, when that "former" CIA employee becomes involved with the 9/11 Truth movement, his story suddenly changes -- and changes in a way that many conspiracy theorists believe to be a concerted government effort to spread disinformation related to 9/11 Truth... crap information.

So tell me, founder of the group who's motto is "Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths," why would you trust the word of a "former" CIA employee who has changed his story?


There are one of two conclusions possible:

The speed is correct and possible as John Lear originally stated when first presented with the issue in search of his opinion. I doubt it would be the first time in history where a passenger airline operated beyond design parameters. For example the engine nacelles were supposed to have broken off the plane that landed in the Hudson river, but no such thing happened.

[OR]

The recorded speed is incorrect, and somewhat slower than what is in the official record.


Why not fall back to one of those very-reasonable assumptions that have a sound basis in reality, rather than write fiction about impossible sound-projecting holograms and contrived footage appearing on every single news source with no whistle-blower coming forward?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Since Pilots has already confirmed it, why don't you admit that your John-Lear-CIA gambit has fallen short, like the rest of your arguments, and cope with the real evidence. The answer, no doubt, is that you haven't a clue. Here is a link to an even more recent study from Pilots: pilotsfor911truth.org...

reply to post by mister.old.school
 



edit on 22-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join