Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 30
11
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 



This makes me physically ill.


After reading the post by Shadow Herder, I have changed my mind about you.

Now, it is time to say "Thank You" for continuing to show that the entire so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" is completely out to lunch.

Not sure, really, why you think it's necessary, though....they manage to completely discredit themselves without any of your help! Oh, and nice touch, BTW!! Adding that guy, Phil Jayhan, into the mix.

Comrades in arms, eh?? The more ridiculous claims you make....but, like I have said. Really, it isn't needed.

"No Planes" is nutty, of course...and pushing it helps drive wedges between all the other nut-adherents, of many flavors. It's like watching a train wreck....oddly fascinating, and tragic at the same time.......

....or, even more sad, a bit like seeing someone you know descend into insanity, dementia or full-blown Alzheimer's.....




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
I TURN OUT TO BE THE RECIPIENT OF A LOT OF RIDICULOUS ATTACKS.

Those who actively seek to defraud through the fabrication of fake evidence, neglect mountains of refuting evidence, proactive dissemination of lies, invention of new falsehoods, and related unconscionable acts so as to overwhelmingly pollute the critical conversations related to the real possibilities of prosecutable conspiracies surround the events of 9/11 deserve every word of the most harsh and condemning attacks from us and every other source that rejects your absurdities.

Your false indignation is a foolish facade. You've received far kinder treatment here than you deserve, and which you've received elsewhere.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I once saw a Buick hit a streetlight post at what had to be in excess of 100mph. It cut the pole down and just kept going. Just wanted to mention that in relation to the "Camaro" example.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
As Mark Twain observed, the problem is not what we don't know but what we think we know that ain't so!

I think this accurately describes the whole no planes/TV fakery theory.
What you're thinking just ain't so.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
This is a pretty strange post. The plane did crashed into the building and displayed all the behavior that would have been expected by crumpling and breaking into parts. You can see the damaged plane from photos taken external to the building. Limestone is a relatively soft and porous material, completely unlike steel. But since you mention it, that the 767s in New York create these cookie-cutter cut outs in the steel supporting columns but no outline of the 757 at the Pentagon is visible, even though its facade was also made of limestone, is rather striking. But then so is the absence of a massive pile of aluminum debris, the wings, the tail, bodies, seats and luggage. Not even the engines were recovered at the Pentagon. See "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon",
jamesfetzer.blogspot.com... I find it very curous that you could think that a crash site that displays the kinds of damage to the building and the plane that would be expected is supposed to contradict my point that WE DON'T SEE THOSE KINDS OF DAMAGE TO THE SOUTH TOWER. The physics involved here, by the way, is not mine but Newton's. You might want to check out some of Stefan Grossman's work at www.apfn.net... , for more of his work:



What Happened On 9-11: THE GREATEST ILLUSION OF ALL MANKIND
www.themedianews.com...

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER was built and designed to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet. That includes the Boeing models 747,757,767,777.

Therefore when a Jumbo Jet, consisting primarily of merely a hollow pressurized cabin, impacts the reinforced concrete and steel support beams of the World Trade Center that it crumples on impact on the outside of the building and falls to the ground because of little encroachment into the building.

The American Media has told people that a Jet wing can cut through steel reinforced concrete designed to withstand the impact of a high speed jet impact.

America was told that what they witnessed was what appeared to be a jet flying completely into the World Trade Center as if it were Jello. What the American media reported was something that is physically impossible. This is another Single Bullet Theory.

The answer is that a cruise missile with a military hologram aboard crashed into the building. A Cruise missile is small enough to fly into the building if it were to avoid any steel beams and merely properly aimed at open office glass panes.

The idea of a hologram sounds far-fetched initially, I know. But the problem is that no real Boeing 767 could have flown at 560 mph at 700-1,000 foot altitude, entered the building in violation of Newton's laws, or passed through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. But the image of a Boing 767 could do all those things, which supports the inference that it was indeed a hologram.

I am not an expert on all these things, which is why I bring those who are together to pool our resources. Thus, I created a research group consisting of the best qualified individuals--including a world authority on the human brain who was also an expert on ballistics; a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board-certified in radiation oncology; another physics Ph.D. with expertise in electromagnetism--to study the assassination of JFK.

We discovered that the autopsy X-rays had been altered, that autopsy photographs--and the "backyard" photos--had been faked, and that the Zapruder film--long thought to be the closest thing to absolute truth about his death--had been reconstructed to remove the limo stop and conceal the true causes of his death. Separating authentic from inauthentic evidence was our objective, where the case is easy to understand once that is accomplished.

I have pursued the same strategy in founding Scholars for 9/11 Truth by bringing together experts of different backgrounds, such as pilots and aeronautical engineers, physicists and engineers (structural and mechanical) as well as other disciplines to sort out what really happened. That is how I can pursue these issues with such great confidence: I have benefitted from the expertise of those who know more than I about their areas of specialization.

So I don't quite understand why the fact that I have studied physics but am not a physicist is supposed to be held against me, when I collaborate with those who are. Pilots for 9/11 Truth, John Lear, Stefan Grossman, and many others know more about planes, physics, and aerodynamics than do I, which is why I defer to them. What I don't understand is how anyone like you can not accept the results of their studies, like "9/11 Intercepted"!

That seems to me to combine arrogance with ignorance. The use of a hologram sounds like a stretch, but I also interviewed Stephen Brown on "The Real Deal", nwopodcast.com... where he explained that he had taken a course on holography at Cambridge and that the use of a hologram for this purpose was entirely feasible given the state of technology in 2001. If I can defer to greater expertise, why can't you and ATS?

If you have a better explanation, produce it. But remember that it has to explain how this image of a plane could be flying faster than a real Boeing 767 could fly at that altitude, how it could enter this massive steel and concrete building in violation of Newton's laws, and how it could pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. Good luck!


Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Jim YOUR background is NOT, PHYSICS, ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION thats obvious by your strange assumptions so come on explain how in the Empire State crash a SMALLER,LIGHTER SLOWER AIRCRAFT put one of its engines through 8" of limestone many layers of brick several office walls more layers of brickwork and another 8" of limestone on the opposite wall care to explain Jim because it couldn't happen according to Fetzer physics


Oh and thats open to any of your deluded followers as well!
edit on 4-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: comment added



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


From this entire latest screed, the only bit that really stuck out is this:


If you have a better explanation, produce it.


It is ALL THERE, in the pages back!!! Stop playing "dumb"....it only diminishes.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Jim if it was a hologram
and the jet COULDN'T FLY AT THAT SPEED then why make it look like your HOLOGRAM
WAS


Little video for you



What would happen if we reversed things say stretch his arm across were the blocks rested and dropped them on his arm!! His arm is softer than the blocks he can break them they can also break his arm!!!

Think about that Jim!!

YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF YOUR HOLOGRAM someone on a course doesn't count! YOU HAVE FLAWED physics Jim and protesting about doesn't change it.


OH JIM the buildings DID NOT WEIGH 500,000 TONS !!!! The 2 of them with all the services maybe but not one Tower!!!!
edit on 4-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
But the problem is that no real Boeing 767 could have flown at 560 mph at 700-1,000 foot altitude, entered the building in violation of Newton's laws, or passed through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.

----- sigh -----

How many times do I need to remind you that your chosen "expert", John Lear, initially confirmed the altitude and speed were possible for a pilot that only ever received nothing more than simulator training? The only time he lied and changed his "story" is when he -- someone who enjoys attention -- began enjoying the attention of "9/11 Truth" splinter factions. You have never specifically responded on the early comments of Lear in this regard.

"Newton's laws" have nothing to do with the aerodynamics of a large aircraft temporarily exceeding recommended design parameters for a brief period of time. You keep parroting the same claim, but have never responded by providing an original video that proves your point of a lack of deceleration or lack of damage as the aircraft penetrated the Word Trade Center steel facade.




I am not an expert on all these things, which is why I bring those who are together to pool our resources.

Such as an attention-starved crazy old man who believes the hoaxes of a one-armed UFO con-artist and that the US Navy maintains underground submarine bases in the US desert, John Lear?




but I also interviewed Stephen Brown on "The Real Deal", nwopodcast.com... where he explained that he had taken a course on holography at Cambridge and that the use of a hologram for this purpose was entirely feasible given the state of technology in 2001.

How can someone who "took a course in holography" compare to an expert? I've asked before, and you never responded, as to why you didn't search out actual experts.




If you have a better explanation, produce it.

Dozens upon dozens have been provided in this, and the long-list of other related threads, but since you're personally invested in the promotion of this hoax, you refuse to comment on any of them.




But remember that it has to explain how this image of a plane could be flying faster than a real Boeing 767 could fly at that altitude

You've never proved it can't. You seem unable to differentiate the difference between recommended design parameters, operational limits, and excessive operation that will result in structural failure. Examples of Boeing aircraft exceeding 6g in emergency maneuvers have been provided in this and other threads, yet you refuse to accept these real-world examples that refute your bogus suppositions.




how it could enter this massive steel and concrete building in violation of Newton's laws

Explain how the kinetic energy of an object in motion, and remains in motion when encountering a non-solid obstruction, violates any of Newton's laws.




and how it could pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.

Please provide your evidence of this.






Your actions here are classic "Internet Trolling", in that you neglect valid critique of your points in favor of parroting the same points over and over, or injecting new unrelated points into the conversation.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
It cannot have been a real Boeing 767. Therefore it was a fake Boeing 767. If anyone actually saw it, then they saw something that looked like a real plane but was not a real plane. What else could it be than a sophisticated hologram? There aren't that many choices. Check out Pilots documentary, "9/11: Intercepted", if you want to have even a remote understanding of what we are dealing with here. A hologram could be projected as flying faster than a real Boeing 767. It could enter the building in violation of Newton's laws. And it could pass through its own length in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. What else could possibly do that? Only a hologram.

reply to post by wmd_2008
 


edit on 4-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Cooo cooo.,.....


Stop insulting people. You are an old old man, that is no way to behave.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Its funny. Even though this thread has been proven a hoax there is good ole delusional Jim still keeping this hoax going.



Whats next? The wtc never existed and was part of an elaborate holographic implantation during vaccination back in 79?

Godzilla took down the towers and we used tv fakery to make it look like planes. I have proof.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Because they made a mistake! The cruising speed of a Boeing 767 is 560 mph, so that was the speed they used for the hologram. What they misunderstood is that the cruising altitude is 35,000 feet and the plane could not fly that fast at 700-1,000 feet. These guys were not rocket scientists. If the hadn't made mistakes, we would not have been able to figure out what actually happened.

reply to post by wmd_2008
 



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Ha!!

Oh, WoW....thanks for that, it is going into the vault!! Sorry, but it is too funny, no disrespect intended. I mean, no one who reads that will disagree??

"....they weren't rocket scientists....." !


It had to be said....priceless attempt. Incredibly clever, but still incredibly wrong. And, priceless.....did I mention that already?

Since, it's in the "Hoax" forum and all....seems fair game for some humor...NOW. we have to see about coming up with a way to get a "hologram" to squawk a transponder code, with Mode C, and show up on radar too.....AND, to have all of the parts of a Boeing 767 with it, as it travelled through the sky, so the pieces would be found later, in the wreckage of the buildings....

That should keep someone with a very creative mind quite busy for some while.......



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by JimFetzer
But the problem is that no real Boeing 767 could have flown at 560 mph at 700-1,000 foot altitude, entered the building in violation of Newton's laws, or passed through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.

----- sigh -----

PILING ON A LOT OF SILLY QUESTIONS DOESN'T AMOUNT TO A SINGLE DECENT ARGUMENT.

How many times do I need to remind you that your chosen "expert", John Lear, initially confirmed the altitude and speed were possible for a pilot that only ever received nothing more than simulator training? The only time he lied and changed his "story" is when he -- someone who enjoys attention -- began enjoying the attention of "9/11 Truth" splinter factions. You have never specifically responded on the early comments of Lear in this regard.

JOHN TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN WRONG. I HAVE POINTED OUT THAT HIS AFFIDAVIT PRESENTS HIS MORE CONSIDERED OPINION. I POINTED THAT OUT AND SUGGESTED THAT YOU DEAL WITH THE POINTS HE MAKES THERE, INCLUDING THAT THE DENSITY OF THE AIR MAKES TO IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE TURBINES TO SUCK IT THROUGH THE TURBINES. I NOTICE YOU HAVE NOT REPLIED TO THAT.

"Newton's laws" have nothing to do with the aerodynamics of a large aircraft temporarily exceeding recommended design parameters for a brief period of time. You keep parroting the same claim, but have never responded by providing an original video that proves your point of a lack of deceleration or lack of damage as the aircraft penetrated the Word Trade Center steel facade.

YOU OFFER A QUESTION WITH A FALSE PRESUPPOSITION. THE FIRST THING THEY WOULD HAVE DONE WAS TO DESTROY ANY ORIGINAL TAPES, SO YOU COULD ASK QUESTIONS LIKE THIS. MORE IMPORTANTLY, HOWEVER, THE DIFFERENCES ARE NOT SO SUBTLE THAT THE ORIGINAL VERSUS A COPY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. THE VELOCITY OF THE PLANE SHOULD HAVE DROPPED TO ZERO.

I am not an expert on all these things, which is why I bring those who are together to pool our resources.


Such as an attention-starved crazy old man who believes the hoaxes of a one-armed UFO con-artist and that the US Navy maintains underground submarine bases in the US desert, John Lear?

THIS IS AN AD HOMINEM THAT APPEARS TO BE INTENDED TO CONCEAL THAT YOU ARE UNABLE TO RESPOND TO THE POINTS HE MADE IN HIS AFFIDAVIT. DO YOU FOOL ANYONE WITH THIS GUFF?


but I also interviewed Stephen Brown on "The Real Deal", nwopodcast.com... where he explained that he had taken a course on holography at Cambridge and that the use of a hologram for this purpose was entirely feasible given the state of technology in 2001.


How can someone who "took a course in holography" compare to an expert? I've asked before, and you never responded, as to why you didn't search out actual experts.

ITS CLEARLY WELL KNOWN ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE EXPERT THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY IS WELL-ENOUGH DEVELOPED THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE. PERHAPS YOU HAVE NOT HEARD OF CAMBRIDGE, UK, BUT IT IS ONE OF THE WORLD'S MOST DISTINGUISHED UNIVERSITIES AND HE WAS STUDYING THE SUBJECT FROM (WHAT I AM QUITE SURE WAS) A LEADING HOLOGRAPY EXPERT. I NOTICE YOU HAVE OFFERED NO REASON FOR THINKING HE IS WRONG.


If you have a better explanation, produce it.


Dozens upon dozens have been provided in this, and the long-list of other related threads, but since you're personally invested in the promotion of this hoax, you refuse to comment on any of them.

AS I HAVE EXPLAINED, IT HAS TO BE AN EXPLANATION THAT CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE SPEED, THE IMPOSSIBLE ENTRY, AND ALL THAT. I CERTAINLY HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT FROM YOU OR YOUR CHUMS ON THIS THREAD. SO IF YOU HAVE ONE, LET'S SEE IT! OF COURSE, WE ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN A "MAGIC PLANE" LIKE THE "MAGIC BULLET".


But remember that it has to explain how this image of a plane could be flying faster than a real Boeing 767 could fly at that altitude


You've never proved it can't. You seem unable to differentiate the difference between recommended design parameters, operational limits, and excessive operation that will result in structural failure. Examples of Boeing aircraft exceeding 6g in emergency maneuvers have been provided in this and other threads, yet you refuse to accept these real-world examples that refute your bogus suppositions.

NO, THIS IS MORE SMOKE BLOWING. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE YOUR OWN PHONY CLAIMS, BUT PILOTS HAS REPEATEDLY DEBUNKED THIS KIND OF NONSENSE. I AGAIN RECOMMEND THAT ANYONE WITH A SERIOUS INTEREST IN THE TRUTH CHECK OUT PILOTS' "9/11: INTERCEPTED".


how it could enter this massive steel and concrete building in violation of Newton's laws


Explain how the kinetic energy of an object in motion, and remains in motion when encountering a non-solid obstruction, violates any of Newton's laws.

THE POINT IS THAT THE COLLISION BETWEEN A HOLLOW ALUMINUM PLANE FLYING AT 560 MPS IN HITTING A STATIONARY 500,000 TON BUILDING AND INTERSECTING WITH EIGHT (8) FLOORS OF STEEL TRUSSES FILLED WITH 4-8" OF CONCRETE WOULD BE THE SAME IF THE PLANE WAS STATIONARY AND WERE HIT BY THAT MASSIVE BUILDING FLYING AT 560 MPH. THIS IS NEWTON'S THIRD LAW0--FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION. THE EFFECTS WOJLD BE THE SAME EITHER WAY--OR IF THEY WERE BOTH MOVING AT 280 MPS AND COLLIDING.


and how it could pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.


Please provide your evidence of this.

YOU CAN PROVE IT FOR YOURSELF. TRACK DOWN THE VIDEOS AND DO A SINGLE-FRAME ADVANCE AND YOU CAN VERIFY THAT THE PLANE PASSES THROUGH ITS OWN LENGTH INTO THE BUILDING IN THE SAME NUMBER OF FRAMES THAT IT PASSES THROUGH ITS OWN LENGTH IN AIR--IN BOTH THE HERZARKHANI AND THE FAIRBANKS' VIDOES. TRY IT, THEY ARE THE SAME IN BOTH VIDEOS. IT'S CALLED 'REPLICABILITY' WHERE ANYONE WITH THE RIGHT RESOURCES AND ABILITY CAN TEST IT.

Your actions here are classic "Internet Trolling", in that you neglect valid critique of your points in favor of parroting the same points over and over, or injecting new unrelated points into the conversation.

BUT THAT'S SIMPLY UNTRUE. NONE OF THE ARGUMENTS IN WHICH YOU APPARENTLY TAKE SUCH PRIDE HERE HAS ANY FORCE AGAINST THE POSITION I HAVE ADVANCED. YOU ARE SIMPLY DELUDING YOURSELF AND TRYING TO CONVERT A VICE INTO A VIRTUE. NO ONE SHOULD BE IMPRESSED.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Similar mistakes were made in framing Oswald with a weapon that cannot have fired the bullets that killed him (because they were high-velocity while the Mannlicher-Carcano was not) or not getting frames 314 and 315 in the right order when they recreated the Zapruder film (a mistake they tried to correct when the frames were published in the supporting volumes but which David Lifton caught and J. Edgar Hoover was forced to acknowledge). These things happen--and it is good that they do, since they enable us to expose gross governmental malfeasance, which I had thought was the primary objective of ATS!

reply to post by weedwhacker
 



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Now you're resorting to shouting in all-capitals?


Originally posted by JimFetzer
JOHN TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN WRONG.

Oh... I see... he altered his story to pander to the lies of the hoax. Well, he's never don't that before (that was sarcasm). You really should spend some time researching the history of that crazy old man.



INCLUDING THAT THE DENSITY OF THE AIR MAKES TO IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE TURBINES TO SUCK IT THROUGH THE TURBINES.

In addition to believing "Pleadians" used toy ray guns as weapons and that aliens are currently engaged in mining operations on the moon, John Lear is also an engineer versed in the operation of jet combustion? Amazing man.

I wonder how those military jets are able to break Mach One at low altitude using jet turbines?



PERHAPS YOU HAVE NOT HEARD OF CAMBRIDGE, UK, BUT IT IS ONE OF THE WORLD'S MOST DISTINGUISHED UNIVERSITIES AND HE WAS STUDYING THE SUBJECT FROM (WHAT I AM QUITE SURE WAS) A LEADING HOLOGRAPY EXPERT.

Cambridge is excellent. However, in the field of Holography, MIT is widely recognized as being many magnitudes superior, and on the leading edge. Hopefully, you will contact someone at the Spatial Imaging Group at the MIT Media Lab. I've engaged someone with a contact there, perhaps there will be some illumination.




THE POINT IS THAT THE COLLISION BETWEEN A HOLLOW ALUMINUM PLANE FLYING AT 560 MPS IN HITTING A STATIONARY 500,000 TON BUILDING AND INTERSECTING WITH EIGHT (8) FLOORS OF STEEL TRUSSES FILLED WITH 4-8" OF CONCRETE WOULD BE THE SAME IF THE PLANE WAS STATIONARY AND WERE HIT BY THAT MASSIVE BUILDING FLYING AT 560 MPH.

That is so very wrong, I don't know where to begin. But let's keep it short -- an object at rest has no kinetic energy, and object in motion does. From there you can imagine how your example is incorrect.




YOU CAN PROVE IT FOR YOURSELF. TRACK DOWN THE VIDEOS AND DO A SINGLE-FRAME ADVANCE AND YOU CAN VERIFY THAT THE PLANE PASSES THROUGH ITS OWN LENGTH INTO THE BUILDING IN THE SAME NUMBER OF FRAMES

You're making the claim, you need to provide supporting evidence, not "Digital Yelling" in all capitals. Please provide the video upon which this claim is based.




NONE OF THE ARGUMENTS IN WHICH YOU APPARENTLY TAKE SUCH PRIDE HERE HAS ANY FORCE AGAINST THE POSITION I HAVE ADVANCED.

Repeating a lie does not make it true.
edit on 4-3-2011 by mister.old.school because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mister.old.school
 



Repeating a lie does not make it true.


Really?? Worked for the OS BS.....



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by mister.old.school
 



Repeating a lie does not make it true.


Really?? Worked for the OS BS.....


Quite.
And repeating one's unproven claim that the original proposition amounted to a lie is hardly a strong argument



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 



... A HOLLOW ALUMINUM PLANE ....


Again, with this tired canard? So old, and so ignorant as well. I have looked around, haven't (yet) found an example of a Boeing 767 sliced open on its lateral axis, but this video shows a Boeing 747, in just that sad condition. It is quite evident that ALL airplanes are constructed similarly, and far, far more substantially than you seem to understand...only detail lacking, on the B-767 compared to the B-747, would be the Upper Deck. (There was an old joke, in pilot circles, abut why the "whale", as it is sometimes called, needed that hump behind the cockpit....it was that the pilots' Union demanded such high salaries, they needed the extra room for the Captain's wallet under his bum....).


Look, in that old United B-747 --- @ 2:50:




I suggest, rather than continuing to show embarrass yourself, by showing such ignorance, you might wish to invest in some more learning and educational experiences...

edit on 5 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, given we KNOW that the videos are fake, the question becomes HOW it was done. PVI is only one of many possibilities, where video compsiting, CGIs, and the use of a hologram are other alternatives. Personally, I find the weight of the evidence favors the use of a hologram. What is your explanation?

reply to post by wmd_2008
 




Correction......you Jim in your fantasy world THINK that the videos were fake, and you don't answer the question about why one of the Naudet brothers would rush inside a building that they have "inside knowledge" was about to collapse.


Surely the REAL question must be whether you Jim inhabit a world of holograms!



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Cooo cooo.,.....


Stop insulting people. You are an old old man, that is no way to behave.


Hey let's not get ageist!

There's nothing wrong with being old...........most people generally get wiser with age...... just not in Jim's case!






top topics



 
11
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join