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

page: 33
11
<< 30  31  32   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The video shows that the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.

Why do you continue to avoid the issue of airspeed in the video you provided?

I asked you to show me the video you used for your claim that a frame-by-frame analysis of video evidence showed the aircraft was traveling at an "impossible" airspeed. That is the video you offered. If that is not representative of the video you used to establish your claim, which one is?

If you can't offer up such a video for one of the core claims in your theory, may we assume you were lying?

And if you lied about a core claim, what else in your theories are based on lies?




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
This has nothing to do with a "minor deceleration". The velocity of the plane should fall to zero, which it obviously does not. I guess this is your latest strategy: to complain that an argument intended to prove one point does not prove a separate and different point. The plane should have crumpled and broken apart on impact, which clearly it did not do. The video you are showing thus substantiates the violation of Newton's third law, where the impact of the (relatively fragile and less dense) plane should have crumpled from the resistance of the (massively robust and more dense) 500,000-ton building. The result would have been the same had the building been in motion and the plane been stationary. Think about that! And what would have ensued had the plane hit a single floor, consisting of a steel truss 208'x208' filled with 4-8" of concrete, suspended in space. A real plane hitting the South Tower at the angle shown would have impacted with eight (8) such floors, which would have provided enormous resistance to its trajectory. It would have crumpled and broken apart, . . . .

reply to post by weedwhacker
 



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
The determination that the plane was flying at an impossible speed for a Boeing 767 was made by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, where I have given links to their original study. It has now been complemented by "9/11 Intercepted", in which they not only explain that the plane was traveling at an impossible speed but that, at such a speed, it would have been impossible to manage and would actually have come apart in flight. I guess I can believe that you are reduced to gross misrepresentations of my position and of the evidence, since otherwise you would look foolish in pursuing this. Oh! Come to think of it, you DO look foolish for the childish tactics you are employing in your hopeless effort to deny what others have established about video fakery on 9/11. Better luck next time! Links to Pilots studies related to 9/11 may be found at pilotsfor911truth.org...

reply to post by mister.old.school
 


edit on 17-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: adding a link



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The determination that the plane was flying at an impossible speed for a Boeing 767 was made by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, where I have given links to their original study.


So are you saying that, in fact, you do not posses a video where one can "count the frames" (as you said) to determine the impossible speed? Why did you say you did, or that such a video was part of the evidence?

And, to beat the now pummeled dead horse, one of the key "expert sources" of the Pilots is a man proven to be unreliable, John Lear.

And the additional dying horse, that has oft been stated in the exchange in this thread, speed is not so much "impossible" as it is likely to cause the aircraft to eventually experience damage. There is "impossible" and there is "not recommended," the speed you claim being the later.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mister.old.school
 


This topic, the theory and the people involved is a fabricated ploy to discredit the movement. This is not conjecture but fact. These people started this campaign of disinformation based on nonsense since early 2002. Do not accept these people as legitimate for they are not. There is ample evidence out there that will show you who 'Fetzer' is connected to. They are a concentrated effort that is alive and well today.

Dont waste your time. These people dont believe the theories they push why should you?

Here is some of their topics soon to come to ats.....
Radio Shows – Jim Fetzer. Deanna Spingola, Debbie Lewis:
Part 1 -Deanna Spingola – The Debris Pile of 9/11, Hollow Towers & Missing Contents
Part 2 -Deanna Spingola – The Debris Pile of 9/11, Hollow Towers & Missing Victims
#1: Securing Liberty/Deb Lewis: Missing Contents WTC & Hollow Towers
#2: Securing Liberty/Deb Lewis: Missing Contents WTC & Hollow Towers
The Last American Radio Broadcast – With Phil Jayhan & Larry McWilliams
2 HR. Show: The Hollow Towers & Mechanized Lighting System @ WTC
#1: Jim Fetzer: Phil Jayhan & Larry McWilliams -Hollow Towers & Missing Contents WTC
#2: Jim Fetzer, Larry McWilliams & Phil Jayhan – The Hollow Towers & Fake Victims

Just plain insulting and ridiculous.

What happened to the windowless tanker hologram, firing a napalm missile out of a pod, with mini nukes that collapsed the hollow fake towers on 911 but it all never happened because it was faked on tv, JIM?

The reality is that you have been adrift in the sheltered harbor of our patience
edit on 17-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Well, this is pretty silly. I interview various guests to discover their points of view. That does not mean that I therefore agree with them. The hollow towers and missing content is the theory of Phil Jayhan and Larry McWilliams, not mine. I did not know what they were going to argue before they came on the show. So "Get real!" If this is the only way you know how to argue, that's pretty bad. No one is going to take you seriously if you can't do better than this. Since different guests are offering different explanations, they can't all be right. We don't know how it was done, which is why it is important to have guests with different theories of how it was done. OK?

reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


edit on 18-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Pilots has confirmed the impossible speed. John Lear has explained why it would be impossible for a Boeing 767 to fly at 560 mph at 70-1,000' altitude, where that is its cruising speed at 35,000 feet, where the air is three times less dense. The engines cannot suck the air through the turbines at that speed and altitude and, if it could be flown that fast at that altitude, it controlled flight would be impossible and the plane would come apart. What is there about this -- which I have explained many times now, including links -- that you don't understand? Check out Pilots' latest documentary, "9/11 Intercepted", where they explain it in terms that even you ought to be able to understand.

reply to post by mister.old.school
 



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
I've had several alerts from concerned members over the past two days over the ridiculousness of the "theories" presented in this hoax, and have to agree.

There is a point at which entertaining extraordinarily speculative conspiracy theories, even when labeled as a hoax, become counter productive and a flash-point for ridicule. That point has been accomplished in this thread.


Those who promote the propaganda of "TV Fakery" and "No Planes" may feel free to say that the "SkepticOverlord" on ATS has disallowed the discussion on AboveTopSecret.com.


This thread is closed.





top topics
 
11
<< 30  31  32   >>

log in

join