Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Straight out of Hollywood? LOL. People like you ALWAYS make me laugh. So completely and totally ignorant of history and how people will react in bad situations.

Even before I got home that night and had a chance to listen to the news, I had figured that Flight 93 had crashed for one of two reasons...either the pilots (the UNITED pilots) had put it into the dirt or that there had been a fight on board. History, not Hollywood, is FILLED with examples of men and women that step up and take action. People like you are an insult to their memory.

Even before you got home you had it figured out. Oh, you're a shrewd one aren't you. I don't suppose any script writers could come up with anything so compelling?

History is filled with people who don't know history, repeating all the mistakes of their trusting and gullible forebears.

reply to post by FDNY343


We'll see how reliable of an eye witness you are.

As per our conversation, I will eat crow, and say that 1,000's was an overstatement. It was more than 250 people.

How could you mistake a couple hundred for a couple thousand? What else have you exaggerated?

Because it matters not when discussing things that I have discussed. Time-temperature curves, fire progression rates, fuel loads, internal temperatures, etc. This is the first time that I felt that it would be appropriate to bring it up.

I have been anything but shy in saying a plane can't cut through steel.

Remember your claim a wing can cut my wood stove in half?

If you SAW a plane do what I've been mocking from the get go, you have a strange way of finding the appropriate time to bring it up.

Planes impacting the towers would be an appropriate time to bring it up.

We first touched on this subject 12 days ago by my reckoning:

Originally posted by Yankee451
Thanks.
Agreed, they're smaller than the lobby steel; none the less, a jet wing tip can't cut it like a hot knife through butter.

Originally posted by FDNY343
Accelerate that wind to over 733 FPS, and I guarantee it can.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No, it's not that I can't prove it, it's because I won't.

No, you can't prove it; you would if you could.

Most (with a few exceptions) of my statements stand on their own merit.

Name one.

I do not need to prove I was there to show that fire will burn hotter than 500 deg. F as Jim Fetzer et al. have claimed.

I am still not Jim Fetzer. We are not talking about him; we are talking about your claim that you were on the NW Corner of WTC4 evacuating civilians when you and thousands (now ~250) of people witnessed the impact of the jet on tower two. You then claimed you saw parts, even though the video clearly shows the plane "disappear" into the building. Like a bad special effect they said...only this time it was real. If nothing fell off, are you exaggerating that too?

I value privacy too, but if I wanted to be private I wouldn't be on the Internet. The authorities know exactly who I am and where I live. You too. In light of your wishes, I won't make you divulge your ladder you were assigned to, but it shouldn't take too much research to figure out who was involved with the evacuations. WTC6 was evacuated in a few minutes if I recall.

If you witnessed the second strike, you should also be able to describe your location when the towers started falling.

You also claimed the FDNY was fighting fires...mentioning the 78th floor. Are you just repeating known reports or do you have any inside information that isn't already posted somewhere on the public domain?

Why would Chief Hayden claim early on this was going to be strictly a rescue operation, with no attempt to fight the fires? Didn't you get the memo?

Damian Van Cleaf (30:18) : "I felt the mood that we were going to put the fire out. Everyone seemed to be confident — I know I was." Apparently nobody told him it had already been decided by the most senior officers running the operation that there would be no firefighting whatever. Chief Hayden, in video testimony to the National (Kean) Commission, 18 May 2004, repeating again what he had said all along : "So we determined, very early on, that this was going to be strictly a rescue mission. We were going to vacate the building, get everybody out, and then we were going to get out." None of his superiors envisaged any attempt to fight the fire in the North Tower, so who told Van Cleaf otherwise ? Why is he giving us this nonsense ? Again, from "FDNY Fire Operations Response on September 11," the McKinsey Report, August 2002 : "The chiefs dispatched units from the lobby of WTC1 to higher floors in two situations : ¶ In response to specific distress calls ... ; ¶ To ensure that floors below the fire had been totally evacuated." Nothing about firefighting.

www.frankresearch.info...

This is a very important point, very relevant to this thread because if jets really did impact the buildings, then yeah, maybe Japanese structures aren't as baddass as we're told, and maybe there's really nothing to all that 911 conspiracy stuff.

I think you're exaggerating.

reply to post by Yankee451


Millions round the world saw the plane on TV hundreds of others round N Y saw and some posted videos on the NET.!

You sound more and more like Jim (faulty physics) Fetzer every day and the staff put his NO PLANE thread in the hoax bin were it belongs!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Millions round the world saw the plane on TV hundreds of others round N Y saw and some posted videos on the NET.!

You sound more and more like Jim (faulty physics) Fetzer every day and the staff put his NO PLANE thread in the hoax bin were it belongs!

The footage was centrally fed to the major media. The same footage was used with different tweaks to chroma key, background and filters. The footage has been proven to be fraudulent. Every image with a jet in it.

As much as you'd like to associate me with Jim Fetzer, I am not him and I do not even know his positions on this anymore. If our research paths cross on no planes, then we agree on that point. If he is espousing death rays from space or imaginary mini nukes, I must disagree with his take on the matter. I believe they would have made use of tried and true conventional means considering what was at stake.

I have already linked to what was at stake, and you can google it if you wish, Operation Brownstone and Operation Code Angel.

If the HOAX section from ATS is what you choose to identify what's true and what's not, good luck with that.

reply to post by Yankee451

I have been anything but shy in saying a plane can't cut through steel.

USS Hinsdale (APA 120)



USS STERETT (DD 407)



This happened 60 years before WTC with aircraft weighing a few tons (versus 150 tons for 767) traveling at a
fraction of the speed of a 767

Notice in case of USS Hinsdale how the section of wings near the fuselage penetrated. The steel in this
ships was the same thickness as a WTC column

reply to post by thedman


Oops...did I make a mistake and say "plane" when I should have said "wing"?

Leave it up to the knit-pickers to point that out; another good shot from thedman. They see no proof of planes anywhere but can catch a word out of place pretty quickly.

Why don't you use your keen eye answer my post below?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Yankee451

 

911research.wtc7.net...

Here is section of exterior wall lying in street after being dislofged from the building

I sense you are angered by the line of questioning here...that you take offense that I don't accept the official story. Please understand that I mean no offense, but these questions need to be asked, and they should have been asked by the authorities. It is unfortunate it's come to us.

I've been bothered by this image of a whole exterior beam section lying in the street. You offered it as proof that a plane impacted the building on one side, and a wheel from landing gear "pushed out of the way" a multi-ton section of structural steel on the opposite side of the building.. On first glance, your links show a WTC exterior column section, but I took the liberty of highlighting a few details that stand out. The biggest red flag to me is the lack of damage to the column section.

For having fallen several dozen stories and impacting the street, these three column sections are remarkably intact. They are all lying parallel to eachother, with no twisting, and with only the spandrels and the tops of the columns being bent much. Note the lack of damage to the asphalt too.

There are square cuts at the top of the columns where it looks like floor joists were cut out and then they were dented in with a sledge hammer. Midway through you can see square cuts as well.

The wheel. Seriously?

The floor joist connections weren't sheared off, their bolts were removed.

The Spandrel plates appear to have been bent towards the outside, as one would imagine if an explosion had dislodged this section, however there is no scorching or jagged edges which one would expect with explosives.

The burning car or debris behind the car in the background. For being almost a quarter mile away from a kerosene fire, there's a lot of damage here.

I also don't see any bystanders, but I do see an American flag in one photo...makes me all weepy.

Looks like a crane dropped an old spare or damaged exterior wall section on the street and someone took a sledge hammer to it, stuck a wheel in it and covered it with dust, snapped a couple photographs and then buried it by dropping a building on it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/05cc519c7dca.jpg[/atsimg]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Millions round the world saw the plane on TV hundreds of others round N Y saw and some posted videos on the NET.!

You sound more and more like Jim (faulty physics) Fetzer every day and the staff put his NO PLANE thread in the hoax bin were it belongs!

The footage was centrally fed to the major media. The same footage was used with different tweaks to chroma key, background and filters. The footage has been proven to be fraudulent. Every image with a jet in it.

As much as you'd like to associate me with Jim Fetzer, I am not him and I do not even know his positions on this anymore. If our research paths cross on no planes, then we agree on that point. If he is espousing death rays from space or imaginary mini nukes, I must disagree with his take on the matter. I believe they would have made use of tried and true conventional means considering what was at stake.

I have already linked to what was at stake, and you can google it if you wish, Operation Brownstone and Operation Code Angel.

If the HOAX section from ATS is what you choose to identify what's true and what's not, good luck with that.

Strange I didn't mention death rays or nukes (see above) ???? one of y--- sorry Jims theories

What you claim above re chroma key etc YOU HAVE to be joking they could NOT DO THAT realtime in 2001 indeed they would struggle to do it realtime today.

Apart from the STUPIDITY of that idea what about all the videos posted by good old JOE PUBLIC that day onto youtube etc, explain those to everyone! you really are clutching at straws something else you have in common with Jim.

Also Jim doesn't like to defend his posts when someone knows what they are talking about YOU also have that in common.

Have you looked up google re types of concrete yet, if you need any tips re construction let me know as its obvious to others on here YOU dont know J*** S*** about construction!

reply to post by wmd_2008

The simplest description of this system is: The first-down line is drawn on the field with a computer so that viewers seeing the game on TV can see the line as though it were painted on the field. Here are some of the problems that have to be solved in order for this system to work:
* The system has to know the orientation of the field with respect to the camera so that it can paint the first down line with the correct perspective from that camera's point of view.
* The system has to know, in that same perspective framework, exactly where every yard line is.
* Given that the cameraperson can move the camera, the system has to be able to sense the camera's movement (tilt, pan, zoom, focus) and understand the perspective change resulting from the movement.
* Given that the camera can pan while viewing the field, the system has to be able to recalculate the perspective at a rate of 30 frames per second as the camera moves.
* A football field is not flat -- it crests very gently in the middle to help rainwater run off. So the line calculated by the system has to appropriately follow the curve of the field.
* A football game is shot by multiple cameras at different places in the stadium, so the system has to do all of this work for several cameras.
* The system has to be able to sense when players, referees or the ball cross over the first down line so it does not paint the line on top of them.
* The system has to be aware of superimposed graphics that the network might overlay on the scene. There are probably several other complications, as well... It's a tough problem!

To solve these problems, the creators of the 1st and Ten system combine hardware and software. First, each camera must have a very sensitive encoder attached to it that can read the camera's angle, tilt, zoom and so on, and send that information to the system. The system must also have a detailed 3-D model of the field so that it knows where each yard line is. By integrating the tilt, pan and zoom information with the 3-D model, the system can begin to calculate where the line should go. Then the system uses color palettes for the field and the players/referees/ball to recognize, pixel by pixel, whether it is looking at the field or something else. This way, only the field gets painted.

Down line markers on "live" football games

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Strange I didn't mention death rays or nukes (see above) ???? one of y--- sorry Jims theories

Is behaving like a petulant child your way of making a point? The reason I left the SF911T many years ago was because of Fetzer's diversion to exotic weaponry to explain things. Smacked to me of disinfo. Like you.

What you claim above re chroma key etc YOU HAVE to be joking they could NOT DO THAT realtime in 2001 indeed they would struggle to do it realtime today.

I didn't say they did it very well. Even barnyard animals can see the fraud. What's your excuse?

Apart from the STUPIDITY of that idea what about all the videos posted by good old JOE PUBLIC that day onto youtube etc, explain those to everyone! you really are clutching at straws something else you have in common with Jim.

Have you compared all their photos? I have. Why would "good old" Wolfgang Staehl, Tina Cart and Robert Clark all have the same photographs, yet all claim they are unique?

Also Jim doesn't like to defend his posts when someone knows what they are talking about YOU also have that in common.

Post something to rebut my posts then, don't post Kung Fu videos when the topic is 911. If you behave like a spoiled little girl, you will be ignored.

Have you looked up google re types of concrete yet, if you need any tips re construction let me know as its obvious to others on here YOU dont know J*** S*** about construction!

Take a video of your head smacking into 3500PSI concrete to demonstrate to the class how much thicker your head is.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

The simplest description of this system is: The first-down line is drawn on the field with a computer so that viewers seeing the game on TV can see the line as though it were painted on the field. Here are some of the problems that have to be solved in order for this system to work:
* The system has to know the orientation of the field with respect to the camera so that it can paint the first down line with the correct perspective from that camera's point of view.
* The system has to know, in that same perspective framework, exactly where every yard line is.
* Given that the cameraperson can move the camera, the system has to be able to sense the camera's movement (tilt, pan, zoom, focus) and understand the perspective change resulting from the movement.
* Given that the camera can pan while viewing the field, the system has to be able to recalculate the perspective at a rate of 30 frames per second as the camera moves.
* A football field is not flat -- it crests very gently in the middle to help rainwater run off. So the line calculated by the system has to appropriately follow the curve of the field.
* A football game is shot by multiple cameras at different places in the stadium, so the system has to do all of this work for several cameras.
* The system has to be able to sense when players, referees or the ball cross over the first down line so it does not paint the line on top of them.
* The system has to be aware of superimposed graphics that the network might overlay on the scene. There are probably several other complications, as well... It's a tough problem!

To solve these problems, the creators of the 1st and Ten system combine hardware and software. First, each camera must have a very sensitive encoder attached to it that can read the camera's angle, tilt, zoom and so on, and send that information to the system. The system must also have a detailed 3-D model of the field so that it knows where each yard line is. By integrating the tilt, pan and zoom information with the 3-D model, the system can begin to calculate where the line should go. Then the system uses color palettes for the field and the players/referees/ball to recognize, pixel by pixel, whether it is looking at the field or something else. This way, only the field gets painted.

Down line markers on "live" football games

Wonderful. Prove it was capable of being done in 2001.

OOPS!! Didn't debut untill the 2003 season!!

In the 2003 NFL season, Sportvision unveiled the first system capable of inserting the 1st and Ten™ line in video from the popular Skycam, the mobile camera that provides aerial coverage from directly over the field of play, so all replays can have the iconic Yellow line displayed.

www.sportvision.com...

I'll address the rest of your posts later tonight.

reply to post by FDNY343


From October 2000:

ask.yahoo.com...

Dear Gwen: A Google search on the phrase "Yellow Line Football How?" (web searches often work better when you eliminate pesky hindrances like grammar) referred us to a helpful Q-and-A column from ABC News called "The Answer Geek." The Geek lays the yellow line blame squarely on the shoulders of a company called Sportvision, who have one humdinger of a web site. Here's the gist of it, but check the site for more details: According to the site, "There are eight computers... three sets of special encoders and abundant wiring dedicated to generating the virtual first down line in video format." The virtual line is drawn on video based on the position first down marker, ridiculously exact details of of the live camera's position (including altitude and lens angle), a digital 3D model of the field, and two palettes of colors for the field and the players. The player's colors automatically override the virtual line's colors, so it appears as though they're stepping over it. The company recently won an Emmy for the floating yellow line, and unlike the lite-brite hockey puck fiasco a few years ago, the "first and ten" technology is very popular -- a recent poll quoted on Sportvision's site found that "over 92% of fans want the patented technology in every football game they watch, and more than 25% said that they are more inclined to watch a game that features the system." Sportvision has all sorts of cool new tricks up their sleeve: technology that measures the speed of a swinging baseball bat, the vertical leap of a basketball player, the height and speed of a ski jumper, and the swerving path of a NASCAR driver. So expect lots more nifty special effects soon, including a "technology enriched webcast" of the Ironman triathlon on October 14th, 2000

I am confused...why can't you answer my posts from the top of your head? Do you need time to read the MIT paper? Do you need time to research the evacuation of WTC4? Do you need time to study the videos of the plane to calculate where on the map of the WTC you saw the plane parts? Do you need to research where your ladder was stationed at the time of the collapse? Etc?

Why can't you and any of your cohorts shoot from the hip?

I am waiting your response with bated breath.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

The simplest description of this system is: The first-down line is drawn on the field with a computer so that viewers seeing the game on TV can see the line as though it were painted on the field. Here are some of the problems that have to be solved in order for this system to work:
* The system has to know the orientation of the field with respect to the camera so that it can paint the first down line with the correct perspective from that camera's point of view.
* The system has to know, in that same perspective framework, exactly where every yard line is.
* Given that the cameraperson can move the camera, the system has to be able to sense the camera's movement (tilt, pan, zoom, focus) and understand the perspective change resulting from the movement.
* Given that the camera can pan while viewing the field, the system has to be able to recalculate the perspective at a rate of 30 frames per second as the camera moves.
* A football field is not flat -- it crests very gently in the middle to help rainwater run off. So the line calculated by the system has to appropriately follow the curve of the field.
* A football game is shot by multiple cameras at different places in the stadium, so the system has to do all of this work for several cameras.
* The system has to be able to sense when players, referees or the ball cross over the first down line so it does not paint the line on top of them.
* The system has to be aware of superimposed graphics that the network might overlay on the scene. There are probably several other complications, as well... It's a tough problem!

To solve these problems, the creators of the 1st and Ten system combine hardware and software. First, each camera must have a very sensitive encoder attached to it that can read the camera's angle, tilt, zoom and so on, and send that information to the system. The system must also have a detailed 3-D model of the field so that it knows where each yard line is. By integrating the tilt, pan and zoom information with the 3-D model, the system can begin to calculate where the line should go. Then the system uses color palettes for the field and the players/referees/ball to recognize, pixel by pixel, whether it is looking at the field or something else. This way, only the field gets painted.

Down line markers on "live" football games

WOW YES you have got me there Yankee451 I MUST ADMIT the detail in this system you have pointed us to is great now let everyone have a look at it in action.

Now everyone sit down because you wont believe what you see J-- sorry Yankee451 thinks this system was used to fake planes crashing into the WTC Towers now brace yourselves for the detail




Yes the detail in the YELLOW LINE is stunning dont you think, you can just imagine that yellow line smashing into the building cant you all

Sorry Yankee451 BIG FAIL!!!!

Here is another bunch of bs from the former bs master himself!

Originally posted by Yankee451


Post something to rebut my posts then, don't post Kung Fu videos when the topic is 911. If you behave like a spoiled little girl, you will be ignored.

Hi Yankee451

How about this post in reply to YOUR TOTAL STUPIDITY in comparing the WTC concrete floors and a local school being demolished.

Everyone can have a read at this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You are like Jim's LOST twin mate almost as daft and wont reply to a post that as any info that shows YOU dont have a clue what your talking about.

So have you got an excuse ready for all the videos posted on youtube yet! Hope its better that your tv graphics system that draws a yellow line

reply to post by wmd_2008


What millions of people saw was a bad cartoon.

That cartoon cannot explain this damage.

A missile or some other projectile can:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/24e4da0adf94.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Yankee451


Still no reply re the CONCRETE post and now the deflection tactic, just because they didn't teach physics when you went to school is NOT OUR PROBLEM.

So its another subject thats a mystic art to you so thats construction,video/photography and physics!!!

Liked your post to a yellow line funny thing is Jim Fetzer did the same, another thing you have in common.

Oh and just to let you know photography has been a hobby for 30yrs so I do know a little about that as well, brought up with manual SLR cameras with actual film in the camera and video for the last 5 yrs as well.

So your little yellow line post made me

reply to post by wmd_2008


911review.org...

The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.

Steel, no matter what temper, no matter what bracing is used, ends up with an overall flexation that exceeds design parameters for deformations and failures occur. These were fact I learned from a documentary in 1990 about the construction of the north tower. Yamsaki's decision making process was outlined and rejected core designs identified. Both the WTC 1 & WTC 2 towers had a rectangular cast concrete core structure formed into rectangular cells that had elevators and stairways in them.

911review.org...

Will you now please post the video of you smacking your head against 3500 psi concrete and shaddup already?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Oh and just to let you know photography has been a hobby for 30yrs so I do know a little about that as well, brought up with manual SLR cameras with actual film in the camera and video for the last 5 yrs as well.

So your little yellow line post made me

Ohh...goodie, another "photography expert". In my travels I've met the pilots, the fire fighting eye-witness, the guy who's sister saw the planes, and now a photographer with 30 years experience. How you managed to gather that much experience and still sound like a whiny little girl who hasn't had enough attention is beyond me.

Care to comment on the photography work of Wolfgang Staehl, Tina Cart and Robert Clark, Missy?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

911review.org...

The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.

Steel, no matter what temper, no matter what bracing is used, ends up with an overall flexation that exceeds design parameters for deformations and failures occur. These were fact I learned from a documentary in 1990 about the construction of the north tower. Yamsaki's decision making process was outlined and rejected core designs identified. Both the WTC 1 & WTC 2 towers had a rectangular cast concrete core structure formed into rectangular cells that had elevators and stairways in them.

911review.org...

Will you now please post the video of you smacking your head against 3500 psi concrete and shaddup already?

Well Yankee451 your stuning lack of knowledge comes through loud and clear YOU probably think your 3500 psi concrete sounds tough well thats actually 24n/mm2 concrete.

Now here in the UK standard concrete used on site is usually 30n/mm2 even up to 50n/mm2 is common on buildings only a few floors high, also if you look on the net you will see plenty of images of the core being built and as one of the truther websites has the drawings for the buildings they show no concrete round the
core.

That was one of the problems sheetrock only round the cores!

reply to post by wmd_2008


Excuse me? Did you step in any of that?

Good grief, is that the best you can do when you've been bitch slapped?

You were claiming the acres of pulverized concrete came from all the "pancaked" floors that existed in your world, weren't you? I show you a link which appears to show what now? I want to hear you say it, Missy.