The Undebunkable Video: Eliminate The Impossible

reply to post by bing0


Left out at what altitude did he fly at? Hoe fast was the jet going?

Makes a difference doesn't it?

Check off another fail for truther logic........

reply to post by thedman

But there is an unanswered question. How did the 19 Arab hijackers get on board those planes? The list of the 19 men was conveniently found in a parked car. Not one of those 19 men was a passenger. Not even one had a ticket. Not even one had a boarding pass. Nor were any of the 19 men members of the flight crews.

All airlines have employees who will lose their jobs if they let men without tickets and boarding passes on to an airplane. To imagine that 19 men achieved this feat on 9-11 without one airline employee being fired is unbelievable.

If you have proof to debunk this?


(full article) vidrebel.wordpress.com...

The Pentagon's own videotapes do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when one was shown on "The O'Reilly Factor". At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and easily visible; it was not, which means that the video evidence also contradicts the official account. The tail of what appears to be a far smaller plane, however, is visible just above the guard mechanism. In this graphic, Jack White has sized the image of a Boeing 757 to that of the tail, which vividly displays the inconsistency of supposing that it might be the tail of a Boeing 757. If a plane of its dimensions were present, it should have been visible, but is not. Yet it is consistent with a smaller--and slower--plane having hit the building.

The aerodynamics of flight, including "ground effect", would have made the official trajectory-flying at high speed barely above ground level-physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than about 60 feet to the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible. Russ Wittenburg in the DVD "Zero", an experienced pilot who flew the planes alleged to have been used on 9/11, states that the Boeing 757 can't go 500 mph hour at sea level because the air is too dense. Robin Hordon, an air traffic controller, in the same film, explains that the Boeing 757 cannot do the maneuvers attributed to it. The official story thus appears to entail violations of laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics, insofar as the damage to the building, the absence of debris, the clear, smooth, unblemished lawn and now its alleged performance are incompatible with a Boeing 757.

Moreover, if a Boeing 757 could have traveled at 500 mph at ground level, it would have caused enormous damage to the grass and the ground, including producing substantial furrows from the low hanging engines, yet photos taken immediately after the alleged impact show the grass surface as smooth and unblemished as a putting green, where I expect Tiger Woods to show up and practice his game.

questionable, isn't it?

(full article) jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

Excellent video. How some people can still believe the official story i find beyond belief, especially after all the witness accounts and videos like this one that have come out. The government gets away with murder, literally.
Thanks again for the videos

I have no doubt at all, that the world trade center buildings collapsed and fell down after two fully fueled planes hit at over 500mph wiping out enormous sections of the buildings. There is this speculation that someone planted explosives in the buildings, where they were detonated. This is a pile of crap. Does anyone understand how much explosives would be need to accomplish this. Does anyone have an idea of how wide these buildings were? U would need to put explosives on several floors on the collums, which means you would be walking through peoples offices to put them there. It would be such a massive undertaking that whoever did it would need to come in, in Uhaul type trucks. Then you would need to transport them by cart, past Port Authority Police and on to the various floors.

Sometimes the easiest explanation is the correct one

reply to post by surfnow2

I have no doubt at all, that the world trade center buildings collapsed and fell down after two fully fueled planes hit at over 500mph wiping out enormous sections of the buildings.

There are some huge problems with the official story of how the towers collapsed. First of all, in the Bazant/Zhou explanation:

The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently [color=limegreen]exceeding 800°C…[color=limegreen]Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below…

So for this theory to play out in reality, at least 24 of the 47 core columns would have to reach 800°C and buckle. But there's a huge problem with this theory, it didn't happen:

NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.

So the Bazant/Zhou theory of collapse is false. Let's see if an experiment NIST did can back up the official story:

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… [color=limegreen]All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing......Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.

NIST did a full scale test and the experiment showed that fire damage cannot even cause a single floor to collapse. So they can't even get one floor to collapse after two hours, and didn't even address the behavior of the building during collapse but expect us to believe that the entire tower collapsed once "initiation was reached" because it was "inevitable".

This is a pile of crap. Does anyone understand how much explosives would be need to accomplish this. Does anyone have an idea of how wide these buildings were? U would need to put explosives on several floors on the collums, which means you would be walking through peoples offices to put them there. It would be such a massive undertaking that whoever did it would need to come in, in Uhaul type trucks. Then you would need to transport them by cart, past Port Authority Police and on to the various floors.

I've said this hundreds of times and I'll say it again: Your personal opinion does not trump all of the evidence that points to a controlled demolition.

Sometimes the easiest explanation is the correct one

Right, so which is easier:

--WTC 7 had fires scattered randomly throughout the building, yet the damage caused the core columns to fail symmetrically within milliseconds of each other allowing the building to fall symmetrically, and the fires also got rid of the material in between the floors allowing it to free-fall in a never before seen fire-caused symmetrical free-fall skyscraper collapse.

OR

--WTC 7 was imploded in a controlled demolition, because in controlled demolitions the core columns are destroyed first to ensure that the building falls in on itself: (as seen in this image of the fault and acknowledged in Chapter 5 of the FEMA report) [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/10b76f1dd03c.jpg[/atsimg]

The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward,
suggesting an internal failure and implosion…

The core is also destroyed symmetrically and within milliseconds of each other allowing the building to fall symmetrically rather than tipping over. Explosives were used to remove the material that would otherwise stop the collapse to ensure free-fall.


Which is easier:
--Airplanes struck the towers in different locations at different angles with different masses at different speeds containing different amounts of jet fuel, yet both towers collapsed all the way down to the ground due to fires which do not burn hot enough to cause even a single column to fail.

OR

--Airplanes struck the towers, and the tower was imploded in a top/down demolition to make it appear that the damage from the planes (which has been determined as insufficient to cause collapse) caused them to fall?

Here is proof that the core of the Twin Towers failed first (just like with implosions and WTC 7): North Tower Antenna: At frame 6 the antenna begins to fall, but at frame 8 the tower begins to fall. How does the core fail if the fires burning inside cannot cause it to fail? What could cause the core column of a building to fail and also bring the building all the way to the ground? A controlled demolition.

reply to post by surfnow2


there are no proofs traditional explosives are involved. Because of the various dust samples, a smaller heap of rubble than expected, steel vaporized, 1100 bodies vaporized to dust, accountable witnesses claiming they heard explosions, molten steel in the basement x weeks after 9/11,....


watch this clip.....do they all lie? Open your ears, and hear it for yourself



probably you didn't bother to read everything through

Originally posted by surfnow2
I have no doubt at all, that the world trade center buildings collapsed and fell down after two fully fueled planes hit at over 500mph wiping out enormous sections of the buildings. There is this speculation that someone planted explosives in the buildings, where they were detonated. This is a pile of crap. Does anyone understand how much explosives would be need to accomplish this. Does anyone have an idea of how wide these buildings were? U would need to put explosives on several floors on the collums, which means you would be walking through peoples offices to put them there. It would be such a massive undertaking that whoever did it would need to come in, in Uhaul type trucks. Then you would need to transport them by cart, past Port Authority Police and on to the various floors.

Sometimes the easiest explanation is the correct one

Understand something!!, YOU!!

Choose to believe two planes(which weight 115tons) carrying 22,000 gallons of jet fuel. Brought down ,COMPLETELY DOWN,3 massive towers. Knowing each tower weights 500,000 tons. WTC weights 250,000 tons±.

YOU choose to believe , without any knowledge of construction or demolition, the 911 commission report,NIST report and FEMA unconditionally.


Understand your doing the same exact thing what evangelicals do with there pastor's explanation of the bible.


What you see here are a lot of holes,justifiable holes that YOU blindly choose to ignore. For what reason I don't know. Only you can answer that.

So did you OSers give up trying to figure out how to clear up the contradictions I pointed out?

Just to refresh your memories...

Plane at pentagon smashed through a reinforced concrete wall, with no holes for the engines yet they somehow got inside (all three parts), and the plane burned up into nothing.

Planes at the WTC smashed through a mesh of steel columns, including the engines, the plane didn't burn up into nothing, even though steel was supposed to have got so hot it failed, yet the plane added weight to the floors helping the collapse.

So once again back to the original point, no the physical evidence does not point to 19 Arab terrorists. It contradicts itself.

reply to post by ANOK

So once again back to the original point, no the physical evidence does not point to 19 Arab terrorists. It contradicts itself.

It does when you understand physics.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ANOK

 

So once again back to the original point, no the physical evidence does not point to 19 Arab terrorists. It contradicts itself.

It does when you understand physics.

details, please? i love to learn

Originally posted by samkent

It does when you understand physics.

Well it's obvious you don't, or you would have actually explained the physics that clear up the contradictions I pointed out, not just make an empty statement.

You can't clear up the contradictions can you? Let's be honest now, for once.

btw, that engine found on Church & Murray Street? Lots of people have been busy for a long while analyzing it (by pictures), but will never get to see that engine, cause that request had to be made to NORAD. The FBI never investigated the engine.....they assumed it was from one of the airplanes.

It seems, the engine, is from a 747.....not a 767

reply to post by samkent

It does when you understand physics.

Exactly how does understanding physics explain how jet engines can get inside of the building without entering the building? Let's change the situation to help you understand an extremely simple concept which you somehow are unable to grasp with your understanding of physics:

I throw two oranges at a pane of glass, and they both go SPLAT and don't make it through the glass but instead just make two juicy marks on the window. If there were two orange peels on the other side of that glass, how can you explain how they got there since the oranges never made it through?

Can you explain what Law of Physics, what equation can explain how the orange peel made it through? Because you're the one that understands physics, right? That makes sense to you since you understand physics?

Originally posted by ANOK
So did you OSers give up trying to figure out how to clear up the contradictions I pointed out?

Just to refresh your memories...

Plane at pentagon smashed through a reinforced concrete wall, with no holes for the engines

False - the entrance hole made by Flight 77 was 96 feet wide on the lower floor - the engines are 42 feet 6" apart ((Boeing document) - how is it that a 96 foot hole is "no hole" for engines only 42 1/2 feet apart??

yet they somehow got inside (all three parts), and the plane burned up into nothing.

we've shown that is simply false - whay do you continue to lie about it??

Here's more ebvidence for yuo to conventiently ignore

911research.wtc7.net...

So once again back to the original point, no the physical evidence does not point to 19 Arab terrorists. It contradicts itself.

nothing about the planes themselves or their wreckage has anything much to do with the number or nationality of the terrorists - you are creating a staw man, ignoring evidence, and making stuff up to suport your illogical conclusions.

You accuse the Government, commission, etc of being disinfo agents when you are one yourself - there's no inconsistency in your so-called challenge- except for your own mistakes (and I'm being kind calling them that!)

Originally posted by bing0

trickoftheshade.....you don't question the government at all

That's simply a lie.

No wonder Truthers are so good at making stuff up.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


well, sir, proof me wrong? Show me you question the government for 9/11

reply to post by bing0


And again, you post an article written by an appearant idiot who is unable to find the actual flight manifests....which list 18 of the 19 hijackers, with the sole exception of Hani Hanjour. There are ticket agents that checked them in for their flights and gate agents who allowed them to board the aircraft. The evidence shows this....and you post that lame article...

reply to post by vipertech0596

And again, you post an article written by an appearant idiot who is unable to find the actual flight manifests....which list 18 of the 19 hijackers, with the sole exception of Hani Hanjour. There are ticket agents that checked them in for their flights and gate agents who allowed them to board the aircraft. The evidence shows this....and you post that lame article...

This would be a great place to put a link to a source of some kind.

Just sayin'

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by bing0

 

And again, you post an article written by an appearant idiot who is unable to find the actual flight manifests....which list 18 of the 19 hijackers, with the sole exception of Hani Hanjour. There are ticket agents that checked them in for their flights and gate agents who allowed them to board the aircraft. The evidence shows this....and you post that lame article...

thank you for upgrading my English....flight manifests, and thank you that i have to look for them

and the search shows indeed contradictions, so isn't it understandable that it creates confusion? Because the final list took years to be published. And, remember, 7 of them were alive and not on those planes?