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.
What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?
page: 30share:
reply to post by hooper
You obviously forgot what thread you were on. See the best explanation for the left-to-right damage is a 12 by 60 inch titanium tipped missile warhead.
I don't offer the videos of a plane as proof...that'd be you guys, I'm offering images of the directional damage as proof:
See, it is even on the left side of the South tower gash too. Judging from the 14 inch columns, one of the warheads scooped out a 12 gash in one of them.
You got to love it though - just think - his missile theory is true because the videos are fake and the proof that the videos are fake? - because the missile theory is true! Win, win all around!
You obviously forgot what thread you were on. See the best explanation for the left-to-right damage is a 12 by 60 inch titanium tipped missile warhead.
I don't offer the videos of a plane as proof...that'd be you guys, I'm offering images of the directional damage as proof:
See, it is even on the left side of the South tower gash too. Judging from the 14 inch columns, one of the warheads scooped out a 12 gash in one of them.
Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine
Nice try. You made the statement, now back it up. Stop squirming and show how how all those videos are "fraudulent" or admit that the theory has no basis. You can start with any one of them and do a frame by frame analysis to show how and where it was faked. Once you have that done, you may have something to debate with.
What a cartoon you are. You don't run the show here junior, and your tantrums only make you look more clownish.
For the readers, it is verboten to have "video fakery" threads on ATS, as it is on all controlled sites. Pteridine is well aware of that.
I suggest anyone to head over to September Clues, Killtown, or LetsRoll if they're interested in looking at the mountain of evidence against each and every image that contains a 911 jet.
This thread is regarding the columns 145-152 and the obvious-to-a-barnyard-animal-left-to-right damage, and my opponent is demanding standards of proof he knows will get this thread closed. As an alternative, I have offered him a chance to post any number of images to be scrutinized by all.
Well, Laddy, it appears that you can't back up your claims and show how your fellow travellers determined that the videos were faked. That puts the final nail in the coffin of one of the more idiotic theories about 911.
You were really entertaining as you pretended to understand the physics behind the collisions and the capabilities of the JASSM. Your answers came directly from another site that was also wrong on many levels but you wouldn't know it. Then you made the statement about all the videos being faked. The Government that couldn't hand out water bottles to hurricane victims purportedly edited all of the videotapes and paid all of the witnesses just so the invisible missiles could knock holes in the buildings to look like airplanes did it. Sure it did.
As a no-plane thread this should have been put in the hoax bin a while ago, so you shouldn't worry about it being trashed now. You just can't show any fakery and have to send people to other sites to distract them from the fact that you have no evidence. The entrepreneurs who operate those sites and their acolytes don't want to be disturbed by reality which would make them good places for you to post your theory without having it trashed so completely.
reply to post by pteridine
Anyone doubting my word can start with Leslie Raphael's outstanding expose about the Naudet fraud, "911"
Jules Naudet's First Shot Was Staged
Then go here to see how they used multiple different models as a ruse to throw off the scent to investigators:
Move onto here
And here
For precedence look here, and for the type of people who LIE BIG, turn here
Anyone doubting my word can start with Leslie Raphael's outstanding expose about the Naudet fraud, "911"
Jules Naudet's First Shot Was Staged
Then go here to see how they used multiple different models as a ruse to throw off the scent to investigators:
Move onto here
And here
For precedence look here, and for the type of people who LIE BIG, turn here
edit on 9-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)
reply to post by septic
In the Naudet film the plane is visible in the ideo just before impact. It wasn't made clear how it was faked. In Peanutbrain's expose he shows how the image of a 767 can't overlay the actual image because the wings won't match up. He says he can't figure out why and aparently doesn't realize that a static model and a flying craft are different in their dynamics. The plane seems to be banking and/or pulling out of a high speed shallow dive. Wings flex and that is why he can't align them. No evidence of video fakery or CGI overlays shown.
Good bye missile theory.
In the Naudet film the plane is visible in the ideo just before impact. It wasn't made clear how it was faked. In Peanutbrain's expose he shows how the image of a 767 can't overlay the actual image because the wings won't match up. He says he can't figure out why and aparently doesn't realize that a static model and a flying craft are different in their dynamics. The plane seems to be banking and/or pulling out of a high speed shallow dive. Wings flex and that is why he can't align them. No evidence of video fakery or CGI overlays shown.
Good bye missile theory.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic
In the Naudet film the plane is visible in the ideo just before impact. It wasn't made clear how it was faked. In Peanutbrain's expose he shows how the image of a 767 can't overlay the actual image because the wings won't match up. He says he can't figure out why and aparently doesn't realize that a static model and a flying craft are different in their dynamics. The plane seems to be banking and/or pulling out of a high speed shallow dive. Wings flex and that is why he can't align them. No evidence of video fakery or CGI overlays shown.
Good bye missile theory.
What also puzzles me is the belief that a lower kinetic energy missile that hits at a less than optimal angle can do damage while higher kinetic large aircraft traveling near max speed can not damage the building when it hits dead on (optimally).
reply to post by huh2142
You're not alone in your puzzlement.
Welcome to septics fantasy world where he makes up his own proof and evidence using only his bright imagination along with his preconceived notions and beliefs- none of which is based in this reality. Sit back and watch as he debunks himself. It's comic relief at this point.
Originally posted by huh2142
What also puzzles me is the belief that a lower kinetic energy missile that hits at a less than optimal angle can do damage while higher kinetic large aircraft traveling near max speed can not damage the building when it hits dead on (optimally).
You're not alone in your puzzlement.
Welcome to septics fantasy world where he makes up his own proof and evidence using only his bright imagination along with his preconceived notions and beliefs- none of which is based in this reality. Sit back and watch as he debunks himself. It's comic relief at this point.
edit on
9-12-2011 by WASTYT because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic
In the Naudet film the plane is visible in the ideo just before impact. It wasn't made clear how it was faked. In Peanutbrain's expose he shows how the image of a 767 can't overlay the actual image because the wings won't match up. He says he can't figure out why and aparently doesn't realize that a static model and a flying craft are different in their dynamics. The plane seems to be banking and/or pulling out of a high speed shallow dive. Wings flex and that is why he can't align them. No evidence of video fakery or CGI overlays shown.
Good bye missile theory.
Heh...your rehearsed answers won't work here. The Naudet film is a fraud for completely different reasons. Raphael isn't a no-planer, but he exposes as frauds the Naudets, the FDNY, the NYPD and more, and names names.
I'll give you a few days to read it.
peanutbrain's videos come in several parts, and it took me about an hour to watch them all. You're a fast study.
Yes, wings are flexible, but then they're strong enough to cut through steel. Like in this video where one is ripped off by the air.
Here's another...you'd think the wings would slice through those barriers...I bet they would have had they been going real fast, huh?
This one needed to go much faster it seems:
And look at this one!
edit on 9-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by huh2142
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic
In the Naudet film the plane is visible in the ideo just before impact. It wasn't made clear how it was faked. In Peanutbrain's expose he shows how the image of a 767 can't overlay the actual image because the wings won't match up. He says he can't figure out why and aparently doesn't realize that a static model and a flying craft are different in their dynamics. The plane seems to be banking and/or pulling out of a high speed shallow dive. Wings flex and that is why he can't align them. No evidence of video fakery or CGI overlays shown.
Good bye missile theory.
What also puzzles me is the belief that a lower kinetic energy missile that hits at a less than optimal angle can do damage while higher kinetic large aircraft traveling near max speed can not damage the building when it hits dead on (optimally).
The kinetic energy of the hollow aluminum wing tip was not the kinetic energy of the whole plane, was it?
The mass of the hollow aluminum wing tip was not focused on a small point, it was distributed over the width of the wing, wasn't it?
Yes, a missile has optimum penetration at certain downward angles, as evidenced by the left-sides of the gashes where the columns were severely bent inwards, as opposed to the right sides of the gashes where the columns are cut cleanly.
Tell me, is it optimum use of a hollow aluminum wing to expect it to slice dozens of structural steel columns with protruding, wing slicing edges, laterally supported by four foot wide plates of yet more steel, and further supported by four inch concrete floors, the core columns, and the opposite wall?
Originally posted by septic
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic
In the Naudet film the plane is visible in the ideo just before impact. It wasn't made clear how it was faked. In Peanutbrain's expose he shows how the image of a 767 can't overlay the actual image because the wings won't match up. He says he can't figure out why and aparently doesn't realize that a static model and a flying craft are different in their dynamics. The plane seems to be banking and/or pulling out of a high speed shallow dive. Wings flex and that is why he can't align them. No evidence of video fakery or CGI overlays shown.
Good bye missile theory.
Heh...your rehearsed answers won't work here. The Naudet film is a fraud for completely different reasons. Raphael isn't a no-planer, but he exposes as frauds the Naudets, the FDNY, the NYPD and more, and names names.
I'll give you a few days to read it.
peanutbrain's videos come in several parts, and it took me about an hour to watch them all. You're a fast study.
Yes, wings are flexible, but then they're strong enough to cut through steel. Like in this video where one is ripped off by the air.
As Peanutbrain didn't prove that the video was faked, you don't have a case. Find a way to show that all the videos with planes are faked or wave goodbye to the invisible missile theory.
reply to post by pteridine
Thanks, already did. Leslie Raphael proved fraud without fakery...which is why you avoid it, no doubt. Your short attention span and inability to rub two pieces of gray matter together doesn't count as a rebuttal.
Say, speaking of the Naudets, another link that proves fraud without resorting to fakery is this one, once again by Yankee451:
Find a way to show that all the videos with planes are faked or wave goodbye to the invisible missile theory.
Thanks, already did. Leslie Raphael proved fraud without fakery...which is why you avoid it, no doubt. Your short attention span and inability to rub two pieces of gray matter together doesn't count as a rebuttal.
Say, speaking of the Naudets, another link that proves fraud without resorting to fakery is this one, once again by Yankee451:
Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by roboe
I'm using the Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition, released in 2002.
I went over the Luc Courchesne WMV, and although it's really small and hard to see, it appears the footage in the Naudet DVD was pulled from early in the Courchesne footage.
The Naudet's footage was released in 2002, but the Courchesne footage doesn't appear to have been released until 2004, although that's not cast in stone. That's when the CBC aired it. However, note the quality of the footage in the Naudet film as compared to the WMV file. If the CBC version had the full footage, I could get a better screen shot of it to compare.
Compare the little whisp highlighted below:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5b2566aa6c27.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e95727ff4c99.jpg[/atsimg]
By the way, like many of the amateur photographers, Luc is another 3D animator. His work can be found here:
www.youtube.com...
edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason
given)
edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by septic
The comment was how peanutbrain didn't show fakery in the raw video. The raw video peanutbrain discussed was not part of a documentary.
Can you show fakery in the raw video? You claimed that all video containing planes was faked.
The comment was how peanutbrain didn't show fakery in the raw video. The raw video peanutbrain discussed was not part of a documentary.
Can you show fakery in the raw video? You claimed that all video containing planes was faked.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic
The comment was how peanutbrain didn't show fakery in the raw video. The raw video peanutbrain discussed was not part of a documentary.
Can you show fakery in the raw video? You claimed that all video containing planes was faked.
Hey, great topic for a debate.
Add that to the pile of debate topics you're avoiding.
I hereby challenge pteridine to a debate regarding the media's role in 911, where I intend to show every video or image that contains a 911 jet is a fraud.
Originally posted by septic
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic
The comment was how peanutbrain didn't show fakery in the raw video. The raw video peanutbrain discussed was not part of a documentary.
Can you show fakery in the raw video? You claimed that all video containing planes was faked.
Hey, great topic for a debate.
Add that to the pile of debate topics you're avoiding.
I hereby challenge pteridine to a debate regarding the media's role in 911, where I intend to show every video or image that contains a 911 jet is a fraud.
You don't need to waste time with a debate. Go ahead and post it if you have it. If you don't, throw in the towel on another no-plane theory.
reply to post by pteridine
Interesting story.
They're all fake, the damage proves it.
Note on column 152, how the cladding is thinly sliced and wedged, likely caused by the thin wing of a missile.
On columns 147 and 148, they have been scooped out by the 12 inch warhead,
much like the one seen on WTC2's gash below:
Both gashes are positioned exactly the same with relation to the floor on the left wing "slices":
Both planes did not strike at the same angle though, so it is curious how the left wing damage would be so similar while the right would be so different.
Jet wings would have struck in this position:
So you can plainly see the inside of the wings near the engines would strike first. The fuselage and engines would be decelerating immediately on impact, yet this didn't occur. The jet flies into the building, all the way down to the tail, without slowing down. This has been proved by calculating the frame rates it takes for the jet to fly through the air, and the frame rate it takes for the jet to fly into the buildings, which are the same. Video, after video. We know this is impossible, thanks to physics, don't we, smart guy?
Raphael proved the Naudet film to be pure propaganda poo-poo, coupled with Yankee451's Luc Courchesne revelation, proves the propagandists were out in force, further supported by Evan Fairbanks' fraud, Tina Cart, Richard Clark, Wolfgang Staehle and the rest of the publicly financed public enemies.
I offer the above to the readers. You don't read.
You don't need to waste time with a debate. Go ahead and post it if you have it. If you don't, throw in the towel on another no-plane theory.
Interesting story.
They're all fake, the damage proves it.
Note on column 152, how the cladding is thinly sliced and wedged, likely caused by the thin wing of a missile.
On columns 147 and 148, they have been scooped out by the 12 inch warhead,
much like the one seen on WTC2's gash below:
Both gashes are positioned exactly the same with relation to the floor on the left wing "slices":
Both planes did not strike at the same angle though, so it is curious how the left wing damage would be so similar while the right would be so different.
Jet wings would have struck in this position:
So you can plainly see the inside of the wings near the engines would strike first. The fuselage and engines would be decelerating immediately on impact, yet this didn't occur. The jet flies into the building, all the way down to the tail, without slowing down. This has been proved by calculating the frame rates it takes for the jet to fly through the air, and the frame rate it takes for the jet to fly into the buildings, which are the same. Video, after video. We know this is impossible, thanks to physics, don't we, smart guy?
Raphael proved the Naudet film to be pure propaganda poo-poo, coupled with Yankee451's Luc Courchesne revelation, proves the propagandists were out in force, further supported by Evan Fairbanks' fraud, Tina Cart, Richard Clark, Wolfgang Staehle and the rest of the publicly financed public enemies.
I offer the above to the readers. You don't read.
Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine
You don't need to waste time with a debate. Go ahead and post it if you have it. If you don't, throw in the towel on another no-plane theory.
Interesting story.
They're all fake, the damage proves it.
Note on column 152, how the cladding is thinly sliced and wedged, likely caused by the thin wing of a missile.
On columns 147 and 148, they have been scooped out by the 12 inch warhead,
So you can plainly see the inside of the wings near the engines would strike first. The fuselage and engines would be decelerating immediately on impact, yet this didn't occur. The jet flies into the building, all the way down to the tail, without slowing down. This has been proved by calculating the frame rates it takes for the jet to fly through the air, and the frame rate it takes for the jet to fly into the buildings, which are the same. Video, after video. We know this is impossible, thanks to physics, don't we, smart guy?
I offer the above to the readers. You don't read.
So your extensive knowledge of collision dynamics allows you, and you alone, to merely look at a blurry photo and determine that it wasn't caused by a plane. You feel that the plane and engines would have been mashed flat and fallen to the streets below. One glance at the damage then led you to the obvious conclusion that all the videos were faked and it must have been invisible missiles. You knew you couldn't possibly be wrong, given your mastery of dynamics and material science, and no other explanation is more reasonable than invisible missiles. With your vast knowledge of missiles and missile technology, you then selected the only missile that could bend metal columns while not exploding and then explode in such a fashion as to make it look like a plane had gone through the building. Pure genius.
Now that you have impressed everyone with your mental prowess you can display your intellect once more for the three people following your thread.
You can begin by showing the raw footage is fraudulent.
reply to post by pteridine
I appreciate your need to consult an expert in all things, save belligerence. I'm capable of learning, and so is anyone who applies themselves, except maybe you and the other two OS readers. I do appreciate the bumps though.
Seems you and most of the other sheep-types like to gauge truth on how many people hop on your bandwagon, like a high-school popularity contest. That's the sort of herd mentality that will keep you forever dependent on other folks to do your thinking for you; so I urge you to start thinking for yourself. Nothing builds self-esteem better than doing something for yourself, just ask an expert.
I appreciate your need to consult an expert in all things, save belligerence. I'm capable of learning, and so is anyone who applies themselves, except maybe you and the other two OS readers. I do appreciate the bumps though.
Seems you and most of the other sheep-types like to gauge truth on how many people hop on your bandwagon, like a high-school popularity contest. That's the sort of herd mentality that will keep you forever dependent on other folks to do your thinking for you; so I urge you to start thinking for yourself. Nothing builds self-esteem better than doing something for yourself, just ask an expert.
edit on 10-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by septic
Interesting story.
They're all fake, the damage proves it.
How many times must it be explained to you like you were 5 years old? Your opinion on the damage does not magically blanket-disprove every video, photo, and eyewitness account of the planes. It has to be proven from an unbiased approach. However, you are so biased that you aren't even willing to talk about it. YOU are the one that says all the videos are fake (a claim), and when you're asked to back it up, you say they're fake because you just know, essentially. You say you don't need to see proof because you've already got your answer and you're sticking to it.
Well, sir, it is a fact that you do need proof. You cannot simply make claims and then flood your post with pictures and annotations of your opinions. Your opinion means nothing if you cannot prove it, and so far every attempt to question you for proof has been met with "but, uhhhhh, we're not talking about that right now. Get back on topic."
Stop avoiding questions you know you have no answer for. You believe that the videos are fake without any evidence, and that's a fact.
Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine
I appreciate your need to consult an expert in all things, save belligerence. I'm capable of learning, and so is anyone who applies themselves, except maybe you and the other two OS readers. I do appreciate the bumps though.
Seems you and most of the other sheep-types like to gauge truth on how many people hop on your bandwagon, like a high-school popularity contest. That's the sort of herd mentality that will keep you forever dependent on other folks to do your thinking for you; so I urge you to start thinking for yourself. Nothing builds self-esteem better than doing something for yourself, just ask an expert.
I consult you for belligerence, which seems to be the limit of your abilities. Start thinking for yourself by showing how the videos were faked or think for yourself and admit that there is no evidence for the theory that you espouse.
reply to post by Varemia
Since you can't scrutinize the evidence and come up with a better explanation, can you find someone who can? Gather pteridine and go expert hunting.
That you disagree with the conclusions is evident, but if you can't debate my points, you lose.
Since you can't scrutinize the evidence and come up with a better explanation, can you find someone who can? Gather pteridine and go expert hunting.
That you disagree with the conclusions is evident, but if you can't debate my points, you lose.
Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia
Since you can't scrutinize the evidence and come up with a better explanation, can you find someone who can? Gather pteridine and go expert hunting.
That you disagree with the conclusions is evident, but if you can't debate my points, you lose.
Your points are pointless. Your theory is unfounded. You lose until you can show all videos are fake.