What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Where is there evidence that a plane can't cut through the building when it has the energy that a plane has going 500 mph? You haven't found a video or a study which shows planes stopping or not making it through steel. You have no evidence other than your personal disbelief. That is why everyone is treating you like you're crazy. You have NO evidence at all. You claim that you know what every single person in New York saw, and that also makes you a liar.


Projecting again I see?

Can't explain how the dents would be on the wrong side of the columns, so paraphrase poorly and call me a liar?

The planes wings can't slice through a building like a hot knife through butter any more than a spear can pierce a tree by striking it sideways.

Your belief in "energy" only applies when the energy can be focused on a small point, like a missile, but in your scenario it is spread out over the distance of a wingspan, making your argument transparently dishonest. However much you want to believe it so; however much you throw a tantrum, I'm sorry, jets can't do that.




posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


So, you're saying you have no proof. Gotcha.

I notice a pattern with you. You make all these claims, and then when you're asked to back them up, you attack the members asking you the questions. I'm calling you out. Proof or get the hell out of here.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 





At what point might you employ the logical principle of Occam's Razor?


I am doing so now.

At what point will you join the real world.? Your next step might be admitting the jets couldn't possibly cause the damage highlighted in this thread as the wings and the mass of a jet would be no match for the building, even if the direction of the damage was consistent.

Based on the damage like that of the other side of the gash, it appears multiple missiles were used from multiple angles.



Do you really believe that multiple JASSM missiles outfitted with armor piercing nose cones all hit the tower at exactly the same time and punched a hole that fits that size and description of a 767? Complete with slices for where the wings hit? No one claims to have seen anything of the sort. It would be impossible for missiles to achieve what your claiming.

Septic- come on. How can you assert you're employing Occams Razor here?

You seem to be rather intelligent so I'm confounded by what you're saying. At some point a man with avg intelligence would stop and realize how absurd these theories are.


How they managed this is not the point, the point is the damage is consistent with the hypothesis and definitely not consistent with damage caused by linear, comparatively lightweight wings. What we saw on TV was impossible, and the damage further proves it, as there is no evidence of any jetsam visible in these pictures.


How can you say that! You're so lost in your own world that reality has completely escaped you. You've crossed the event horizon and there's no turning back.


Missiles are used for anti-building attacks all the time, JASSM missiles in particular are stealthy and no one was expecting the first attack so they likely wouldn't have seen them, and even if they had, who would report it when the films of jets started being aired? There WERE a couple reports of missiles, but they were quickly forgotten. As always, the media is completely controlled by the government intelligence agencies or have you not heard of Operation Mockingbird? The Port Authority, the Mayor's Office, the NYPD and the FDNY are all involved, as shown here


After the first plane hit the North tower, people were completely focused on the those buildings. Staring at them in awe. If multiple missiles had hit the south tower witnesses would have said so. But all witnesses, including myself, saw a plane. Why won't you let this sink in. Your theory is much more impossible to achieve than how it actually happened... WITH PLANES !!


Stick to what's possible before you apply Occam's razor. There was nothing exotic about 911, just good old fashioned corruption and a precisely planned and executed military operation.


Wow. Just wow.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic

You obviously don't know how the "media works", or else you wouldn't need to ask why there are no videos with missiles.

However important it is to you to believe there were witnesses to planes, I'm sorry but the planes weren't real, and the left-right damage is one more proof thereof.


I work in the media. So do lots of people know. And although what I know about that refutes your notions of how easy it is to manipulate media output, it has nothing to do with why there are no videos of missiles.

Think about it for just the briefest moment. How would you guarantee that you had every camcorder in New York covered? Did the people who faked the planes maintain a database of every camcorder that could be recording the event and then visit every single person on the list?

It seems to me that even if you can manipulate footage and decide what goes out on the mainstream networks you cannot possibly guarantee that no private citizens with camcorders will record the event. And how do you ensure that you have confiscated them all?



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Are you usually in the habit of plagiarizing other people's material, or would you happen to be the reincarnation of Yankee451?



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

You:



I work in the media. So do lots of people know. And although what I know about that refutes your notions of how easy it is to manipulate media output, it has nothing to do with why there are no videos of missiles.


Your alleged expertise is irrelevant and these are not "my" notions. These are the words of the men who had the means, motive and opportunity to make their dreams a reality.



“To-day, however, a reaction has set in. The minority has discovered a powerful help in influencing majorities. It has been found possible so to mold the mind of the masses that they will throw their newly gained strength in the desired direction. In the present structure of society, this practice is inevitable. Whatever of social importance is done to-day, whether in politics, finance, manufacture, agriculture, charity, education, or other fields, must be done with the help of propaganda. Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government”

Source
Link




In the second half of the 20th century, the burgeoning American media was co-opted by something called Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's subversion of the free press in America. Frank Wisner, who ran the project in the 1940s and 1950s for the Agency, once famously said that the American media was like his own "...personal Wurlitzer; I can play any tune I want on it and America will follow along."

In the 1970s, CIA director William Colby admitted, "The CIA owns assets at every major media outlet in America, TV networks, newspapers, publishing houses, and magazines."

In a 1977 Rolling Stone article, Carl Bernstein estimated that there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of CIA-friendly assets at all the major TV networks, newspapers and periodicals in America.





We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false. -- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Source

Evidently, they succeeded.

You:


Think about it for just the briefest moment. How would you guarantee that you had every camcorder in New York covered?.

Did the people who faked the planes maintain a database of every camcorder that could be recording the event and then visit every single person on the list?

It seems to me that even if you can manipulate footage and decide what goes out on the mainstream networks you cannot possibly guarantee that no private citizens with camcorders will record the event. And how do you ensure that you have confiscated them all?


It doesn't matter how they fooled so many people; impossible is impossible.

But to humor you, what would the people see who did have camcorders? Burning buildings, collapses and no planes. Anyone who saw a missile would think twice about reporting it once they saw the TV showing jets, right? It's not omplicated, it's simple psychology...just like here on ATS, as soon as someone tried to talk about missiles, their sanity would be questioned based on the TV footage. If I'd seen a 500 MPH missile out of the corner of my eye, and then saw the TV footage of a jet, I'd probably swear I saw a jet too. Simple.

Lets say you caught a 500 MPH missile on camera and wanted to report it to the world and live long enough to take the credit...where would you turn? Who would you give it to? If you wanted to spill the beans, who would you turn to to be sure it would be broadcast? The lying media, the lying government, the lying academics, the lying military, or the lying law enforcement? Think about that for just the briefest moment.

None the less, there is evidence of electronic jamming; standard combat procedures of every modern military includes electronic jamming, effectively shutting down unprotected electronics. There are reports all over of TVs, cameras, phones...even FDNY and NYPD radios not functioning.

What about the eyewitness accounts of non-functioning electronics? What of those who reported anything but a jet? Are they not due their srutiny?

For another perspective:
Link

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk;/ex'
edit on 8-11-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


How can you say the dents are consistent with a jet?



Wow. Just wow.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by septic
 


Are you usually in the habit of plagiarizing other people's material, or would you happen to be the reincarnation of Yankee451?



"Plagarize?" I animated his gifs and linked to the source when I did it. I like his work, it is because of it that I joined. Thank waypast for the URL to the Lets Roll Forums though.

Do you accuse everyone of plagarization who links to the work of others?


edit on 8-11-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

Your alleged expertise is irrelevant and these are not "my" notions. These are the words of the men who had the means, motive and opportunity to make their dreams a reality.



“To-day, however, a reaction has set in... Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government”

Source
Link




In the second half of the 20th century, the burgeoning American media was co-opted by something called Operation Mockingbird...

In a 1977 Rolling Stone article, Carl Bernstein estimated that there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of CIA-friendly assets at all the major TV networks, newspapers and periodicals in America.





We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false. -- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Source

Evidently, they succeeded.


All your quotes bar the last one - which is probbaly nonsense and certainly speculative - still mean that manipulation of the type you're envisaging would be impossible. "Assets" at the news outlets? So what? You would need to control absolutely everybody in every media. In which case literally millions of people, including me, are conspiring against you.

You may consider this a possibility. I think it's the paranoid delusion of someone verging on lunacy.





It doesn't matter how they fooled so many people; impossible is impossible.


Even if how they did it is also impossible?

And anyway, it does matter. You just pretend it doesn't so you can ignore the vast logical inconsistencies in what you're claiming.


But to humor you


Thanks for humouring me! A person who seems to be a genuine no-planer is "humouring" me!


what would the people see who did have camcorders? Burning buildings, collapses and no planes. Anyone who saw a missile would think twice about reporting it once they saw the TV showing jets, right?



Flat wrong. I'd report it. So, I assume, would you. I'd be completely amazed by it - I'd watch the footage over and over again, and then compare it with the TV stuff, and realise I had the biggest story ever. Even if I thought it nefarious I would just load it onto the web. Oddly nobody has done that.

But you're missing my point anyway. What I'm asking is not why there are no videos - though that's obviously pertinent - but how the perpetrators could know for sure that there would be none. Unless you think that they just shrugged and thought, "sod it, a few people, maybe loads, are likely to catch this stuff on camcorders. We'll just assume they'll not talk about it". Because that sounds pretty stupipd if you're planning the crime of the century.


It's not omplicated, it's simple psychology...just like here on ATS, as soon as someone tried to talk about missiles, their sanity would be questioned based on the TV footage. If I'd seen a 500 MPH missile out of the corner of my eye, and then saw the TV footage of a jet, I'd probably swear I saw a jet too. Simple.


Even if you'd filmed a missile? You must be pretty easily led.


Lets say you caught a 500 MPH missile on camera and wanted to report it to the world and live long enough to take the credit...where would you turn? Who would you give it to? If you wanted to spill the beans, who would you turn to to be sure it would be broadcast? The lying media, the lying government, the lying academics, the lying military, or the lying law enforcement? Think about that for just the briefest moment.


I'd put it on the internet. Stick a link to it here. What's so hard about that?



None the less, there is evidence of electronic jamming; standard combat procedures of every modern military includes electronic jamming, effectively shutting down unprotected electronics. There are reports all over of TVs, cameras, phones...even FDNY and NYPD radios not functioning.


No there aren't. There may be isolated reports of some stuff not working, which is hardly surprising, but there are no reports of a blanket jamming operation. If there were you would find me some.

I'll tell you what, you don't even need to find that. If you can find me ten reports of people saying their TVs failed I'll believe you. Ten out of several million.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Is that a long way to go to avoid admitting you'd believe an impossibility if enough other folks also believed it? Sounds dogmatic.

Anyway, you say you'd report it. I would like to know who you could trust when the evidence would point to media, academia, government, military and law enforcement as the prime suspects?




I'd put it on the internet. Stick a link to it here. What's so hard about that?




And since there aren't any, all that proves is there are no known videos of any missiles.

The left-right directional damage is clear evidence of missile damage though, whether there is footage, or it fits the plane meme or not. We're talking about columns 145 - 152 here, when no one would be expecting it, not the South tower which for all we know was done differently.

Since a jet wing cannot possibly do what we were shown on TV, there must be another explanation.


edit on 8-11-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic
 


So, you're saying you have no proof. Gotcha.

I notice a pattern with you. You make all these claims, and then when you're asked to back them up, you attack the members asking you the questions. I'm calling you out. Proof or get the hell out of here.


What the hell are you babbling about now? You can't seem to get two posts back to back without insults and ridicule! Look around, there's a half dozen of you mongrels barking at me. You mostly seem to project, at least that's the pattern I notice with you.

What "proofs" are you looking for? BS scientific papers lke the MIT rag you wouldn't even understand if you had read it?

I'm providing VISIBLE proof of damage that is entirely inconsistent with the jet claim. It would be YOUR turn to try to explain how a jet can better account for it than a missile.

So junior, I'm calling you out now. Proof or get the hell out.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


HOW is the damage inconsistent? Do you have an example of a jet impact that looked different? Do you have an example of a missile impact for comparison? If you don't, then you are just talking out of your ass.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic


Is that a long way to go to avoid admitting you'd believe an impossibility if enough other folks also believed it? Sounds dogmatic.


I didn't say that at all. I said that if something seems impossible in the execution of the thing I consider the only possibility then I'd think pretty carefully about my methods and thought. When this thing involves factors as unlikely as those you're bandying about I'd be given to surmise that the fault might be in my reasoning.

You've literally avoided every question I put to you. Does that not show you how your theory actively requires you to ignore inconvenient truths?


Anyway, you say you'd report it. I would like to know who you could trust when the evidence would point to media, academia, government, military and law enforcement as the prime suspects?


Why would it point to all of those? I think you've already made your mind up. And if it onvolves everyone in those fields, which you seem to think it does, then there are more people in the conspiracy than outside it.

Anyway, I told you what I'd do...




ME: I'd put it on the internet. Stick a link to it here. What's so hard about that?




YOU: And since there aren't any, all that proves is there are no known videos of any missiles.


And yet according to you the missiles exist. But somehow nobody caught them on camera, and the powers that be were completely relaxed about people filming their missiles and potentially blowing the whole conspiracy.

Oh I forgot, there was an electronic jamming operation. For which you obviously have absolutely no evidence.


The left-right directional damage is clear evidence of missile damage though, whether there is footage, or it fits the plane meme or not. We're talking about columns 145 - 152 here, when no one would be expecting it, not the South tower which for all we know was done differently.

Since a jet wing cannot possibly do what we were shown on TV, there must be another explanation.


Or you're wrong, and a jet wing can do it.

Given the literally collosal odds of the other factors you need to be true for this to have any chance of being real, I'm betting you're wrong.

It should be a dead give away to you that you have to force yourself to ignore the glaring holes in your analysis and my references to them.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic
 


HOW is the damage inconsistent? Do you have an example of a jet impact that looked different? Do you have an example of a missile impact for comparison? If you don't, then you are just talking out of your ass.


Listen to you! Read the thread to find out how.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic
 


HOW is the damage inconsistent? Do you have an example of a jet impact that looked different? Do you have an example of a missile impact for comparison? If you don't, then you are just talking out of your ass.


Listen to you! Read the thread to find out how.


Listen to yourself! All you do is say it's impossible without any actual evidence!



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
snip
edit on 8-11-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Pull the other one.

Based on the shape of the wing and the location of the damage It is clearly not possible to have been caused by a wing. This coupled with the fact that the wings did not have the punching power required to withstand the 500 MPH impact with the double edged box columns; likely the reason a real plane wasn't used to begin with; makes the government's claim impossible. Jet wings are not missiles; what we saw was not possible, therefore not real. 911 proves just how stupid the powers that be think we cattle are. no need to keep proving them right.

You are letting your emotions get the better of you. The jet claim is impossible.


edit on 8-11-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


And you keep forgetting to add "in my opinion" to your posts. Which by the way, fly in the face of the known evidence.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 




Originally posted by septic
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


How can you say the dents are consistent with a jet?



Wow. Just wow.


How can you say a JASSM wing tip can dent those column but a much larger and stronger jet tip can't? That's confusing.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


I have my suspicions. He gets banned and within a few days you arrive carrying on about the same exact stuff using his same exact stuff.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum