Two planes, Three buildings. Do the maths.

page: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


The full sequence is presented in the Gage documentary...timeline has been presented where the full sequence is present. Please see my prior link to ascertain the video time/stamp location full sequence.
edit on 22-3-2013 by totallackey because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


I know, I've seen the documentary (for free I might add.....) , but apparently, according to some people, if he doesn't show the full sequence in every video he's ever made, then he's somehow swindling people out of their hard earned savings......go figure...



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by kaya82
 

Because they feel it wasnt an inside job. Just as we feel it was. Their argument isnt less valid until one way is proven


The reason why you feel it was an inside job is specifically because a bunch of con artists running those damned fool conspiracy web sites are pushing all sorts of outrageously bad information and suckered you into believing there's an inside job.

.
no that isn't the reason why I believe it was an inside job. I wasn't aware you are a mind reader!
The reasons that anok has stated time after time on here are basic physics and are the reason why I have come to such a conclusion. You can't answer his questions so you go on about laser beams etc to try and make us looks crazy when actually you just come across as a fool



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


That is good you have seen the full documentary...it was presented for free on PBS. There are many people in this forum that will lie through their teeth about facts and avoid admitting the truth about the Gage documentary. As I said, any presentation of the Gage documentary not showing the penthouse collapse is not an attempt to mislead.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Oh ANOK, care to show us the cables attached to WTC7 for the pull down? Thank you!



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


9/11 Mindfreak

The other day a buddy of mine showed me a video on his iPad of Criss Angel doing some hard to explain stuff with a coffee cup... check it out:



All while viewing the video and after my buddy would ask me "How did he do that?!" Twenty times I heard, "How did he do that?!" "How did he materialize that apple? It was a continuous shot!" To which I replied, "Um, I don't know."

And it's true, it was a continuous shot, I mean that's what it said all right up there in the left corner!

I don't know how he materialized that apple or turned the coffee beans into real brewed coffee (if that's what that really was) but I know something is up with it because that stuff doesn't really happen that way. So even though I don't know exactly how Criss Angel does it I have a sense of what's correct and ordinary and so I don't need to know exactly how it was done to think there's something up with it.

Sound familiar?

While I applaud your absurd equation musings of '2 planes, 3 buildings', at the same time I think it's somewhat lacking and exhibits a kind of disservice through its use.

Like I'm sure we can all agree that there were 3 buildings. Only a total fool would argue that particular point.

But 2 planes? You sure there were two planes? What evidence do you have that there were two planes? No, really. Just what you got off of the TV from various 'continuous shots'?

The Naudet guy's first plane strike video on the North Tower was a continuous shot... if we look at it really really closely (trying to figure out how the perps did it and materialized that green apple...) what we find is something altogether strange...

There are a few frames upon impact that just don't "add up". There is a frame of the Naudet Fireman's Video that is an 'impossible image'. It is simply impossible for this image to even exist as it does if a 767 actually crashed into the North Tower. It is a shot of the 'impact' that I think must be real because if it was faked then it would be correct. And it blatantly isn't. It shows impossible crash physics. It is a record of a frame of an impact that exists yet should not exist if a real 767 went in there.

I've talked about this single anomaly a bit and anyone interested can read my other posts for more detail.

But basically, there is a shot in the Naudet first hit video of a few frames of the 'impact' that shows damage at the right wing tip of the 'plane' at the building face before it shows damage from where the engine sits on the right wing. You follow? Take a look at my avatar pic. That is one of the impossible frames. You see the single solitary bump on the right where the wing tip would be? You see the undamaged building portion in the gap between the bump and the larger destruction blob on the left? Well in that undamaged area is where the right engine should be.

Now why is this such a critical devastating impossible continuous video frame captured piece of evidence?

If you look at a 767 in plan view you will notice that the wings on a 767 taper back at an angle. That means that they don't just hit the building flat like something the Wright brothers built. No, the wings angle back, from the fuselage out to the tips. That means that the engines, which are closer to the fuselage, would necessarily, impact the face of the tower first.

In fact, because the right wing is one long single angled structure, the way the right wing would impact the face of the tower is in a sweeping motion from left to right. From the fuselage out to the wing tips in a continuous sweeping impacting motion.

Therefore, because this is absolutely so, at no time would there be a frame of a recorded video, or MULTIPLE FRAMES, of a recorded supposed 'continuously shot' video that would show a separate bump at all out where the right wing tip is, AT ALL. That would be impossible. It is impossible. And since that's exactly what the Naudet video shows, I can state with utter confidence that if the Naudet film is real (as is AFAIK is seemingly claimed), then no 767 airliner crashed into the North Tower. Period.

The Naudet video proves no 767 impacted the North Tower. Above, and in a handful of my other posts I explain exactly why.

The "pull it" meaning demolition or pull out the firefighters thing is interesting. Let's see someone try and explain how it's possible for the Naudet video to show that outer isolated bump on the face of the tower in multiple frames when a wing is a single continuous angled back structure... with a more forward facing engine near the middle of it... Go for it.

The impossible frames I identify from the Naudet clip cannot be so easily explained away.

Because what they explain is that no 767 went in there.

The isolated wing damage bump is the smoking gun.

3 buildings Ok. 2 planes?


Cheers



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by kurthall
 




the BBC said it went down before it did.

Can you name the buildings in brittons parlament?
Why would you expect them to know the ones in WTC? I didn't know there were that many.
All reporters were repeating things they heard that day. For all they knew it could have been a much smaller building below their field of view.
Somehow this error became a cornerstone of a conspiracy.


Truthers are unfamiliar with the 'fog of war' that pervades such happenings. Maybe if you had some better sense of the behind-the-scenes chaos that's happening, you'd understand why this one screw-up is emblematic of nothing more than reality. Truthers desperately want to believe that the television business is calm, cool and collected 24/7 and incapable of error. Fact is t'ain't so

Fitz



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
I said it was irrelevant if the reporter or the viewers new what building WTC7 was, it makes no difference.
The issue it they were told about it collapsing way before it collapsed.


'Fog of war' circumstance as I detailed in my last post. If the news media is infallible, how is it that so much of what was reported in real-time turned out not to be correct after the fact? The reality is that the immediacy of the news cycle now (as then) makes such errors inevitable. The only people for whom such errors are unacceptable and emblematic of something sinister are those with an agenda that flies in the face of logic.


Originally posted by DeeKlassified
I never said I knew of WTC7 at the time that BBC report went out, in fact I saw the video years later, but it make no difference, WTC7 had not collapsed when various reporters said it had. So whoever gave them the info, released that info too early!


And this is emblematic of the need-to-believe mindset of truthers, that a fabulously complex conspiracy could be shown to be undone by such a simple error. I mean, it beggars belief that any sentient adult could buy into such simplistic plots that are more commonly seen in an episode of Scooby Doo.

It's sad, really

Fitz



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
 


They also reported car bombs in DC, car bombs on the bridges. Plane crash into the Sears Tower. Plane crashing into the Mall. Let me guess, all of those were suppose to happen but they forgot and acidentally reported all those reports too?


Mid-day in Toronto, there were reports of a suspicious flight in-bound. All part of the day's panic that has been recognised for what it was: panic.

Fitz



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes but WTC 7 actually did collapse, as reported. A huge 47 story building, visible behind the news caster.

You don't accidentally report something like that.


Oh....you work in the news media, do you? There's never retractions or corrections in the news, eh? Interesting. I guess the media in my neck of the world is fallible unlike the media of your acquaintance.


Fitz



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by samkent
 


There is no way that someone can predict that a steel framed building on fire is going to globally collapse into its footprint.

Why?


Really? Is that a fact? Wonder why they mandated fire-retardant be sprayed onto the steel? Ya think prior experience and understanding of the effects of fire on steel had led TPTB to recognise a potential danger?


Originally posted by ANOK
Because there is no precedence for such an event, because steel framed building do not collapse that way from fire. They had nothing to base such a claim on.


OK. No precedent = can't happen. No precedent for heavier-than-air flight = inside job by the Wright Brothers. No precedent for nuclear explosion = inside job by Oppenheimer and Co.


See how ridiculous that position is?


Originally posted by ANOK
If they reported other buildings collapsed before they did, then whoever was in charge of press releases screwed up big time eh?


Reuters admitted as much. Now what's your point?

Fitz



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Not entirely. Much debate about how bad those fires were. Plants don't have to be on every floor. Plus, smoother them with asbestos and I would assume they can withstand a paper fire on the same floor.


And the bolded part is where you'd be wrong. You assume many things not in evidence. You're mistaken

Fitz



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by bknapple32
 


But then you have to suspend belief that the demo charges were all magically fireproofed to withstand smoke and fire and heat, and impact.


But that's the point WTC7 was not impacted, yet fell as if it was a professional demolition job.


But it was. The impact was from flaming WTC debris and of course we have the use of magic hush-a-boom explosive technology


Fitz



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I have no idea what would happen when planes crash. Although my logic feels me jet fuel didn't do anything structurally significant, as 90% of the fuel burned away in the initial fire ball


You admit you have no clue but then immediately act as if the only vector of issue here was jet fuel? You don't think the collision damage would've been significant? Is that just because the buildings didn't immediately collapse? Or is that for other reasons supported by your "logic"? And what about the jet fuel as primer for massive fires? Is that insignificant too?

Fitz



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaya82
What i don't get it this....

After 11 years the OS supporters are still here day after day desperately telling anyone who will listen that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Why? Why do you feel the need to do this?


After 11 years, truthers are doing likewise preaching hither and nigh. Leave a lie unchallenged and soon enough, those with no clue will accept it as Gospel. I'm sorry you disapprove of being contradicted.


Originally posted by kaya82
If the evidence is so clear cut like you keep saying. How about letting people do their own research and reach their own conclusion?


It becomes an issue when tampered-with or half-truths or even out-right lies are presented as 'evidence' as is often the case. Truthers initially started off as honestly asking questions of things and phenomena they didn't understand. The problem is that the honest questions have been answered and are now being replaced by (on the main) dishonest ones by people for whom "truth" is relativistic, to be parcelled out and presented in whatever manner reflects their opinion rather than observable, verifiable "Truth".

Such disingenuous behaviour is the unfortunate recoil of latter-day truthers.


Originally posted by kaya82
To me its so blatantly obvious the OS is a massive lie. I find it hard to believe how anyone cant see this.

11 years of arguing over the internet seems pointless to me


Considering the majority of the world's population doesn't share your skepticism, perhaps you should reexamine your rationales for believing as you do.

On your latter point, I concur; 9/11 Trutherism is evolving into a matter of faith rather than one of science.

Fitz



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh ANOK, care to show us the cables attached to WTC7 for the pull down? Thank you!


Yes the term pull came from when they used to use cables. But what you fail to realise is old terms like that stick.

I guess you have never worked in any kind of industry, because it is full of terms that are no longer relevant to the process, but are still used.

Do you care to show us when the term 'pull it' is used to mean fire fighters?

But again everyone notice Gen does not attempt to discuss the more difficult points, like the sagging trusses myth, and keeps arguing the irrelevant. This is done to distract from the real evidence. It really doesn't matter what Larry said, the building was an implosion demolition, evidenced by the pattern of the rubble. The fact that Larry said they 'pulled it' is just more evidence of the facts we already know.

Keep batting at the irrelevant GenRadek, it ain't getting you anywhere.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Truthers are unfamiliar with the 'fog of war' that pervades such happenings.


Rubbish, I am a combat vet.


Truthers desperately want to believe that the television business is calm, cool and collected 24/7 and incapable of error. Fact is t'ain't so


Obviously not, as we are the ones pointing out their mistake. Yes they made a mistake, and read a press release too early.

The question is why was a press release saying WTC 7 collapsed released, or even written at all, before the collapse even happened? BBC get their news from the same sources everyone else does, and the BBC was not the only station to report the collapse before it happened.



So obviously Fox and the BBC got the press release from the same source. The BBC was not the ones who made the mistake, the original source of the press release did.

edit on 3/23/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh ANOK, care to show us the cables attached to WTC7 for the pull down? Thank you!


Yes the term pull came from when they used to use cables. But what you fail to realise is old terms like that stick.

I guess you have never worked in any kind of industry, because it is full of terms that are no longer relevant to the process, but are still used.

Do you care to show us when the term 'pull it' is used to mean fire fighters?


You mean besides the fact that "pull" is used often in firefighting terminology in reference to the firefighters or the firefighting operation itself? Gee ANOK I find it hard to believe that you cannot take one step outside of your small conspiracy box and think for a second that what was said was to "pull" the firefighting operation at WTC7. Since they were all talking about the fires in the building and saving lives would be a good idea rather than putting them at risk, pulling the operation would do it. But no of course not. One plus one does not equal two in your world.




But again everyone notice Gen does not attempt to discuss the more difficult points, like the sagging trusses myth, and keeps arguing the irrelevant. This is done to distract from the real evidence. It really doesn't matter what Larry said, the building was an implosion demolition, evidenced by the pattern of the rubble. The fact that Larry said they 'pulled it' is just more evidence of the facts we already know.

Keep batting at the irrelevant GenRadek, it ain't getting you anywhere.


Oh boy ANOK, you have had the answers given to you countless times before. Countless times before. FYI: ignoring it every time does not make it go away and does not mean it has not been answered.

You still cannot give me one shred of evidence of any of the bulk of the WTC Towers ending up outside the footprints and its been over a year since I asked nicely. So who is ignoring what ANOK?



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Truthers are unfamiliar with the 'fog of war' that pervades such happenings.

Rubbish, I am a combat vet.

Oh goody; a truther combat vet. Truthfully, I doubt you are however that's neither here nor there.


Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Truthers desperately want to believe that the television business is calm, cool and collected 24/7 and incapable of error. Fact is t'ain't so

Obviously not, as we are the ones pointing out their mistake. Yes they made a mistake, and read a press release too early.

What's with this "press release" junk?
Businesses put out press releases about their latest widget; news organisations (like Reuters) put out wire stories. Significant difference. Remember what I said about the fog of war?


Originally posted by ANOK
The question is why was a press release saying WTC 7 collapsed released, or even written at all, before the collapse even happened? BBC get their news from the same sources everyone else does, and the BBC was not the only station to report the collapse before it happened.
So obviously Fox and the BBC got the press release from the same source. The BBC was not the ones who made the mistake, the original source of the press release did.

Because Reuter's screwed up trying to beat AP and UPI with a flash. But you know this. You've read it over and over again. You just choose not to believe it because a Scoody Doo-class mystery with an ultra-intricate plot being foiled by meddling kids seems somehow more believable to you than a news wire service screwing Benji.

Wish as you may like but the mundane reality is that someone put out incorrect information and a news outlet or two ran with it without verifying. Hate to break it to you but such things happen all the time, even in less-harried news cycles. It's pretty thin gruel to keep dining out on a decade plus after the fact.

Fitz



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Oh goody; a truther combat vet. Truthfully, I doubt you are however that's neither here nor there.


You can doubt all you want, I really don't care.


What's with this "press release" junk?
Businesses put out press releases about their latest widget; news organisations (like Reuters) put out wire stories. Significant difference. Remember what I said about the fog of war?


Junk? Almost all news, especially government, comes from press releases. You call them 'wires', I call them press releases, same thing.


Because Reuter's screwed up trying to beat AP and UPI with a flash. But you know this. You've read it over and over again. You just choose not to believe it because a Scoody Doo-class mystery with an ultra-intricate plot being foiled by meddling kids seems somehow more believable to you than a news wire service screwing Benji.

Wish as you may like but the mundane reality is that someone put out incorrect information and a news outlet or two ran with it without verifying. Hate to break it to you but such things happen all the time, even in less-harried news cycles. It's pretty thin gruel to keep dining out on a decade plus after the fact.


So how did Reuters get the press release early? How could they have any idea WTC 7 collapsed if no one told them it did?

BTW again please note, another OSer who doesn't want to tackle to more important stuff I bring up to focus on easily argued non-points.

More importantly can you explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns they are attached to? If you can do that I will take your reply more seriously.

edit on 3/23/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join