A (botched) perspective on an old 9/11 video.

OtherSideOfTheCoin

NeoParadigm
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

you think the planes were faked?

Very perceptive! What gave it away?

The reason I was actually asking you if you believed in the "no planes" theory was because I personally refuse to even enter into any debate about "no planes" in any debate regarding 9/11 because I think it is so hurtfully disrespectful to the dead. It sickens me to my stomach that it has became OK now to say whatever the hell you like about 9/11 online with out any regard to how it will hurt the victims families. How would you feel if I was running rampant online saying that your last conversation with your son or wife was a lie?

The second reason I refuse to discuss it is because frankly I am not stupid enough to be able to lower myself to debating such a absurd notion. A IQ of about 10 and a working eye should tell you that planes did hit the buildings and that they were not faked so if someone can't even accept from a starting point that yes planes did hit the buildings then I dont see any point in debating the point with that person because there is no way I am going to get a intelligent response.

"no planes" are the lowest of the low when it comes to 9/11, I have explained my position on this and for the reasons outlined above please do not expect me to continue any further discusion with you regarding "no planes" in this thread.

bs. the whole post. there were no planes and very few if any real victims. this is now proven. you're closed mind (at best) and appeals to emotions cannot halt the progress of truth and the exposure of the hollywood nature of the tv movie production that was 9/11 for what it was.
the buildings themselves were taken down behind the scenes, in private and in complete safety. everything that came to pass that day came to pass in a completely legal sense and that included the non-deaths or injuries of any living individual.

you won't have to keep the veil up for much longer, eh SO?

thanks be to Jesus!

reply to post by TopsyTurvyOne


I am sorry but like i said above I am not going to debate the issue of no-planes or any theory that argues that any of the 2977 victims and the countless more injured were in anyway faked or actors for the reasons i have outlined above. If you want to discuss that issue then I am sure you will find many on ATS who will happily discuss it with you further, I am not one of these people.

If however there is another aspect of 9/11 you wish to discuss with me that does not imply fake victims such as the destruction of the buildings then I will happily do so.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by TopsyTurvyOne

 

I

If however there is another aspect of 9/11 you wish to discuss with me that does not imply fake victims such as the destruction of the buildings then I will happily do so.

no thanks. I already know the truth and have no interest in being plamaused.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

The reason I was actually asking you if you believed in the "no planes" theory was because I personally refuse to even enter into any debate about "no planes"

You could just stay away then, I don't have to be informed of the reason of your absence. Noone does.

reply to post by NeoParadigm


Well it's in the LOL forum were it belongs

reply to post by wmd_2008



I don't know why you are talking to me, it's not my thread nor did I support its premise.

Funny how this thread was allowed to stay as it was(the premise was debunked on page 1) for more than 3 weeks then apperently something happened that required action, after a few days of silence.

NeoParadigm
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I don't know why you are talking to me, it's not my thread nor did I support its premise.

Really first post you said.

NeoParadigm
So you are saying that the wing actually did go behind the bulding?

Now anyone knowing anything about the size of the WTC towers should realise that the building in the video could never be behind the towers as claimed in the video.

NeoParadigm
Like all 911 footage, it is fake though. For a myriad of reasons, like applying the laws of physics and common sense.
I will be back for more in depth

Again really all fake, I have 30+ years taking pictures (an later video) as a hobby from the days of fully manual SLR cameras up to my current DSLR.

Also 30+ years in the construction industry starting in the design/drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company.

So please post of your physics/common sense evidence?

reply to post by wmd_2008

NeoParadigm So you are saying that the wing actually did go behind the bulding?

This is a question. How does it support the premise of this thread?

What about this?

You are right, the building is in front of the WTC.

Or this?

He sai it is in front and it is. Let's not argue over facts that can be easily looked up on google or Google Earth.

Now anyone knowing anything about the size of the WTC towers should realise that the building in the video could never be behind the towers as claimed in the video.

Again, at no point did I claim that it was, I specifically said it wasn't. You are very consistent in posting arguments that don't relate to any comment I made.

So please post of your physics/common sense evidence?

I already did. Planes don't just vanish into buildings without any resistance and deformation and parts like the wings falling off.

NeoParadigm

So please post of your physics/common sense evidence?

I already did. Planes don't just vanish into buildings without any resistance and deformation and parts like the wings falling off.

Why would the wings "fall off"? You mean they would just fall to the ground? That's ridiculous.

NeoParadigm



I already did. Planes don't just vanish into buildings without any resistance and deformation and parts like the wings falling off.

There was MASSIVE deformation it was DESTROYED do you think the parts of the aircraft that hit the windows bounced off or something .

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e8d27860f5a.jpg[/atsimg]


As you can see in the image above the HOLE is in the area of were the fuselage and engines would be and the further along the wing impact zone the lower amount of damage also the columns have a staggered break pattern because they failed at the weakest point the joint and of course the column tree joints were staggered.

reply to post by wmd_2008

There was MASSIVE deformation it was DESTROYED do you think the parts of the aircraft that hit the windows bounced off or something .

No it went right through the building as if it wasn't there, without any deformation or angle change, as one can see in the pics I posted.

Your argument that it was destroyed is off course not even valid in this discussion about faked footage. I obviously am talking about the plane's behavior in the footage.

NeoParadigm
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

There was MASSIVE deformation it was DESTROYED do you think the parts of the aircraft that hit the windows bounced off or something .

No it went right through the building as if it wasn't there, without any deformation or angle change, as one can see in the pics I posted.

Your argument that it was destroyed is off course not even valid in this discussion about faked footage. I obviously am talking about the plane's behavior in the footage.

Once again for the HARD OF LEARNING a 30 fps video is NO GOOD to study high speed collisions!!!

reply to post by lunarasparagus

Why would the wings "fall off"? You mean they would just fall to the ground? That's ridiculous.

I don't think it is ridiculous to expect at least some amount of resistance, but in this footage the plane flies into the building as if the building wasn't there at all.

I think it is ridiculous not to expect clear signs of the resistance that a plane should encounter as it flies into a building.

reply to post by NeoParadigm


Here you go have a look at this video.



We see a SLR camera mirror move out the way and the vertical plane shutter move down to expose the sensor,

We see a 1/200th of a second shutter speed at a standard film rate , then slowed to one 1/4 then at 2000 fps DO you honestly think the standard speed would show all the detail of the 1/4 speed never mind the 2000 fps speed, why do you think high speed cameras are used for collision experiments when according to YOU all they need is a smart phone/consumer video film shown frame by frame.

There are things that would happen in a tiny fraction of a second to both the structure & the plane that joe publics video's just CAN'T show!!

Having been in the construction industry for 30+ years and seeing components tested to destruction in controlled conditions and having photography as a hobby for a similar amount of time I know you are talking BS!!!!