This will answer 99% of your questions about 9/11.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: MotherMayEye

This video is funny it debunks its own conclusion. Watch when the police car goes past the cameras notice the police car doesn't appear to be in the same place in both cameras. Its called perspective but whoever made the video seems blissfully unaware the car did the exact same thing the plane did on the two videos. this mystery as they put it is simple to explain the cameras are not parallel to the object. Two different camera positions will always give you two different fields of view.

It literally shows you the fields of view, angles, and measurements. It’s impossible for the same frame to show a tail and smoke in one camera and barely a nose on the other camera.
It would be like seeing the tail lights of the car first in one camera and then seeing the headlights approach in the other camera. That’s an impossible angle.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: neutronflux

The falling mass only grew as the collapse proceeded. 

No it didn't.

Show me the pile driver growing as the tower fell. Even if the pile driver was hidden within the dust cloud, it would only have a fraction of the mass of the former top of the building, since most of it was clearly falling outside of the building's profile.

The upper block was no longer a cohesive block to act like a pile driver on the remaining structure.

There was no pile driver.

Sad to see you lose the ability to reason in hopes I am wrong.

It’s the old quest? Rather be hit by a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks? It’s still a ton.
Also, mass does not disappear.

WTC one, the columns buckle twelve floors down from the top. The twelve falling floors hit the first deck it encounters. The hit deck offers negligible resistance. The falling 12 floors now consumes that deck. Now the falling mass is equal in mass to about 12 floors plus one. The falling mass equivalent to 12 falling plus one floor hits the next deck which offers negligible resistance and is consumed. Now the original falling mass is equivalent to the 12 falling stories plus two more stories. You start with one erect tower with the floors suspended between the vertical columns. You end up with all 110 floors on the ground? How did the falling mass not increase in mass as it fell?

Again, the mass didn’t have to take out vertical columns. It only had to sear or breakaway floor connections to the vertical columns.

originally posted by: CajunMetal


It literally shows you the fields of view, angles, and measurements. It’s impossible for the same frame to show a tail and smoke in one camera and barely a nose on the other camera.
It would be like seeing the tail lights of the car first in one camera and then seeing the headlights approach in the other camera. That’s an impossible angle.

The nose of the plane is above the red arrow. Right where it's suppose to be.

a reply to: waypastvne

Add in the fact that the 2 frames in question were not recorded at precisely the same instant, they are actually something like 140mSec apart and that amounts to approx 100' at the speed the plane was travelling.

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

But last week I watched my first video on the subject, and after about 20 minutes, you know what, I still stand by my statement.

a round of applause.

You watched a YouTube video and now have come to parrot its contents that have been discussed for 17 years.

Some of you keep talking about 500 mph. Why?

Because the planes were traveling at 45 miles an hour so obviously everyone must talk about 500.

Seriously what type of question is that?

The engineers who design them say those airliners cannot fly at 400 - 500 mph at sea level and still stay in one piece. The pilots who fly them say those airliners cannot fly at 400 - 500 mph at sea level and still stay in one piece.

Do you have a brain?

Do you think that once a a Boeing 767 hits 500miles an hour at low level it will just disintegrate?

How is 70 floors up sea level?

How is it sea level when the planes came in on descending angle and hit over 50 floors up?

I guess the building fell in their own footprint as well?

GUN 2 – THERE WAS NO PLANE CRASH AT THE PENTAGON. Because - you guessed it - there was no plane wreckage. Right above the hole was a room missing its outer wall. And a stool with an open book was sitting on it. Like nothing happened. Where was the great big fuel fire that brought down the steel twin towers? You guessed it - there was no fire.

Sorry I didn't guess that, there was quite a bit of plane wreckage from all the footage and photos available then adding to that you have the many witness statements.

No fire?

So what was seen?

A hologram?

How was the hole through building made then?

Why? Well they say it was because it was a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon, and it hit it in the one part where no one was, the only empty part of the building, the part that was being refurbished.

They?

GUN 4 – BUILDING 7 WAS NOT HIT BY ANY PLANES, YET IT FELL STRAIGHT DOWN LIKE THE TOWERS DID. Why? Well they say it was because Building 7 was a CIA building. You might remember those liars from the start of this post.

OK

so "they" are liars.

And it was dropped just like the towers. Same thing. No plane. Gee, isn’t that special.

you are one confused person.

Every film of the towers falling shows them turning to DUST. There is no big 107 floor pile of steel left over after they fell down. No BIG mound like there should have been. Just huge clouds of dust, like the buildings just floated away.

Is it really a wonder why there was so much dust?

nothing to do with explosions.

However after the dust settles there is very big piles of rubble, its the reason why Building 7 came down later that day because one of the towers took out a corner chunk of building 7 as it was collapsing.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: CajunMetal


It literally shows you the fields of view, angles, and measurements. It’s impossible for the same frame to show a tail and smoke in one camera and barely a nose on the other camera.
It would be like seeing the tail lights of the car first in one camera and then seeing the headlights approach in the other camera. That’s an impossible angle.

The nose of the plane is above the red arrow. Right where it's suppose to be.

Uh. I don't know where you got those screenshots of the frame in question, but that's NOT what actually appears in the frame. There's no plane-shaped, blue-colored area in the frame.

Here's a screenshot of that area in the frame, which I just took from the actual video:




For reference, the is the actual video as posted by the AP (approx. 1:30 in) -- so people can verify what you posted is disinfo:




***

BTW, that was so sketchy of you to post edited screenshots. *sideye*

originally posted by: MotherMayEye





BTW, that was so sketchy of you to post edited screenshots. *sideye*

This is a screen shot from the video you posted. Do you see the youtube timer bar on the bottom. The yellow arrow is from Massimo's video. He pasted the arrow over the tail of the plane. How low is that.




I think it was kind of crappy of Massimo to use a low quality video that made it hard to see the plane.

The plane is there right where it is supposed to be.

Double post.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Uh. I don't know where you got those screenshots of the frame in question, but that's NOT what actually appears in the frame. There's no plane-shaped, blue-colored area in the frame.

There are more people that see a jet too?

I guess you didn’t study

911speakout.org...

Blink Comparator Views of
the Plane at the Pentagon

By David Chandler, based on prior work by Ken Jenkins

Note that when barrel distortion is eliminated, the image compression near the edge of the field is eliminated, so the plane appears longer, with proportions resembling a 757. (Remember, the plane is also moving toward us at about a 45 degree angle.)

One feature of the plane image helps us identify it as an American Airlines plane. Note the purple stripe along the side of the plane. American Airlines planes have parallel red and blue stripes. At the small scale of the original image it is quite likely that this purple stripe is a merger of the color information from a red and a blue stripe.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: MotherMayEye





BTW, that was so sketchy of you to post edited screenshots. *sideye*

This is a screen shot from the video you posted.

No, it's not. That is an image from imgur that you posted.

Go to the video that I actually posted and get a screenshot of this blue blur yourself. Do not draw arrows or do anything to edit the screenshot, at all.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye




No, it's not. That is an image from imgur that you posted.

Screen shot was taken at 2:48 in this video.




Is that not the video you posted.

a reply to: waypastvne

No, I posted what the AP published (approx. 1:30 in):



It is curious though that you grabbed that screenshot from that video though. Interesting stuff.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: CajunMetal


It literally shows you the fields of view, angles, and measurements. It’s impossible for the same frame to show a tail and smoke in one camera and barely a nose on the other camera.
It would be like seeing the tail lights of the car first in one camera and then seeing the headlights approach in the other camera. That’s an impossible angle.

The nose of the plane is above the red arrow. Right where it's suppose to be.

Uh. I don't know where you got those screenshots of the frame in question, but that's NOT what actually appears in the frame. There's no plane-shaped, blue-colored area in the frame.

Here's a screenshot of that area in the frame, which I just took from the actual video:

For reference, the is the actual video as posted by the AP (approx. 1:30 in) -- so people can verify what you posted is disinfo:

***

BTW, that was so sketchy of you to post edited screenshots. *sideye*

Sorry but that one shot where the Plane keeps being overlain atop the camera still shot looks silly....the plane does not fit the screen.....the maginification is screwed with....lol...yes it fits ON THE SCREEN OVER THE IMAGE but it is a DISTANCE SHOT taken of a big plane and then photoshopped onto the screen then overlain atop the still shot of the camera image.

originally posted by: one4all
it is a DISTANCE SHOT taken of a big plane and then photoshopped onto the screen then overlain atop the still shot of the camera image.

How clever of you to figure that out all on your own.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

There was radiation measured. And cancer rates skyrocketed. It's just never reported.

Prove it, show me actual data that proves radiation levels in New York consistent with that of a nuclear detonation.

Show me actual accounts of people coming down with radiation sickness in the aftermath of the attacks, actually prove it.

If you are making a claim as if it is a fact then provide evidence for it otherwise your "fact" is much like my "fact" about how the sky is actually a giant glass dome.

Anecdotal...but my Department sent 7 or 8 Rescue Team guys up that night, to assist in operations, in the aftermath. They were there for about a week and a half, as I recall. In the years since, three of them developed odd rare cancers. None have died. But also none of the cancers were respiratory system. At least one was a brain cancer.

And...not to be petty about it, but those who went were all paid overtime rates for every hour from the time they left until they returned. At the time I declined to go, because it didn't seem worth the potential health hazards, for 12-18 thousand bucks. Much later, the Feds reimbursed us for the salary and equipment use.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: one4all
it is a DISTANCE SHOT taken of a big plane and then photoshopped onto the screen then overlain atop the still shot of the camera image.

How clever of you to figure that out all on your own.

You missed the forest for the trees man, the image used in the video ...ya know.....the nice pretty perfect image.....is a LONG DISTANCE SHOT WHICH SHRINKS THE ENTIRE PLANE DOWN TO A USABLE SIZE...…..the PERSPECTIVES of a plane of that size in comparison to ground objects is bastardised....capish…...the overlain image was taken from a long distance and the plane was shrunk inside of the image due to the distance......if you measured from the exact spot the underlaying unidentified image was taken at TO THE PENTAGON WALL IT HIT...….then you measured the size of the plane you would discover the image could not possibly be a plane because a realistically sized plane does not into the proper frame perspective of the camera that took the pictures.

Tow an identical plane out onto the exact spot where this unidentified image was located and see how much of the frame of the camera image it takes up in real life....lol.. www.bing.com...

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: ausername
17 years of theories, and someone comes along and posts a thread opener that will answer 99% of the questions about 9/11 on 9/11.

Wow!

No, he didn't answer them. He didn't even grant us the courtesy of offering a famn summary. No bullet points. Instead, he gives us a 5-hour video and a 1000 page PDF.

OP, you should have offered a summary of the video and the PDF. You could have at least given a damn paragraph of what the conclusions of the video and PDF come to.

Why didn't you? That's a valid question.

originally posted by: soulwaxer
a reply to: soulwaxer
Just did a quick mock-up for the link, remove the spaces. (Don't want to waste too much time figuring out what I'm doing wrong, so if someone can do this right for me, please do. Thanks!)

soulwaxer

Aaaaaand I guess the question I posed to you in my above post is at least partly answered by your attitude towards posting a working link. (You: "I don't want to put the effort even into posting a working link- hey could someone else do it for me?"). I guess if you can't even be bothered to post a working link IN YOUR OWN THREAD, it's too much to expect a summary from you on the findings of the long-ass video and document your thread is based on. Lame, dude.

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: soulwaxer



- How could the wings of aluminum planes (let alone the rest of the aluminum planes) cut through massive double-walled 2-inch thick steel beams?

Much of your questions I think is answered by the word energy. There was a lot of energy with an AC moving 500+ MPH loaded with fuel and many parts made out of steel, titanium etc too.

- What caused the underground fires at ground zero to burn for more than 3 months?

I can't imagine the sheer force of a building that size collapsing in on itself as the massive force almost reached terminal velocity with an energy that was so great that all that steel might as well have been putty.

- What penetrated several walls of the Pentagon and left a nice round hole in each of those walls, and especially WHY?

Engines, gears, fuselage... My guess

- Why was the Sears tower in Chicago evacuated and not the Empire State building in New York?

- Why were fighter jets sent towards the Atlantic Ocean and not towards New York city?

I don't think we knew what was going on and people made decisions based on faulty information at the moment. I think everyone was just running around in circles screaming "what do we do?" It was a rather wakeup moment for the US anyway you look at it.

- Why did the South tower, which was hit after the North tower, “collapse” first?

Easy answer here is the second AC hit lower so there was many more floors of weight above the impact point. This created a shorter burn time to reach the point of collapse. I think this alone shows us that the planes caused the collapse to the towers. This is not something you can plan as to where the AC would hit.

- Why were so many cars around the World Trade Center burned in such a strange way (half burned), and why were most of them police cars?

- Why did the collapse of WTC 7 look so different from the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Once again massive amounts of energy was created...I don't think people can understand just how much... I can repeat this line over and over to many of your questions...


1000s of conspiracies here and with the official report only one is correct, I like John Lear's the best... Aliens...

Read the pdf. Use the index if you want to save time. Get educated!

soulwaxer

Give us a summary of the PDF first. Then people can decide if it's even worth fixing your link and putting it into their browsers.

When you post a video as an OP, you are SUPPOSED TO SUMMARIZE THE CONTENT. Read the T&C's.

a reply to: one4all

It's a near perfect fit over the blurred plane in the pic though, complete right down to the coloured stripes on the AA fuselage.

Here's the 'blinked' combination of the 2 relevant frames from the gate security cameras for comparison: