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.
This makes me physically ill.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
I TURN OUT TO BE THE RECIPIENT OF A LOT OF RIDICULOUS ATTACKS.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
As Mark Twain observed, the problem is not what we don't know but what we think we know that ain't so!
What Happened On 9-11: THE GREATEST ILLUSION OF ALL MANKIND
www.themedianews.com...
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER was built and designed to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet. That includes the Boeing models 747,757,767,777.
Therefore when a Jumbo Jet, consisting primarily of merely a hollow pressurized cabin, impacts the reinforced concrete and steel support beams of the World Trade Center that it crumples on impact on the outside of the building and falls to the ground because of little encroachment into the building.
The American Media has told people that a Jet wing can cut through steel reinforced concrete designed to withstand the impact of a high speed jet impact.
America was told that what they witnessed was what appeared to be a jet flying completely into the World Trade Center as if it were Jello. What the American media reported was something that is physically impossible. This is another Single Bullet Theory.
The answer is that a cruise missile with a military hologram aboard crashed into the building. A Cruise missile is small enough to fly into the building if it were to avoid any steel beams and merely properly aimed at open office glass panes.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by JimFetzer
Jim YOUR background is NOT, PHYSICS, ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION thats obvious by your strange assumptions so come on explain how in the Empire State crash a SMALLER,LIGHTER SLOWER AIRCRAFT put one of its engines through 8" of limestone many layers of brick several office walls more layers of brickwork and another 8" of limestone on the opposite wall care to explain Jim because it couldn't happen according to Fetzer physics
Oh and thats open to any of your deluded followers as well!edit on 4-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: comment added
If you have a better explanation, produce it.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
But the problem is that no real Boeing 767 could have flown at 560 mph at 700-1,000 foot altitude, entered the building in violation of Newton's laws, or passed through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.
I am not an expert on all these things, which is why I bring those who are together to pool our resources.
but I also interviewed Stephen Brown on "The Real Deal", nwopodcast.com... where he explained that he had taken a course on holography at Cambridge and that the use of a hologram for this purpose was entirely feasible given the state of technology in 2001.
If you have a better explanation, produce it.
But remember that it has to explain how this image of a plane could be flying faster than a real Boeing 767 could fly at that altitude
how it could enter this massive steel and concrete building in violation of Newton's laws
and how it could pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.
Originally posted by mister.old.school
Originally posted by JimFetzer
But the problem is that no real Boeing 767 could have flown at 560 mph at 700-1,000 foot altitude, entered the building in violation of Newton's laws, or passed through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.
----- sigh -----
PILING ON A LOT OF SILLY QUESTIONS DOESN'T AMOUNT TO A SINGLE DECENT ARGUMENT.
How many times do I need to remind you that your chosen "expert", John Lear, initially confirmed the altitude and speed were possible for a pilot that only ever received nothing more than simulator training? The only time he lied and changed his "story" is when he -- someone who enjoys attention -- began enjoying the attention of "9/11 Truth" splinter factions. You have never specifically responded on the early comments of Lear in this regard.
JOHN TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN WRONG. I HAVE POINTED OUT THAT HIS AFFIDAVIT PRESENTS HIS MORE CONSIDERED OPINION. I POINTED THAT OUT AND SUGGESTED THAT YOU DEAL WITH THE POINTS HE MAKES THERE, INCLUDING THAT THE DENSITY OF THE AIR MAKES TO IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE TURBINES TO SUCK IT THROUGH THE TURBINES. I NOTICE YOU HAVE NOT REPLIED TO THAT.
"Newton's laws" have nothing to do with the aerodynamics of a large aircraft temporarily exceeding recommended design parameters for a brief period of time. You keep parroting the same claim, but have never responded by providing an original video that proves your point of a lack of deceleration or lack of damage as the aircraft penetrated the Word Trade Center steel facade.
YOU OFFER A QUESTION WITH A FALSE PRESUPPOSITION. THE FIRST THING THEY WOULD HAVE DONE WAS TO DESTROY ANY ORIGINAL TAPES, SO YOU COULD ASK QUESTIONS LIKE THIS. MORE IMPORTANTLY, HOWEVER, THE DIFFERENCES ARE NOT SO SUBTLE THAT THE ORIGINAL VERSUS A COPY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. THE VELOCITY OF THE PLANE SHOULD HAVE DROPPED TO ZERO.
I am not an expert on all these things, which is why I bring those who are together to pool our resources.
Such as an attention-starved crazy old man who believes the hoaxes of a one-armed UFO con-artist and that the US Navy maintains underground submarine bases in the US desert, John Lear?
THIS IS AN AD HOMINEM THAT APPEARS TO BE INTENDED TO CONCEAL THAT YOU ARE UNABLE TO RESPOND TO THE POINTS HE MADE IN HIS AFFIDAVIT. DO YOU FOOL ANYONE WITH THIS GUFF?
but I also interviewed Stephen Brown on "The Real Deal", nwopodcast.com... where he explained that he had taken a course on holography at Cambridge and that the use of a hologram for this purpose was entirely feasible given the state of technology in 2001.
How can someone who "took a course in holography" compare to an expert? I've asked before, and you never responded, as to why you didn't search out actual experts.
ITS CLEARLY WELL KNOWN ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE EXPERT THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY IS WELL-ENOUGH DEVELOPED THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE. PERHAPS YOU HAVE NOT HEARD OF CAMBRIDGE, UK, BUT IT IS ONE OF THE WORLD'S MOST DISTINGUISHED UNIVERSITIES AND HE WAS STUDYING THE SUBJECT FROM (WHAT I AM QUITE SURE WAS) A LEADING HOLOGRAPY EXPERT. I NOTICE YOU HAVE OFFERED NO REASON FOR THINKING HE IS WRONG.
If you have a better explanation, produce it.
Dozens upon dozens have been provided in this, and the long-list of other related threads, but since you're personally invested in the promotion of this hoax, you refuse to comment on any of them.
AS I HAVE EXPLAINED, IT HAS TO BE AN EXPLANATION THAT CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE SPEED, THE IMPOSSIBLE ENTRY, AND ALL THAT. I CERTAINLY HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT FROM YOU OR YOUR CHUMS ON THIS THREAD. SO IF YOU HAVE ONE, LET'S SEE IT! OF COURSE, WE ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN A "MAGIC PLANE" LIKE THE "MAGIC BULLET".
But remember that it has to explain how this image of a plane could be flying faster than a real Boeing 767 could fly at that altitude
You've never proved it can't. You seem unable to differentiate the difference between recommended design parameters, operational limits, and excessive operation that will result in structural failure. Examples of Boeing aircraft exceeding 6g in emergency maneuvers have been provided in this and other threads, yet you refuse to accept these real-world examples that refute your bogus suppositions.
NO, THIS IS MORE SMOKE BLOWING. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE YOUR OWN PHONY CLAIMS, BUT PILOTS HAS REPEATEDLY DEBUNKED THIS KIND OF NONSENSE. I AGAIN RECOMMEND THAT ANYONE WITH A SERIOUS INTEREST IN THE TRUTH CHECK OUT PILOTS' "9/11: INTERCEPTED".
how it could enter this massive steel and concrete building in violation of Newton's laws
Explain how the kinetic energy of an object in motion, and remains in motion when encountering a non-solid obstruction, violates any of Newton's laws.
THE POINT IS THAT THE COLLISION BETWEEN A HOLLOW ALUMINUM PLANE FLYING AT 560 MPS IN HITTING A STATIONARY 500,000 TON BUILDING AND INTERSECTING WITH EIGHT (8) FLOORS OF STEEL TRUSSES FILLED WITH 4-8" OF CONCRETE WOULD BE THE SAME IF THE PLANE WAS STATIONARY AND WERE HIT BY THAT MASSIVE BUILDING FLYING AT 560 MPH. THIS IS NEWTON'S THIRD LAW0--FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION. THE EFFECTS WOJLD BE THE SAME EITHER WAY--OR IF THEY WERE BOTH MOVING AT 280 MPS AND COLLIDING.
and how it could pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air.
Please provide your evidence of this.
YOU CAN PROVE IT FOR YOURSELF. TRACK DOWN THE VIDEOS AND DO A SINGLE-FRAME ADVANCE AND YOU CAN VERIFY THAT THE PLANE PASSES THROUGH ITS OWN LENGTH INTO THE BUILDING IN THE SAME NUMBER OF FRAMES THAT IT PASSES THROUGH ITS OWN LENGTH IN AIR--IN BOTH THE HERZARKHANI AND THE FAIRBANKS' VIDOES. TRY IT, THEY ARE THE SAME IN BOTH VIDEOS. IT'S CALLED 'REPLICABILITY' WHERE ANYONE WITH THE RIGHT RESOURCES AND ABILITY CAN TEST IT.
Your actions here are classic "Internet Trolling", in that you neglect valid critique of your points in favor of parroting the same points over and over, or injecting new unrelated points into the conversation.
BUT THAT'S SIMPLY UNTRUE. NONE OF THE ARGUMENTS IN WHICH YOU APPARENTLY TAKE SUCH PRIDE HERE HAS ANY FORCE AGAINST THE POSITION I HAVE ADVANCED. YOU ARE SIMPLY DELUDING YOURSELF AND TRYING TO CONVERT A VICE INTO A VIRTUE. NO ONE SHOULD BE IMPRESSED.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
JOHN TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN WRONG.
INCLUDING THAT THE DENSITY OF THE AIR MAKES TO IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE TURBINES TO SUCK IT THROUGH THE TURBINES.
PERHAPS YOU HAVE NOT HEARD OF CAMBRIDGE, UK, BUT IT IS ONE OF THE WORLD'S MOST DISTINGUISHED UNIVERSITIES AND HE WAS STUDYING THE SUBJECT FROM (WHAT I AM QUITE SURE WAS) A LEADING HOLOGRAPY EXPERT.
THE POINT IS THAT THE COLLISION BETWEEN A HOLLOW ALUMINUM PLANE FLYING AT 560 MPS IN HITTING A STATIONARY 500,000 TON BUILDING AND INTERSECTING WITH EIGHT (8) FLOORS OF STEEL TRUSSES FILLED WITH 4-8" OF CONCRETE WOULD BE THE SAME IF THE PLANE WAS STATIONARY AND WERE HIT BY THAT MASSIVE BUILDING FLYING AT 560 MPH.
YOU CAN PROVE IT FOR YOURSELF. TRACK DOWN THE VIDEOS AND DO A SINGLE-FRAME ADVANCE AND YOU CAN VERIFY THAT THE PLANE PASSES THROUGH ITS OWN LENGTH INTO THE BUILDING IN THE SAME NUMBER OF FRAMES
NONE OF THE ARGUMENTS IN WHICH YOU APPARENTLY TAKE SUCH PRIDE HERE HAS ANY FORCE AGAINST THE POSITION I HAVE ADVANCED.
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by mister.old.school
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
Really?? Worked for the OS BS.....
... A HOLLOW ALUMINUM PLANE ....
Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, given we KNOW that the videos are fake, the question becomes HOW it was done. PVI is only one of many possibilities, where video compsiting, CGIs, and the use of a hologram are other alternatives. Personally, I find the weight of the evidence favors the use of a hologram. What is your explanation?
reply to post by wmd_2008
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by JimFetzer
Cooo cooo.,.....
Stop insulting people. You are an old old man, that is no way to behave.