New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

So now, after asking for data to back up the claim, are just going to ignore it? Whatever floats your boat I guess.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm mocking it.

A nice picture of what a 747 did to a building when it hit it at a slower speed than those 767s did to the WTC:



So if a plane can go through a concrete block of flats, why couldn't one go through a thin steel outer layer of a building. Not to mention that the engines are not aluminium, but that they contain tougher materials such as tungsten I think. And the engine casings themselves are made to withstand one of the fan blades detaching from the rest if one of them fails. As a note, if that happens the fan blade has similar penetrating power to an anti tank round, and modern engines easily withstand that, so why could they not penetrate a building.

And if we consider the huge momentum it would have, at about 450 mph.
speed = 201m/s, mass = 179,170 kg(from boeing.com)

3.625 GigaJoules of energy.

Momentum:
36 x10^6 kgm/s.

I don't know about anyone else, but thats a large amount of energy or momentum to stop, and I can't see how It couldn't possibly penetrate the WTC tower. In the 63.4 m it took most of the aircraft to stop(the width of the tower), the force would be:

Impact deceleration:
201^2/(2 x 63.4) = 318.62 m/s^2.

Impact force:
F= 179,170x 318.62 = 57.08 MN. (This is spread over the entire time of the impact, not an instantaneous force of the impact with the facade, that force could be bigger)

This also assumes a dead straight on hit, but the difference in the distance would be minimal.

And a plane is not made entirely of sheet, there are spars that run from front to back, ones in the wings etc, how else would the sheet keep it's shape?

So yes, I think a plane can easily account for the damage seen on 9/11.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by apex]

Unfortunately you addressing apples and oranges with that picture of aluminum sheeting. I have yet to find definate proof (the original structural blueprints for the steelworks) that would say what grade the steel girders called for. My best guess would be ASTM A572 Grade 50. As it was the common spec for the time.

Grade 50 (the important number there) refers to the Ultimate Tensile Strength.....50ksi or 50000psi. In otherwords it would break before the T3 would under stress and strain. 20000psi less pressure in fact. The real difference is the thickness 1/4 -1/2 inch (more in the core box columns) which would shread the 1/8-1/4 inch T3.

So while the force of the impact would get through. That sudden deceleration would have reduced the force enough to slice the plane to ribbons like paper through a shredder. So I have my doubts of that being the nose poking out the building. Especially considering the tip of the nose is riveted on to the front of the cockpit as the last piece of the exterior. Even the wings are on by that point.

You should be aware of the continued deceptions being perpetrated by this "Conspiracy Tycoon Group".

Despite the obvious support of continued discussion of this topic here on ATS, they are trying to promote the idea that the topic is being censored --
TV Fakery Censorship Campaign Spreads to Above Top Secret

it's now taboo there to post on the subject of TV Fakery.

Further evidence that the "911researchers.com" Conspiracy Tycoon Group relies on lies, distortion, and deception as desperate tactics in their escalating conspiracy turf war.

How can anyone continue to believe these theories given the obvious deceptive techniques of the most active proponent?



(In the interest of the spirit of refraining from personal attacks, I've stopped referring to this group as deliberate disruptors of 9/11 conspiracies. However, it's increasingly impossible to not draw that conclusion after lengthy review of their theories and tactics.)

Originally posted by mister.old.school
How can anyone continue to believe these theories given the obvious deceptive techniques of the most active proponent?

The mistake they're making is in thinking their views are solely responsible for the sceptisicm they've received here. Whilst it's true their views are relatively unpopular, the truth is that it is their attitude and refusal to substantiate their claims that has left forum members feeling exasperated.

You excellent compilation of unanswered questions, MOS, is a case in point. Your repeated requests for proponents of the TV fakery theory to address them were met with more new equally dubious videos backed-up by newly registered recruits. I also feel it was unhelpful to continue to discuss TV fakery and no-plane theories as if they were essentially one and the same. They are not.

It's a shame Natahsa has gone; I believe she had something to offer outside of TV fakery and no-plane theories. Despite disagreeing with her about both, she and I appear to share the view (if an essay she wrote in 2003 is anything to go by) that we need to take a step back and look more broadly at the historical context in order to fully appreciate why 9/11 might have been a false flag operation.

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: 9/11 Forum Is Now Under Close Staff Scrutiny– Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by coughymachine


It's a shame Natahsa has gone; I believe she had something to offer outside of TV fakery and no-plane theories. Despite disagreeing with her about both, she and I appear to share the view (if an essay she wrote in 2003 is anything to go by) that we need to take a step back and look more broadly at the historical context in order to fully appreciate why 9/11 might have been a false flag operation.

Hi coughymachine,

I'll have a mocha cap, heavy, no whip creme, heavy dark choc sprinkle with a oatie biscuit please. Sorry. I couldn't resist.

I had sense that, you are a good sort also dear, and I hope it showed.

I was banned not gone. I was in the middle of writing a response to Crakeur, being careful to choose my words in an attempt to make peace with her, and when I went to post it I got the 'You are unable to post a new topic or reply to current posts, as your posting privileges have been removed.' notice. Oopsie! They hate me. I wish I were a better witness.

I wrote that, badly punctuated article you refer to, back in Nov 2002. I later discovered that Totse.com had picked it up, and that they had even copyrighted it for me. It has been there ever since.

I had only recently gotten on-line, for the first time, and I had this rather poor webpage up containing that article along with many links and pictures. I still have the original HTML (stencil?) for it.

While at that time, I had no idea how it was done, I was even back then convinced that the media coverage was somehow, er, 'enhanced', as well as preplanned and "brought to you by" The NWO "the makers of the emerging world government". Here is a line from it. "Is it inconceivable that 911 was really a very carefully planned media event?"

Here is a link to it. Please excuse the atrocious punctuation and shoddy grammar. I wrote it, just as I heard it, in my itty-bitty widdle mind. Yeah, I know, crazy huh?

www.totse.com...


I wish to go on the record here, as saying the following with true sincerity, and the very best of intentions.

I use my real and true name for your sakes. I risk being killed, or even far worse, just to tell you these things. I do not expect to be either believed or appreciated, and in fact I know that either occurrence shall always be exceedingly rare.

I wish also that all of you, would stop presuming that the TV fakery researchers are "evil bastards", and I wish you would also reconsider what they have been trying to show you. I have no proof to offer you, but I know that they are on the right track, and I sense that they are also very sincere.

I really should be going now. I leave you now, in hope that you will be, a bit more polite and patient with bsregistration. I rather like him, for some reason, even though I have no idea who he is. Please give the man a chance. In the end, I promise, that you will be very glad you did.

Best wishes to all!

You are all in my prayers!

Natasha Thompson
Fort Wayne Indiana





[edit on 9-6-2007 by Natasha_Thompson]

[edit on 9-6-2007 by Natasha_Thompson]

[edit on 9-6-2007 by Natasha_Thompson]

Believe me, nobody is going to kill you for your outrageous belief that UFO's shot holographic planes thru the Towers.

Originally posted by Natasha_ThompsonI
I was in the middle of writing a response to Crakeur, being careful to choose my words in an attempt to make peace with her

I am many things. a she is not one of them.

Originally posted by Natasha_ThompsonI
I wish I were a better witness.

if you had been here and looked out a window or stood on the street and looked up, you would have been. using the videos that you use to back your outlandish claim, you are no longer a good witness. you are not using reality as your reference point.

peace can be made when you admit that the odds are pretty damned slim that we are all wrong and a few people who were not even here, are right.

selfless (I hope I'm not mangling the name, apologies if I am), I don't dispute the concept of there being the capability of producing a hologram. I am stating that I find it completely ludicrous to think that a hologram could be produced that would be viewable from every conceivable angle to fool every possible viewer in a several mile radius. it wouldhave been a travelling hologram that would need to be projected by something that would have to be moving too I guess, to cover all the ground it covered.

then there's the whole, where are the planes issue, where are the passengers, the phone calls from planes to family members etc.

there are way too many points that break the no planes theory to shreds and not one single bit of anything that might make the no planes thoery something even worth contemplating. it is that far fetched. that is why I brought the soul catcher in to the mix. you are saying that we don't know what tech is out there and, therefore, we should be willing to entertain almost any theory before shooting it down. using your logic, the soul catcher theory deserves attention before shooting it down.

I disagree. I think the soul catcher is more plausible and more likely than the no planes theory and I think the soul catcher is totally insane.

I have a few questions for the 'NO PLANE' theorists. Excluding the Hologram people since even they would actually have something flying that looked like a plane. But for the CGI folks.

I would like anyone of them to explain exactly HOW did the Military control every single camera in NEW YORK city and every Video?

How did they make it so that they alone would possess all the footage?, Since anyone can film something and then upload it somewhere or store it for a later date.

How did they make is so NO one would be filming of their own accord??

Please give me the answer to this question.

thnks





[edit on 9-6-2007 by talisman]

It's good to try to independently confirm events.

But, did anyone ever think of the possibility that discrediting the USA govt. might be a conspiracy?

Why are all of the conspiracies perpetrated by the the USA?

The USA govt. are not the only people with the ability to create conspiracies, nor are they the only government who manipulates its people.

I do believe the USA took advantage of what happened on 911 to manipulate us into a war.

Do you really think they would have taken time off from their ultra-rich lifestyles, yachts, country clubs, etc. to plot such a messy conspiracy? One that would potentially risk their wealth, status and poll ratings?

If the USA had such great powers, why wouldn't they have planned a better conspiracy, instead of the flimsy one proposed here?

If this really is a conspiracy, we don't have much to worry about since it would speak volumes of the capacity of our conspirators.



[edit on 9-6-2007 by Electro38]

After making it to page 7, my head is spinning, and certainly not from any earth shattering revelations, but about how truly lost the cause of 9/11 truth is. 16 pages debating whether or not planes hit the WTC based on nonsense "evidence", when there are far more solid facts and oddities of that horrid day that were the very cornerstones for people in the beginning to question the offical story? The real evidence has long been ignored because we have irrational space cadet loonies in the 9/11 truth movement completely derailing the whole thing. This nonsense of planes or no planes have totally overshadowed the REALLY important pieces of the puzzle: the airforce lack of response, especially to flight 77, the many witnesses to flight 93 getting shot down, the increase in put options in United and American airlines, Odigos warning message to employees, the cheering Israelis, the indestructable passports, the collapse of the twin towers and building 7, and so on.

It was these verifiable facts, not way out theories, that started the whole 9/11 question. Yet now the movement's loudest voices are cranks and charletans who are shouting thier silly theories with no solid evidence to back them up. We didn't need "no planes" to question the government's offical account. We HAD the evidence! yet that wasn't good enough for some crackpots, who basically have hijacked the movement totally.

Any wonder why I have totally distanced myself from 9/11 goof movement? In fact, I am beginning to wonder if the rumors are true, that these wack job theories popping up are directly from some government type disinformation campaign to deliberately muddy the waters of 9/11 investigation. Its looking more and more that way.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
After making it to page 7, my head is spinning, and certainly not from any earth shattering revelations, but about how truly lost the cause of 9/11 truth is. 16 pages debating whether or not planes hit the WTC based on nonsense "evidence", when there are far more solid facts and oddities of that horrid day that were the very cornerstones for people in the beginning to question the offical story? The real evidence has long been ignored because we have irrational space cadet loonies in the 9/11 truth movement completely derailing the whole thing. This nonsense of planes or no planes have totally overshadowed the REALLY important pieces of the puzzle: the airforce lack of response, especially to flight 77, the many witnesses to flight 93 getting shot down, the increase in put options in United and American airlines, Odigos warning message to employees, the cheering Israelis, the indestructable passports, the collapse of the twin towers and building 7, and so on.

It was these verifiable facts, not way out theories, that started the whole 9/11 question. Yet now the movement's loudest voices are cranks and charletans who are shouting thier silly theories with no solid evidence to back them up. We didn't need "no planes" to question the government's offical account. We HAD the evidence! yet that wasn't good enough for some crackpots, who basically have hijacked the movement totally.

Any wonder why I have totally distanced myself from 9/11 goof movement? In fact, I am beginning to wonder if the rumors are true, that these wack job theories popping up are directly from some government type disinformation campaign to deliberately muddy the waters of 9/11 investigation. Its looking more and more that way.

I agree with some of what you've said, but I'd also like to submit that our govt. could have saved themselves a lot of "conspiratory" trouble if they had just remembered 1992 when a single truck bomb almost took down the towers.

Had the US govt. remembered that they could have used that scenario as their new conspiracy template and saved themselves all of the trouble of controlling the airlines, aligning themselves with all of the co-conspirators and manipulating all of the video data collected independently throughout the city by officials, civilians, and multiple liberal (and conservative) news organizations.

They chose, instead of this simpler single truck bomb plan to execute their more risky, convoluted, multiple airplane, multiple video manipulation, reckless plot?

[edit on 9-6-2007 by Electro38]

I want to post something for people here who may be honestly confused by the 'moving bridge' in the shot with the WTC towers. Watch this rather short film, in fact it is very short and it should give most here the basic idea of what is going on.

I am not sure on the Lense that day during the WTC and the bridge, but I am sure it was similar to the V-3 Lense.

Okay, now watch this video, it will pan to the right. Now notice that she is relatively in the center.

But do you notice something in the background? Watch the background Trees, they proceed to MOVE RIGHT.

So give yourselves a moment and watch. (btw the trees to look for is through the "V" in the Wood behind her)
www.youtube.com...




[edit on 9-6-2007 by talisman]

Stop responding! It's all a diversionary disinfo campaign and they're succuss lies in every response and even read they're given.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Believe me, nobody is going to kill you for your outrageous belief that UFO's shot holographic planes thru the Towers.

That's not very nice. I tried to leave here with positive feelings for you folks, linking to my article, www.totse.com... , and then you immediately post the above.

I don't believe in space aliens 'or' space ships, and my article says nothing about either.

If you really want this subject to go away, perhaps you should stop baiting people, by twisting their words and insulting them.

I don't want to argue with you about the 911 Media deception anymore.

You believe what you believe, and I accept that.

But I don't want to just let you twist my words and paint me crazy either.

Good night all.

And I refuse to accept any longer, a theory that requires me to believe that lightweight aluminum aircraft, can fly right through steel reinforced concrete buildings, and the media is somehow now trustworthy.

Can you show me one example of that occurring other than the fake 911 footage?

The problem with your statement is that the plane in question was not "lightweight". While made of, relatively speaking, lightweight components, the plane, fully loaded, weighed in the area of 266,000 lbs. which is by all accounts rather massive. Think of it as about 24 fully grown African elephants.

Corey Lidle of the NY Yankees flew his Cirrus SR20, a single engine piston airplane with a maximum speed of 200 knots (about 230 MPH) into a building in NY and did some extensive damage, this in a plane with a max landing weight of only 2900 lbs. Ample photos are avaible on the web.

Now the Boeing 767-200 series has a max weight 92 times greater than the Cirrus SR20. It has a maximum VNE (never exceed velocity) of 545 MPH, which by all accounts it was flying close to when it hit the building.

Now without getting into the tedious (yawn) and pedantic repetition of physical formulas from my copy of Physics for Dummies it boils down to the simple and indisputible fact that the plane would have gone through the skin of the building like the proverbial hot knife through butter.

As for the remark by the other poster regarding 9mm bullets and wondering why the gun nuts hadn't brought it up, well this "gun nut" didn't because its irrelevant. The typical 9mm bullet weighs somewhere between 118 and 147 grains (less than one ounce) and travels from the barrel at around 900 to 1100 feet per second (613 -750 MPH) depending on the load, length of the barrel, etc. To say this another way, the airplane was like a bullet weighing 4,256,000 ounces hitting the building at a velocity about 89% of a 9mm bullet.

Now it's true that a 9mm bullet will not easily penetrate 1/4 inch steel, however a .30 caliber bullet fired from a rifle will easily punch a nice neat hole in the same piece of steel. That 30caliber bullet is flying at about 2700 feet per second or so (depending on cartridge) and weighs about the same as the 9mm bullet.

The point here is that kinetic energy is a combination of mass X velocity. A bowling ball weighing many hundreds of times more than a bullet will only knock a bowling pin down because its just not going that fast. A bullet going 900 FPS will shatter the bowling pin. Now make the bowling pin go the same speed as the bullet and you will transform the bowling pin into match wood. The same goes for large and not so light weight airplanes flying into skyscrapers.

Mod Edit: BB Code.

[edit on 10/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Ahabstar


So while the force of the impact would get through. That sudden deceleration would have reduced the force enough to slice the plane to ribbons like paper through a shredder. So I have my doubts of that being the nose poking out the building. Especially considering the tip of the nose is riveted on to the front of the cockpit as the last piece of the exterior. Even the wings are on by that point.

You're getting warmer, but the real point of this thread, was supposed to be this.

The media showed IMPOSSIBLE video footage of the nosecone exiting the other side, several news commentators even said, "and it went right through the building!", .... CNN then immediately covered up that mistake with their banner.

In addition, all that footage of the supposed "fly through", was dropped from further coverage and never mentioned again.

In other words, it was the MEDIA who edited their later footage leaving out the "fly through", and not the guys who brought this to your attention.

If you really want to know the truth about this then watch the video again.

www.livevideo.com...

Originally posted by Flyingdog5000

And I refuse to accept any longer, a theory that requires me to believe that lightweight aluminum aircraft, can fly right through steel reinforced concrete buildings, and the media is somehow now trustworthy.

Can you show me one example of that occurring other than the fake 911 footage?

The problem with your statement is that the plane in question was not "lightweight". While made of, relatively speaking, lightweight components, the plane, fully loaded, weighed in the area of 266,000 lbs.

Yes, I hear you, and that is a very good question. I should have spoken more clearly.



Those planes are large collections, of low mass density [lightweight] materials, which altogether are heavy in weight.

Those same materials are mainly very low density, low mass weight, high tensile strength plastic composites, with low compression strength being brittle and thus poorly impact resistant.

The aluminum allow sheeting in question, is also less malleable than common aluminum sheeting, having greater rigidity and less flexibility also, and it too is poor as far as impact resistance goes.

The above materials, are no match for the building materials in question, despite the velocity involved, because projectile impact energy is based upon velocity ... weight ... 'and' ... density.

That is why kinetic energy projectile weapon rounds, are made out of lead or even denser materials like depleted uranium [DU], instead of low density [lightweight] materials like plastic or hard brittle aluminum or even aluminum alloys.

Hope that helps.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Natasha_Thompson]

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Natasha_Thompson]