New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

Except we're not talking about them making the towers collapse. We're talking about them PENETRATING the towers. The argument has been made repeatedly that there's no way a plane could possibly penetrate steel. But if it's possible for straw, and 2x4s to go through telephone poles, then why isn't it possible for a plane to penetrate steel?

This guy only posts crap all the time, that's what he does, always some far out fantasy about micro nukes, DEW weapons, holograms and aliens involved.

This makes the rest of us look like crap pots. He knows exactly what he is doing.

He is not interested in logic, he is interested in disinformation, nothing else.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Except we're not talking about them making the towers collapse. We're talking about them PENETRATING the towers. The argument has been made repeatedly that there's no way a plane could possibly penetrate steel. But if it's possible for straw, and 2x4s to go through telephone poles, then why isn't it possible for a plane to penetrate steel?

Just to back up Zaphod58 and as a general reply to the 'plane can't penetrate' argument - weren't the buildings' exteriors a mixture of steel beams and glass panes? Some of these very weak arguments (where some people assume extensive knowledge of ballistics, aircraft/building construction and the behaviour of various materials and structures under extremely violent conditions) almost infer that the exterior of the WTC buildings was solid sheet steel.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Skunky]

beeblebrox said...
As has been stated repeatedly by MANY people, we don't know WHAT that object coming out of the building is. It's definitely SOME part of the plane, based on trajectory, but we can't say with 100% certainty if it's nose, engine, landing gear, or what. It's almost certainly NOT the nose section though.

we can also discern that it punched through two perimeter walls, without slowing hardly an iota, and then proceeded to disappear, instead of carrying on with it's apparently enormous momentum.
interesting behaviour for something from our reality.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by billybob]

Originally posted by billybob
we can also discern that it punched through two perimeter walls, without slowing hardly an iota, and then proceeded to disappear, instead of carrying on with it's apparently enormous momentum.
interesting behaviour for something from our reality.

Yeah, I am gonna go with billybob's perception.

A couple of questions...

It has been stated that there is a 17 second delay between an event and the 'live' transmission of that event. Is this true and how can it be substantiated?

Is the time displayed on CNN et al accurate? When the clock reads 9:00, is it actually 9:00:00 or 9:00:17?

I'm sure the 17 second interval was mentioned in one of the recent 'planes weren't real' videos linked at the start of this thread. Either way, it's a ridiculous suggestion that digital effects were employed 'on the fly' to create the impression of planes hitting the towers. The basis for the idea stems from what appears to be the nose of the plane emerging from the other side of the building in the zoom taken from news footage shot from onboard a helicopter at reasonable distance from the towers. It's quite obviously smoke, as can be seen from the other footage shot from different angles and perspectives at the time.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Skunky]

Yeah I don't get it, The supposed proof of a holographic place is a plane shaped smoke puff which has a shadow.

If it was a hologram and they screwed up meaning for a sec you could see the nose leave. Why would they have inserted the shadow as well?

Originally posted by Skunky
I'm sure the 17 second interval was mentioned in one of the recent 'planes weren't real' videos linked at the start of this thread. Either way, it's a ridiculous suggestion that digital effects were employed 'on the fly' to create the impression of planes hitting the towers.

I don't believe the effects were added 'real time' either, but I want to take a closer look at the claims and facts rather than dismiss it out of hand.

Re: the 17 second delay. Is it really that big a delay?

And is the time, which is displayed on just about every news channel I've seen, accurate? Perhaps someone could just take a look at CNN or some other channel now and tell me if the minutes change at precisely the right time.

Originally posted by billybob

beeblebrox said...
As has been stated repeatedly by MANY people, we don't know WHAT that object coming out of the building is. It's definitely SOME part of the plane, based on trajectory, but we can't say with 100% certainty if it's nose, engine, landing gear, or what. It's almost certainly NOT the nose section though.

we can also discern that it punched through two perimeter walls, without slowing hardly an iota, and then proceeded to disappear, instead of carrying on with it's apparently enormous momentum.
interesting behaviour for something from our reality.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by billybob]

I have not yet seen a reasonable argument that proves the artifact claimed to be "part of the plan" is not actually simply eject from the internal explosion. Several photos and video stills of the event show smoke and other eject that are exactly the same color, and venr at exactly the same time as the artifact in question. It is highly valid to expect that there was super-heated smoke and debris building inside the structure as a result of the impact and explosion. Similarly, it is highly logical to anticipate that such high-pressure, high-temperature eject would take such a shape when first being "squeezed" through a small hole.

Is it not reasonable to first prove, without doubt, that this artifact IS NOT as described above before we engage in potentially erroneous speculation?

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by jprophet420
same with the missing plane aspect. in one 'live' video its missing, but in the archive video it is there. again one of the videos was faked.

Can you please provide an example of this? I've not seen such a thing.

Thank you.

Again, this is a rather sensational statement jprophet420. Can we please have the benefit of the source and evidence for this?

I want to examine the 17-second delay claim made earlier in this thread, since it appears to be a significant piece of information for those promoting the TV fakery theory.

According to seismograms recorded by LCSN Station PAL (Palisades, NY), Flight 175 struck the South tower at 09:02:54. Assuming the news channels’ clocks are accurate, we can work out from archived footage how long each channel delayed its ‘live’ feed by and whether there is indeed a 17 second delay.

The unequivocal answer is ‘no’; there is not a 17 second delay.

The Internet Archive has 9/11 footage from 5 US broadcasters. The following gives the detail of the broadcaster and segment time span; the on-screen studio time relative to the running time of the clip; the time of impact according to the running time; the time of impact according to the studio time; and finally, the delay based upon the seismographic reading.

CNN – 08:48 – 09:29

Studio time is ~+4 seconds relative to the running time
Impact occurs at ~14:57
Studio time would be ~09:03:01
Delay relative to seismographic evidence is ~+7 seconds.


FOX – 08:31 – 09:12

Studio time is ~+4 seconds relative to the running time
Impact occurs at ~31:51
Studio time would be ~09:02:55
Delay relative to seismographic evidence is ~+1 second.

NBC – 08:31 – 09:12

Studio time is ~+5 seconds relative to the running time
Impact occurs at ~31:55
Studio time would be ~09:03:00
Delay relative to seismographic evidence is ~+6 seconds.

CBS – 08:31 – 09:12

Studio time is ~+6 seconds relative to the running time
Impact occurs at ~31:52
Studio time would be ~09:02:58
Delay relative to seismographic evidence is ~+4 seconds.

ABC – 08:31 – 09:12

Studio time is ~+15 seconds relative to the running time
Impact occurs at ~31:45
Studio time would be ~09:02:59
Delay relative to seismographic evidence is ~+5 seconds.

All broadcasters show a plane or part thereof in their first piece of ‘live’ footage. Several show the alleged nose cone (images that are frequently repeated) and Aaron Brown of CNN is still talking about the way the plane came through the backside of the tower after 10:00. After that, coverage of the first collapse takes precedence.

In sum, if allegations of CGI maniupulation are contingent upon a 17-second delay, then there was no CGI manipulation.

ETA - virtually all of the broadcasters were in the middle of eyewitness interviews when Flight 175 struck. Their 'live' reaction to the unfolding events also serves to further demonstrate that there was not a 17 second delay.

ETA 2 - to highlight the important tmes.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by coughymachine]


[edit on 11-6-2007 by coughymachine]

[edit on 11-6-2007 by coughymachine]

redneck said.....
we can also discern that it punched through two perimeter walls, without slowing hardly an iota, and then proceeded to disappear, instead of carrying on with it's apparently enormous momentum.
interesting behaviour for something from our reality.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by billybob]

But yet, the point has been raised about the six ton engines not going through walls. We're getting both sides of the argument here. Those buildings were essentially hollow where that plane hit. It was so off center, that the right engine would have totally missed the core, and had only thin drywall sections to go through until the other perimeter wall. At 500mph that engine is going to have a HELL of a lot of momentum behind it.

Wizard

Oh yes it is (the point). There was no need to control any cameras in New York whatsoever. The true amateur picture-takers filmed nothing — except for ‘burning’ smoke-machine laden towers. And the phony official ‘amateurs’ cut, spliced and pasted together the ‘official’ (amateur) footage half-assily in some studio.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

There was no need to control *NOTHING*>?

Then you make the next leap in LOGIC by saying *all* the amateurs just so happened to *ALL* MISS whatever it was that hit the tower!?

OR.......

Are you claiming that nothing hit the towers only pre-timed explosives? Because the above refutes completely the idea of *ANY THING OTHER THEN A PLANE FLYING*.

But if you believe in just explosives timed with the video feed, then you have to deal with........

How on earth did that many New Yorkers miss the plane!?

and if you say there was nothing flying through the air....

Then a tremendous amount of New Yorkers would have known what happened and why aren't they rioting?

Or do we make the next leap in logic to assume that all the eyewitnesses who came forward are all bogus including btw the people in the building who reported seeing the PLANE??

Now we are getting into extraordinary cost and risk. Cost of the project, risk of people coming forward to spill the beans. The more people you keep piling on to this, the more the boat keeps going under. You are giving such control to the military that the premise starts to refute itself.

Either way your caught in the horns of a dilemma. Either way your allowing for the military to have to much control without giving a reason as to why this control is not being exerted now.










[edit on 11-6-2007 by talisman]

If the videos were delayed, but the overall broadcast was not delayed, then the "eyewitnesses" could be watching their televisions. Their reactions would be in sync with the delayed video.

Originally posted by Ace Baker
If the videos were delayed, but the overall broadcast was not delayed, then the "eyewitnesses" could be watching their televisions. Their reactions would be in sync with the delayed video.

No, the eyewitnesses were largely first hand accounts given during 'live' interviews with the hosts. In other words, they are watching events unfold with their own eyes and describing them to hosts who are seeing the same thing on their monitors in the studio.

The lack of a 17 second delay doesn't necessarily prove there was no CGI, by the way, but it does demonstrate that the methods described earlier in this thread are incorrect.

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.



Natasha,

You could also say that a NFL middle linebacker is a collection of lightweight bone, sinew and muscle, but try telling that to the quarterback that he just blew threw like a hurricane.

You are once again completely ignoring evidence that does not support your thesis. The 767 is a heavy item and while flying into the building completely destroyed it, the mass as a whole was still entirely sufficient to punch nearly through the building. Again look at the Corey Litle case. If a 2900 lb aircraft made of "lightweight plastic and hard brittle aluminum" can do this kind of damage at less than 200 MPH, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the WTC aircraft.

F-Dog

Originally posted by Natasha_Thompson

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by Flyingdog5000Corey 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

We are supposed to believe it crashed.

Oh I believe that airplanes cause damage when they hit buildings, and I believe a Boeing like that, would have caused considerable damage had one hit the WTC.

I "belieeve" that such an event had it occurred, would have caused considerably even more exterior damage than was supposedly caused, and a great amount of burning fuel and debris, would have rained down the side of the WTC, killing perhaps hundreds of people on the street below.

I "belieeeve" that very likely the radio telemetric shaped charge detonation system, previously hidden within the WTC, would very likely have been knocked out of alignment or maybe even predetonated, and so the whole "drop it right down into it's own shoes" thang, .... would have been totally f'ed up.

I am sure also, that possibly an engine or two, would have pierced into the interior and wrecked considerable havoc, setting off the fire suppression system and causing a swift evacuation.

I really am also convinced and belieeve ab-so-lu-tly, that no way in hell did the nose and for-fuselage, wings right out to the very tips, the entire trailing fuselage and the whole freaking tail section, just pass right through heavy steel leaving a near perfectly cartoonish outline of itself.

Natasha,

Well,it's pretty clear to me that I've asking you to look at the evidence with a dispassionate eye is an exercise in futility. I suppose that there will always be individuals who, like you, choose to disregard evidence that is verifiable and supported by thousands of witnesses and instead come up with silly notions that have no evidentiary basis to support them. You may continue to belieeeeve whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true in any sense of that word.

I can choose to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the world will one day return to reward his disciples with heavenly pasta and some really good marinara, but without evidence it is merely a nice fairy tale.

Evidence is verifiable. The truth of 9-11 is provable and has been so proved. Accounts that are not based on evidence such as eyewitness accounts, physical evidence and the laws of physics are no more than nice stories.

F-Dog

Perhaps despite the fact, that they had access to military tech you and I can only speculate about, including also immense computer power unavailable to any but the military, and very likely months to prepare ahead of time, they simply f'ed up or had unforeseen technical and logistical problems.

There is however another possible reason for the seeming errors made.

Maybe they wanted to see who would remain unaffected, by the 911 optical deception involved, along with all the propaganda and brainwashing.

Perhaps they "need to know", just who has remained relatively unaffected, by the mind control and cultural programing they have been employing for the last fifty years or so.

It very well may be, that one of the multistrat operation objectives involves,

Again, this is a rather sensational statement jprophet420. Can we please have the benefit of the source and evidence for this?

ive already answered once. its in the OP. OP means original post. (i honestly dont know if you understand that at this point).