Rare Footage -- Flight 93 Shootdown Award

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Golden,

I like to discuss one issue at a time in each thread. What this does, is to ensure that the topic is NOT derailed. I showed you an e-mail. You responded with a different topic that does not discuss the gag order that you allege.

I have no problem going through your video. I would like the gag order topic resolved prior to going on to another topic. Is that so wrong?

Thank you,

:TY:

NWO V.P.
Northeast Chapter

Asked and answered.

Since you've achieved your goal of derailing this thread to the next page in order to ignore my question, I'll just post it again.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
How could these firefighters not know the truth?

Got any answers to this, Yogurt of the Throat?

Anytime you want to comment, I'm all ears.

Otherwise, you're sounding like a broken record troll who's very close to being put on 'ignore.'

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Why is it a derail if I ask you to post facts to back up your statements?

I will take your ignoring the facts as agreeing that there was not a gag order.

Now... on to your video.


...... I will watch 5 mins... then get back to you.

ok

In regards to this video. Two things very interesting.

1. "The 911 Documentary that can not be debunked"

Does that mean..... ah..no...I'll leave it alone.

Before that. Dustin Mugford posts a video with doctored explosions. This film was taken I believe as tower two collapses.

Here are 3 other videos at the time Tower 2 starts to collapse, please point out the explosions to me. I don't hear any.

youtube.com...

youtube.com...

video.google.com...

I got to the news reports of secondary explosions. I don't know what else to say... explosions are not always "explosives." This has been discussed so many times here. The scene at the base of the WTC was chaotic and that is putting it mildly.

Goldenfleece...

Can you point out specific part of this video that is new? Or hasn't been discussed? There is nothing new here.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic



I am sure you are aware that back during the flight testing days of the 707, the test pilot actually did a barrel roll in the 707 without a problem. It has happened. Its just that it doesnt happen all too often. (Heh, seeing passenger planes doing barrel rolls over cities? Not a good idea)

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Goldenfleece...

Can you point out specific part of this video that is new? Or hasn't been discussed? There is nothing new here.

That's quite an explanation (or lack thereof), which is refreshingly new...

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
II got to the news reports of secondary explosions. I don't know what else to say...

That's apparent. But you seem to have so much to say about everything else...

I was going to edit my post. I have been looking into the opening video with the firemen on the pay phone. That video appears to be AFTER the two collapses. The explosions I assume were in reference to WTC-7 being a C.D.

I stand by my statement that the bombs were doctored into the video. I am still searching for the original. Not an easy task.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


You want to continue to discuss that fact that not all explosions are explosives? That will get pretty boring. Don't you think?

Really, the video is nothing that hasn't been discussed here.

@YogurtyThroat: Yawn.. since my post on Page 8 and reading though to here, nothing has actually been said. Do you realize that?

There are plenty of videos with explosions on them BEFORE ANY of the towers collapsed. I suggest you look out for two videos by Rick Siegal as a starting point. There are others with low frequency rumblings in them before the towers collapse, and even some fixed cameras that visibly shake before the towers collapse. If you can't hear them, ensure you're using a good soundcard and a good pair of headphones or speakers - they're there.

EDIT: Here's part 1 of Ricks film. Parts 2 and 3 are on the right hand side. video.google.com...

Please do your research before attempting to debunk. This is simply one video of many.

LaBTop is still looking for someone to debunk his thesis. Please search this forum on that topic. There are seismic records of Magnitude 2.3 and 2.1 earthquakes PRECEDING the collapses in both instances. There is also a similar record for WTC7, which is bizarre given it is a much smaller building.

Now that is evidence you just can't refute (and many have tried). I invite you to try.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 13-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


You obviously failed to watch the 3 videos I posted that are in close proximity of Tower 2. None of them have any explosions or bombs going off at the time of collapse.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

 

You obviously failed to watch the 3 videos I posted that are in close proximity of Tower 2. None of them have any explosions or bombs going off at the time of collapse.

I don't see any videos posted by you in this thread.

EDIT: Please don't ignore my challenge to you, either. You want to debunk "no explosions" you've got to debunk that seismic evidence, too.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


Thank you for the invite (to LaBtop). You didn't post a link to the thread, so please feel free to cut and paste this to the appropriate thread. I know he has a few about the seismic data.

I will freely admit that I can not speculate on what caused this. What I did do was reach out to NASA scientist Ryan Mackey.

Here is his response:

It's a pretty basic misconception. The seismic signal from collapse doesn't really begin until the destruction wave hits the ground. This is easily seen -- there won't be a large force transmitted into the ground until an equal and opposite force is transmitted into the collapsing material, i.e. slowing it down. As the conspiracists note, the collapse doesn't slow much as it passes through the building.

It is also no coincidence that the time for the collapse wave to reach the ground is ~ 10 seconds after initiation, ~10.5 according to BLBG. It's also preceded by large assemblies falling clear of the Tower and hitting the ground beside, which does take about 8.2 seconds -- as reported by NIST itself.

In other words, your friend on ATS has discovered nothing new, even though he thinks he has. It won't surprise me if nobody there can find his mistake.

Thanks,
Ryan Mackey

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

You want to continue to discuss that fact that not all explosions are explosives?

Yeah, they're probably just really loud belches from guys with too much yogurt in their throat.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

 

Thank you for the invite (to LaBtop). You didn't post a link to the thread, so please feel free to cut and paste this to the appropriate thread. I know he has a few about the seismic data.

Feel free to start your own thread on the debunking, I think this is the link to the thesis: www.studyof911.com...
Good luck!

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

I don't see any videos posted by you in this thread.

EDIT: Please don't ignore my challenge to you, either.

You want to debunk "no explosions" you've got to debunk that seismic evidence, too.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

7 posts above yours

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You will have a link to all three videos.

Thank you.

Darkbluesky,
I missed your questions at the bottom of page 7 :

You see, I'm wondering, because you seem to be a proponent of a remotely guided UA93 (LT: No, a swapped, remotely guided, substituted empty plane, or even loaded with already dead bodies from recent accidents, so there were real remains and real funerals with real relatives), intended to hit a target in MD or DC. You imply that it was brought down because of a delay in take off. Where was it brought down? In Shanksville? If it was, then the crash scene is as strange as the Pentagon...not much evidence of an airplane, conflicting eye witness reports, etc.

If it did not crash in Shanksville, and the plan was aborted late, then you must agree that the perpatrators (who ever they were) managed to re-route the airplane to a secret location and dispose of the aircraft and passengers with no outside witnesses, or crash the airplane in another location, fake all the radar data, all the DFDR data, and clean up the crash site with no witnesses catching on.

How do you reconcile these apparent discrepancies?
(LT: Flight 93 did not crash, but its swapped substitute did?)

I expect we ever find out, when the time has come for 9/11 revelations, that the planners had no other choice than telling their involved subordinates that all 4 planes which were used to target the US landmarks, would first be swapped in, at that time, existing radar black spots in American airspace radar covering, for empty, prepared planes which could be guided with remote controlled equipment to their intended targets.
The clearly big advantage of such a story told, would be no moral repercussions in the minds of the "lower" ranks involved, since all the passengers would safely be unloaded at airports or airfields.

There is of course a firm discrepancy in this scenario, how did they manage to convince the lower ranks that there would be minimum loss of lifes or no loss at all in the intended targets?
Perhaps these lower ranks were eliminated afterwards.
And were on board of the real flights, and one thing did not come to mind to these ranks, that they were expandable, and those flights were indeed used in the attacks, and there were no swapping planes at all, these ranks were told of totally different targets, and were told that they would be off-loaded at airports in New York and Washington. And thus still the need to fly to the black spots in the radar, and then return. this way the lower ranks were complacent and quiet, and only realized in the last seconds, that they were going to be wasted.

The problem brought up by too logical thinking opponents is always the same. Where are the still living passengers of all planes?

The answer is written down in the "Northwoods Operation", which became public knowledge after FOIA requests. That plan, introduced by all top military brass in the nineteen-hundred-sixties, before the Cuban Missile Crisis, introduced already the need for fake passenger lists, with fake lifes constructed for every passenger, and real death certificates and funerals of fake victims remains. Kennedy did not endorse that operation, otherwise we would have had experienced this type of deception already 45 years ago.

When you take the 9/10 revelation of Rumsfeld in account, that trillions of dollars were missing from the accounting books of the Pentagon for the years before 9/11, it doesn't sound so strange anymore, that military planners with such huge black resources, could meticulously plan and execute such a military deception.
When you take also the global changes in account, after 9/11, in fact everything points to such a huge military backed deception.

The advantages collected by the US and allied armies are too huge, to discount the deception idea as ridiculous. Since the US economy is a clearly perpetual war economy, based so much on wasteful debt and payment for oil in dollars, that if both these pillars of the economy would crumble, as we see now happening, the US can only resort to the only thing left in such a situation, which is going to another war again, and create another fictive enemy.

The Russians saw it coming, and suddenly discarded the already worn out communist ideals, and cut off the basis for a war with the US with that move.
They are longtime planners, and good political-chess players, thus decided to wait it out and see which new target would be chosen.
The Muslim world, obviously.
Revamp the Crusades, thus adding the advantage at home, of most radical Christians closing ranks with the military and the politicians.

Politicians always invent any reason to rake any big groups of radicals in their camps, and since badly schooled citizens have mostly simple, radical ideas about most political subjects, they are easy prey.
Those are simple black or white radical ideas, no thought-out vast gray areas to be expected, since that asks for intensive research, and that skill is lacking in the badly schooled part of any populace on earth.

Edit : typo.

[edit on 13/7/08 by LaBTop]

@TY: I didn't check this page when going back through the thread.

Two of your three posted videos have been removed for Ts and Cs violations at YouTube.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


Feel free to begin to try to understand the total lack of understanding by Ryan Mackey of my thesis, thoroughly explained in this post of mine :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read then that whole page, and then the whole 11 pages of that thread, and hopefully you will start to see the basic misconceptions you and many with you, base your view of the events of 9/11 on.
Try to take the time to read the links I provided in that thread to other posts of me and my opponents in other threads, which will give you even more substantial evidence to change your basic view on 9/11.

I'll include your total post solely for reasons of security, regarding eventual mysterious disappearance of your post in the future, as experienced by me at f.ex. the NIST website and other websites :

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

 

Thank you for the invite (to LaBtop). You didn't post a link to the thread, so please feel free to cut and paste this to the appropriate thread. I know he has a few about the seismic data.

I will freely admit that I can not speculate on what caused this. What I did do was reach out to NASA scientist Ryan Mackey.

Here is his response:

It's a pretty basic misconception. The seismic signal from collapse doesn't really begin until the destruction wave hits the ground. This is easily seen -- there won't be a large force transmitted into the ground until an equal and opposite force is transmitted into the collapsing material, i.e. slowing it down. As the conspiracists note, the collapse doesn't slow much as it passes through the building.

It is also no coincidence that the time for the collapse wave to reach the ground is ~ 10 seconds after initiation, ~10.5 according to BLBG. It's also preceded by large assemblies falling clear of the Tower and hitting the ground beside, which does take about 8.2 seconds -- as reported by NIST itself.

In other words, your friend on ATS has discovered nothing new, even though he thinks he has. It won't surprise me if nobody there can find his mistake.

Thanks,
Ryan Mackey

I'll include for the other speed-readers with ample time at hand, the essence of my argument which totally nullifies Ryan Mackey's first 3 sentences of his reply email, in fact his arguments would enforce my thesis threefold, if they were true, which they however aren't; his arguments would even INCREASE the time between my preceding external energy sources and the time of global collapse-start from building WTC 7 (subsequently the Twin Towers) :

"" It's a pretty basic misconception. The seismic signal from collapse doesn't really begin until the destruction wave hits the ground. This is easily seen -- there won't be a large force transmitted into the ground until an equal and opposite force is transmitted into the collapsing material, i.e. slowing it down. ""

My response as points 2 and 3 in my quoted post :

2. You use the word "remaining" to describe "debris", when it's crystal clear from my colored graph, that at the moment in time that the "pulse" originating from that huge energy source, arrived and got written, 17 seconds before in New York there was no movement at all to be seen at the WTC 7 building exterior. Especially not from the penthouse. NO DEBRIS !
Those 17 seconds were the traveling time from seismic signals from NY's WTC complex to the Palisades LDEO seismic station. (34 km divided by 2 km/sec = 17 sec).
So there was NO DEBRIS AT ALL to be described by you at that moment in time. And especially no REMAINING debris. There was no debris hitting anything, especially not the ground.

3. The later following dent in the roof of that penthouse on top of WTC 7 was described by NIST as the first VISUAL sign of movement at the building.
And after that dent showed itself, it took 8.2 more seconds, before, as described by NIST in their own words "the TOTAL GLOBAL collapse initiated" and progressed to the ground.

My closing note :

Ryan Mackey :
It won't surprise me if nobody there (at ATS) can find his mistake.

LaBTop :
It won't surprise me if nobody at JREF forums, can find his mistake.

The rest of his email to you expresses a pedantic behavior, totally unfounded and showing an immense lack of comprehensive reading skills.
I know he is supposed to have fully read my thesis, since a lost member here, Captain Obvious, alerted him a year ago to my thesis, and flip-flopped between this forum and the JREF forum, eagerly trying to prove me wrong, with the help of the JREF "giants", in first instance trying to impress the masses here as if the replies here were his own replies. I was alerted by a friend here, that he was plagiarizing the JREF answers here, and I exposed his irritating behavior, after which Captain Obvious "left the building".

I suppose you are not the next personification of Captain Obvious, but I find it suspicious, that you use the same Mackey email as he did then.

BTW, I repeat my challenge to especially anyone from JREF, to debate me here on my thesis, and I will predict in advance, you won't be able to prove me wrong, especially if you use such faulty arguments to begin with.

To use Mackey's own words :
"" It's a pretty basic misconception "" if you try to be a worthy opponent in this manner.

Note : read my new thread :
Friendly advice for 9/11 "debunkers".

Originally posted by darkbluesky
If Flight 93 was shot down by the USAF with the knowledge of the SecDef, doesn't that seem to indicate that Flt 93 was a real threat. That it was under the control of someone whose intent was unknown and presumed to be malicious?


And if thats the case, doesn't that indicate that everything that went down on 9/11 was just what it appeared to be?

not really. if remote control was the method of takeover, and not fictitious passengers from saudi arabia, and the passengers managed to switch off the remote and take over manual, then flight 93 would have brought the whole house of cards tumbling down if it managed to land safely.