No Planers Do Dig Up Some Interesting Stuff, Gotta Admit

Originally posted by nwodeath
reply to post by talisman

 

The government confiscated many of the amateur videos on the morning and days following 9-11. Everyone knows that!

I don't, apparently some of the amateur footage that floats around got missed by the feds. Stupid incompetent government!

I'm sure you'll ask what footage? Do a youtube search, if you trust the no plane videos on there, why not the amateur footage thats on there? Like evan fairbanks, his amateur footage?

Originally posted by nwodeath

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by nwodeath

 

Also, did you notice my posts showing people who saw and heard the planes?

What is your take on that?

I cannot say whether they are lying or not, but some are, i'm sure, some confused as to what they saw and some hypnotized into believing they saw something because it was assumed everyone else did because it was shown on TV.

Darren Brown convinced 50,000 they could not move from their seats. Posthypnotic suggestion is very powerful. Mass Hallucinations are also known to occur when a group of people believe they saw something collectively. The Natives did not see the boats approaching when the sailors reached the new continent called America.

I am not saying this is the case. I am only suggesting there are a number of reasons why this could be. My theory is that something did hit the world trade center. Some claim they saw a missile. That could be the case. Hologram technology is WAY more advanced than what we know today. It has to be, since everything is, in the black budget off planet intelligence agencies. Look at their superior and unknown aircraft. Do you think they advance that technology but nothing else?

A Missile is likely what people saw, if anything, but there were no planes and ZERO actual evidence for any. The videos are fake and CGI. That means there is serious manipulation going on here. The media is in on it and the people who helped create those videos are involved in media.

But these people didn't see anything on TV, they were in route to the disaster, or sitting at their firehouses. Those damn lying 9/11 fireman, are also the same ones you use as evidence that bombs were in the building, their testimonies that is.

But they were confused about planes, and they really saw a missile. But they weren't confused about explosions?

This is a huge problem for me and it makes it hard to even associate myself with 9/11. People want the evidence to support their ideas, and when it doesn't they ignore it.

Again, this whole arguement is based on what you think it should have looked like.

I failed to even casually entertain the idea that no planes were used based on that website, I feel sorry for you that it was able to convince you.

I personally am a huge procrastinator, and I think its why I'm able to objectively look at something with atleast some what of an "open" mind. I can't reasonably put myself behind any arguement untill I've chewed all available data, and even then I find it hard to. If the evidence supports something, 90% of me isbehind it. I follow what the facts and evidence at hand shows me. And nothing I have seen has made me believe there were no planes at the WTC.

NOTHING.

I do encourage you to offer anything you would like me to see, and I'll do my best to objectively look at it. If something can conclusively convince me that no planes were involved. I'll bite. And be the first to proclaim that I was wrong. I've thought alot of wrongs in regards to 9/11. And gave up those beliefs with some hard fights. But after examining the evidence, it was the only LOGICAL path.

reply to post by ThaLoccster


You never read the website or studied it so how can you say that? You never debunked a single thing on it. You never attacked one position even.

Originally posted by nwodeath
reply to post by ThaLoccster

 

You never read the website or studied it so how can you say that? You never debunked a single thing on it. You never attacked one position even.

I thought I did. Maybe I didn't.

But once again...

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
Ok then...

On the site you linked....www.freedomdomain.com...

The first "order of business" is the plane "melting through the building like a hot knife through butter".

Like I said in my earlier posts, people build these wild claims based on what they think something should look like. When atleast as far as 9/11 goes, we have nothing to compare the results to. Based on my limited knowledge of metal, and physics. I would say it is entirely possible for the planes to impact and "melt" into the building they way they seem to. I have seen a car, I think it was a metro or similar hatchback car. Go through over a foot of steel reinforced masonry wall and not even dent it, Could I begin to explain how that happened? Nope. Do I dispute the fact that it happened? Nope. The wall I'm referreing to is a part of a building that during my time in masonry I helped to construct. We built a building pretty much out of 12 inch block, which had rebar support as well as concrete/grout/mud poured into it. Then the building was "wrapped" with another wall of regular "acme" type bricks that were also reinforced with rebar. The car tore right through it, I'm unsure of the speed, and honestly only scratched the car. I cannot explain why the plane looks the way it does and enters the building the way it did. I can also not explain how a straw gets driven 7 inches into a tree during a tornado. But the people that can explain it have, and you ignored their (educated in the field of your question) conclusions and say nope, its not possible. Thisis how it should look.

Next he talks about the planes trajectory. I honestly don't understand his argument.

This picture for instance.



And his quote regarding the picture....

And here is another that cannot be explained by logic. The plane in this picture, (Not video) was not coming in at this angle at all. It was the opposite. From this angle the plane's wings should be turned, not in the position they are in. The left wing should be higher, and the right wing should be lower. It doesn't make any sense.

First that picture is from a video, Evan Fairbanks unless I'm mistaken.

Just read his quote, then look at other pictures from his own website that in the end, refutes his whole point.

Heres one...



And another...



Those 2 photos, along with EVERY other photo taken that day clearly show the plane at the angle he says should not be. I don't understand what it is he is even talking about. I don't see his supposed logic.

I think I can stop there, if you would like more, please point out the specific points you would like me to address.

Maybe you didn't read, maybe you did and I didn't do anything "to your liking/standards".

But like I said, please point out any specific points you would like me to address.

The straw into the tree in a tornado situation has been debunked hasn't it?

The explanation I heard was that the wind created by the tornado twists the tree trunks, creating cracks that straw flying around might blow into.

I don't think scientists believe that straw can be blown into tree trunks by tornados anymore.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The straw into the tree in a tornado situation has been debunked hasn't it?

The explanation I heard was that the wind created by the tornado twists the tree trunks, creating cracks that straw flying around might blow into.

I don't think scientists believe that straw can be blown into tree trunks by tornados anymore.

Given the same thing occurs to humans exposed to the high winds (I've seen it with my own eyes and wish I hadn't) I wouldn't say its been completely "debunked". Real scientists come to conclusions based on observation, for a long time a lot of the explanations for the phenomenon were based on guesswork and a general belief that something so thin could not possibly penetrate into something so strong.

The point is that mass and high velocity can create impressive results when a collision occurs. A 757/767 is not a straw and the TC was not a telephone pole. Its about not jumping to conclusions based on what you think might happen and looking around to see real life examples. Tornadic winds are usually moving objects at half the speed of the airplanes and the objects being moved have much less mass to work with. Double the velocity and increase the mass by 1000 times or more and your going to see amazing events take place in a collision.

I would love to see a scale model test using an RC jet and structure with the same materials and layout as the towers. The problem is getting everything scaled just right and if you failed in that regard it would create more issues than it would solve.

NOAA Tornado Myths vs. facts

(NOAA says it's a bit of a mystery but basically its a function of mass and velocity.)

[edit on 19-10-2009 by ecoparity]

Originally posted by nwodeath
reply to post by talisman

 

The government confiscated many of the amateur videos on the morning and days following 9-11. Everyone knows that!

And so how did they "confiscate" all of it? I mean, NEW YORK is a big/huge/enormous city that would be a very large task indeed!

IF they could do that, then why are they allowing anyone to talk about it now??

Did they make sure that no-one from the Howard Stern would have a video camera that day?

[edit on 19-10-2009 by talisman]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The straw into the tree in a tornado situation has been debunked hasn't it?

The explanation I heard was that the wind created by the tornado twists the tree trunks, creating cracks that straw flying around might blow into.

I don't think scientists believe that straw can be blown into tree trunks by tornados anymore.

Here's a good enough source for me. Thanks for pointing that out. Interesting about the piano wire though.

Mythbusters Episode 61: Deadly Straw

A piece of straw can penetrate all the way through a palm tree if propelled by hurricane-force winds.

busted

Propelling a piece of straw at a palm tree at a distance of 50cm at 320mph (the world record for recorded wind speed at ground level), the straw only managed to penetrate the tree a quarter of an inch. Even firing at the tree while it was bent (to increase the size of the pores in the surface of the tree) at point blank range added no additional distance into the tree. A piece of reed was tested as the sturdiest organic object that might be mistaken for a piece of straw. At both ranges, the reed only managed to go about two inches into the tree. Additionally, Jamie tried a piece of piano wire, and at 50 cm, it flew not only through the tree but through a sheet of plywood on the wall behind it, partially embedding itself into the cement wall.

reply to post by ThaLoccster


I'll take the NOAA and numerous books over mythbusters. It's a fun show but hardly what I would consider scientific proof.

They also claim jets breaking the sound barrier cannot break windows, something which has been well documented in news reports all over the World.

The issue was studied in the 1960s by the U of NY, as related in t his book




[edit on 19-10-2009 by ecoparity]

I have no doubt that an aircraft going fast enough could penetrate the wall of the WTC. In fact there is a famous video of one of the WTC engineers saying it would be like a pencil being poked through a screen.

I have a lot of doubt that an aircraft the size of a 757 with parts spread out, ranging dramatically in mass from very massive engines to less massive fuselage and wings and tail could undergo a series of quite heavy impacts applied at different times and places on its surface as it went through the wall of the WTC and show no visual evidence of stress whatsoever!

Nothing slows down, nothing bends, nothing crumples. It can't happen like that folks. Sumpin' funny going on.

The roof of 19 Rector St can be clearly seen above the trees in the far background. There is no problem here, just deception by people pushing cointelpro to undermine the 9/11 truth movement with bogus arguments, poor analysis and contrived evidence.

reply to post by ecoparity


As I read back over my snippet, I realized the "myth" they were "busting" is similar, yet not the same.

They were testing whether the straw would "penetrate all the way through a palm tree ".