I always wondered if they had footage of the first plane that hit.

reply to post by GrinchNoMore


Would yo ucare to clarify this??

....failed to watch the video, where it shows a larger gash than is shown on any of the news reports.

Because, last I checked, we were discussing that latest (well, according to the YouTube upload date, about two years old...and only 45,000 views) video by the APPALLING "Simon Shack". He has been thoroughly spanked on his September Clues videos, and his deceptive tactics exposed. This one on previous page in this thread is no exception, showing his deception in full bloom.

Additionally, the "Simon Shack" video (pointed out by another ATS member, referring to the "black plane"....which, contrary to "Simon Shack's" claims, IS a function of THAT particular camera and ITS exact video settings and location at time of filming....and YES!!! The shadow of the building was a factor for one camera, because of the angle of the shoot, compared to the other camera).

But, you mentioned the "Naudet video"?? Did you mean the one of American 11? Because, the video here by appalling "Simon Shack" only discusses United 175's impact event. AND, as to the damage as the airplane impacted, and entered the building, there "Shack" GETS IT WRONG!!! Yet again.

And, I don't see any examples that you mentioned, about the "gash" appearing larger, or smaller, in different videos.

But, on that topic of the impact damage to the building facades, "Simon Shack's" video discusses what he dismissively calls the "Roadrunner Effect". :shk: More deception, or just plain stupidity on his part. He overlays graphic text mentioning "Newton's Third Law". Either "Shack" is utterly ignorant of physics, or he expects and hopes that those viewing his crap videos are, or that they just take his words at face value, and never bother to FACT CHECK, or apply common sense to his "claims".

THIS is what the "third law" of motion actually says:

Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.

However, in their original form, Newton's laws are applied to objects which are considered or idealized as a particle....so, the "layperson's" use, as "Shack" attempts, is playing upon people's general MISunderstanding of physics, by selective quote-mining and tossing out "Newton" to give himself that air of "credibility".

In their original form, Newton's laws of motion are not adequate to characterize the motion of rigid bodies and deformable bodies. Leonard Euler in 1750 introduced a generalization of Newton's laws of motion for rigid bodies called the Euler's laws of motion, later applied as well for deformable bodies assumed as a continuum. If a body is represented as an assemblage of discrete particles, each governed by Newton’s laws of motion, then Euler’s laws can be derived from Newton’s laws. Euler’s laws can, however, be taken as axioms describing the laws of motion for extended bodies, independently of any particle structure.

More reading.

Furthermore, he completely IGNORES the physics of momentum, and inertia and mass.

But, that's par for the course, on many, many so-called "9/11 truth" type websites. A terribly ignorant grasp of actual physics.....

Where is the flames inthe second video that the fool thinks is real??

1-No flames even after imapact.
2-No helicopters in the area of the Pentagon on 9/11
3-No construction trailers in the frames

Where did they all go?

Secondly, he posts that it would take 20 seconds after impact for any flames to appear. This is ABSOLUTELY false, and a boldfaced lie.

In fact, if it was 20 seconds after impact, I would be right there with you guys asking for a new investigation, since jet fuel's reaction to sparks in incredibly fast. Like, milliseconds when aerosoled.

reply to post by Immortalgemini527


The video of the strike on the Pentagon from the helicopter is a known HOAX. Secondly, I don't see how this Pentagon video relates to the topic of this OLD thread that has to do with the first plane strike on the WTC.

Clearly a PLANE

www.youtube.com...

youtu.be... 911 and the man behind the curtain, short clip about no planes on 911.

reply to post by abbott360


Utter rubbish.

"Morgan Reynolds" (@ 3:20, interviewed on FNC) is deluded. As are many others at that silly organization, "Scholars 4 truth". We saw Jim Fetzer come here, already, and try to spread his brand of the same "no planes" nonsense.

Rest of that video (yours?) is just slick misdirection, with higher-than-normal production values, for the so-called "truth movement" fanatics.

"No-Planes" is a well-known hoax. In fact.....it is funny to watch, because there are quite a few so-called "truthers" who detest those who make such claims.....and these same people accuse the "no-planes" advocates of being shills and plants, sent to intentionally discredit the entire "truth movement".

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Tvision

 

What you have is optical illusion - trick of light and shadows as plane moves in and out of bright sunlight
and as the angle of the wing toward the camera changes will get effect that it "disappears"

Unfiortunately conspiracy loons play up this aspect as "prroof" no planes were involved

*YAWN*

The "oh its a trick of light" excuse garbage has been repeatedly debunked and addressed on this forum more times than i can count.

The FACT the vanishing wing anomaly occurs in more than one angle and footage alone debunks it.

plz get a new and real argument.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by abbott360

 

Utter rubbish.

In your OPINION perhaps... but since your OPINION has been debunked more times than i can count, its quite meaningless when it comes to actually measuring TRUTH.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"Morgan Reynolds" (@ 3:20, interviewed on FNC) is deluded. As are many others at that silly organization, "Scholars 4 truth". We saw Jim Fetzer come here, already, and try to spread his brand of the same "no planes" nonsense.

Jim Fetzer's arguments crushed your arguments and in the end you were bailed out again by the mods when the evidence became too overwhelming and needed to be hidden... a typical pattern that occurs which shows how dangerous the Nrpt is to the US govt and media... if the evidence against nrpt was so obvious and irrefutable, there would be no reason to ban the discussion even in a hoax forum it was MOVED to.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Rest of that video (yours?) is just slick misdirection, with higher-than-normal production values, for the so-called "truth movement" fanatics.

the only slick misdirection about no planes is coming from you and those ignorant of all the evidence that proves beyond a doubt Nrpt has ample irrefutable evidence to support it and Tv Fakery was 100% employed on 9/11 by the media perps... the only reason to ban discussion of an idea/theory in a DISCUSSION FORUM DESIGNED TO DISCUSS CONSPIRACY THEORIES, is to HIDE the truth on a higher level. There's another implication that goes even deeper about who really controls a forum if a conspiracy THEORY has to be banned in a forum to discuss CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"No-Planes" is a well-known hoax.

The only ones who CLAIMS its a hoax, are those like you in denial and trying to hide the truth and can't disprove it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
In fact.....it is funny to watch, because there are quite a few so-called "truthers" who detest those who make such claims.....and these same people accuse the "no-planes" advocates of being shills and plants, sent to intentionally discredit the entire "truth movement".

yes, its funny to watch a 9/11 conspiracy theory group and certain members trying to BAN discussion APART of the CONSPIRACY THEORY.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GrinchNoMore

 

the APPALLING "Simon Shack". He has been thoroughly spanked on his September Clues videos, and his deceptive tactics exposed. This one on previous page in this thread is no exception, showing his deception in full bloom.

Not by any stretch of your imagination and unsupported claims has simon shack or Sept Clues been spanked or exposed as false. On the contrary, the OPPOSITE is true.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Additionally, the "Simon Shack" video (pointed out by another ATS member, referring to the "black plane"....which, contrary to "Simon Shack's" claims, IS a function of THAT particular camera and ITS exact video settings and location at time of filming....and YES!!! The shadow of the building was a factor for one camera, because of the angle of the shoot, compared to the other camera).

an excuse and argument thats been REPEATEDLY DEBUNKED and addressed more times than i can count... anyone can do a search here to see thats a fact.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
But, you mentioned the "Naudet video"?? Did you mean the one of American 11? Because, the video here by appalling "Simon Shack" only discusses United 175's impact event. AND, as to the damage as the airplane impacted, and entered the building, there "Shack" GETS IT WRONG!!! Yet again.

Except the actual facts and evidence prove otherwise.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
And, I don't see any examples that you mentioned, about the "gash" appearing larger, or smaller, in different videos.
But, on that topic of the impact damage to the building facades, "Simon Shack's" video discusses what he dismissively calls the "Roadrunner Effect". :shk: More deception, or just plain stupidity on his part. He overlays graphic text mentioning "Newton's Third Law". Either "Shack" is utterly ignorant of physics, or he expects and hopes that those viewing his crap videos are, or that they just take his words at face value, and never bother to FACT CHECK, or apply common sense to his "claims".

debating arguments out of context and making claims you have no examples or evidence to back up, is a typical disinfo tactic which you appallingly use over and over. In the end, anyone that investigates and does real research, knows your argument is an epic fail.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Immortalgemini527

 

Not serious, are you?

First, it's that APPALLING "Simon Shack" again!!!! The man is a loon, and he intentionally deceives, by disingenuously using footage that's edited (and commented on, by HIM) to support HIS idiotic claims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I already showed you how his earlier "September Clues" got totally busted. Hope you watched it??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

but unfortunately for the TRUTH, you failed to show all the evidence and arguments that have addressed and debunked it for years now... why do you keep using old debunked arguments to support your claims? That in of itself is OLD.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
No need to even watch the entire ten minutes, his first example of deceptive practices is in the first minute.

a typical request of someone wanting to hide the truth... a primary tactic is to intimidate and prevent any context from entering a debate.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Watch the first clip (and, he inadvertently helps ME point out his deception, with the yellow arrow he conveniently added).
On the first clip, note the camera angle on the action, and the field of view. When the airplane (denoted by his arrow) comes into frame, until it impacts....flying ACROSS at an almost right angle to the camera....just watching the YouTube scroll bar timer, is SEVEN seconds. He says it's "almost level"...indeed, looks to me in a very slight descent...so, that IS "almost level", in terms of altitude changes.

another argument debunked long ago... visual irrefutable evidence of anything but a slight descent, has already been PROVEN repeatedly.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
THEN, he flips to the other angle, where the airplane is coming almost directly AT the camera...watch the time, again. Here he also helps us out, with that arrow. The airplane in frame, in the RAPID and steep descent, at 00:36. BUT, impact, was it SEVEN seconds later??? NO!!!! That was at 00:51....FIFTEEN seconds later!!!

Tv fakery and cgi has its perks.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
SO, the second "head-on" video shows EXACTLY what it would look like, from that angle. Measure the distance the yellow arrow drops, in the last seven seconds, in the "head-on" clip. How many stories on the building did you count, in that time? THAT would estimate the altitude change, in the last SEVEN seconds....then, look at the first clip again. When you consider the various effects of angles, and differing lenses, they show the SAME event, and the same airplane.

you can't have it both ways... either the videos show the same paths and trajectories etc, or they don't.. and they DON'T.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
That is the deception, and it's what Simon Shack excels at....either because he's seriously deluded and actually believes this crap, OR because he's found a way to make money off of the gullible.

the real deception is coming from you, and only the gullible ever believe you here.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
He even agrees, in the "comments" section on YouTube, with another poster who talks about "seeing satan" in the smoke!!! He's a loony, or he's laughing all the way to the bank. Why not check it out, follow HIS money!??

edit on 26 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Note

those wanting a real objective commentary on the truth, need only follow your postings here which are void of any real evidence supporting what you claim..iow any claims from you are suspect and are rarely if ever objective and supported by real evidence.

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
reply to post by Anttyk47

 

please ! because its time to just put up or shut up im 50/50 on this subject right now as a start,please bring me up to date.
My daughter had a friend and a teacher on boared of the first plane,only 12 years old and had just one an art contest and was going to newyork for a competion..WOW! I just relized why i dont like this subject now..had to catch a tear there...lol,but yea , a simple art contest,lil dude just WANTED TO FREAKING DRAW FOR A BLOODY LIVING,but its kool,but yea ,google it up because it needs to be resolved by the way ,its amazing what a shot this person has at the towers ,with those bad actors,street closed already,uhm,wiered huh,timing is always weired when it comes to cracking codes..funy how the man looks behind him like hes waiting for it to happen.funny

I was under the impression that the alleged planes were en route to LA, not to New York. Since you know people who were killed on that day, I'd suggest you get your story straight.