Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11? [HOAX], page 6

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:55 AM

link

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by JimFetzer

As you are so incredulous about a Boeing 767 entering either of the Towers how do you account for the fact that a comparatively tiny B 25 bomber knocked a hole 20 feet high and 18 feet wide in the masonry, concrete and steel construction of the Empire State Building with debris passing right through. Here is some film :-

www.firefighter-emt.com...

By way of comparison between that 1945 event and 2001 here are some statistics. The bomber weighed approximately 22,000 lbs compared with 330,000 lbs for the 767. The bomber was estimated to be travelling at 200 mph compared with 500 mph plus for UA 175. The kinetic energy of the bomber collision was of the order of 40 million joules but UA 175's impact was about 4.5 BILLION joules.

I watched you entire clip..
There is NO footage of the B52 entering the building as we see in the 9/11 clips..
Therefore I see no relation to this thread..

BTW, last I heard the Empire Estate building is still standing.!!

wmd_2008

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 04:37 AM

link

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Just go to "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?'", archived at twilightpines.com... , and watch the first fifteen (15) frames. The report back what you found there. I offer that suggestion for those who are having trouble understanding why a plane like this--which would have a hole through its fuselage if it hit a tiny bird in flight--could not possibly have passed into the building without crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, and seats, bodies and luggage falling to the ground. Some parts, including the engines, would have been expected to pass into the building, but most of it would not have. Yet that is precisely what we see in the film: an impossible entry in violation of Newton's laws. Check it out. I want to be sure we all understand what I am contending, which is illustrated by those first 15 slides--including, of course, why the Naudet footage does not seem to show a real plane hitting the North Tower, either. More on that, too.

(To be continued)

reply to post by backinblack

Underlined and bold above in your quote THAT shows you have ABSOLUTELY KNOW UNDERSTANDING of the physics in this situation THINK ABOUT IT.

HOW does the softer bird damage the PLANE,then apply the same logic to the aircraft impact then you may have learned something!!!! A clue ENERGY!!!!

The impact energy has been worked out on another thread here as the same as 2000 sticks of dynamite which was quite fuuny as it was his teacher WHO had the same beliefs as you, he claimed 2 sticks of dynamite till it was pointed out he had confused mega joules with billion joules so he was out by a factor of a thousand.

edit on 6-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Alfie1

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 04:45 AM

link

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by JimFetzer

As you are so incredulous about a Boeing 767 entering either of the Towers how do you account for the fact that a comparatively tiny B 25 bomber knocked a hole 20 feet high and 18 feet wide in the masonry, concrete and steel construction of the Empire State Building with debris passing right through. Here is some film :-

www.firefighter-emt.com...

By way of comparison between that 1945 event and 2001 here are some statistics. The bomber weighed approximately 22,000 lbs compared with 330,000 lbs for the 767. The bomber was estimated to be travelling at 200 mph compared with 500 mph plus for UA 175. The kinetic energy of the bomber collision was of the order of 40 million joules but UA 175's impact was about 4.5 BILLION joules.

I watched you entire clip..
There is NO footage of the B52 entering the building as we see in the 9/11 clips..
Therefore I see no relation to this thread..

BTW, last I heard the Empire Estate building is still standing.!!

Where did I say the film showed the B 25 ( not B 52 ) impacting the building ? and I don't recall saying the Empire State collapsed either.

I am pointing out that a B 25 put a hole 20 feet high and 18 feet across in the building. That impact was less than a hundredth part of the energy of the impact of UA 175 but Jim is incredulous that a 330,000 lb aircraft at high speed forced it's way into the Tower.

Logical one

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:03 AM

link

Jim, you haven't addressed the questions I asked about the Naudet brothers and their film.

So I'll ask again.

If it was a set up as you and Raphael seem to entertain, then why have no Firefighters come forward crying foul.......because I'm sure they have most of them seen the Naudet film (I'm not just saying the plane impact clip either)???

And If the firefighters were in on the act then why would they rush to the scene where they might meet their death
knowing full well that the buildings were going to collapse?

Again I ask if the Naudet brothers knew the buildings were going to collapse.........why did they race into the buildings with the fire crew?

Please don't ignore these questions just because they don't "fit" neatly into your "no planes" theory.....I credit you with more intelligence than that Jim.

edit on 6-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

backinblack

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:14 AM

link

reply to post by wmd_2008

Underlined and bold above in your quote THAT shows you have ABSOLUTELY KNOW UNDERSTANDING of the physics in this situation THINK ABOUT IT.

HOW does the softer bird damage the PLANE,then apply the same logic to the aircraft impact then you may have learned something!!!! A clue ENERGY!!!!

The impact energy has been worked out on another thread here as the same as 2000 sticks of dynamite which was quite fuuny as it was his teacher WHO had the same beliefs as you, he claimed 2 sticks of dynamite till it was pointed out he had confused mega joules with billion joules so he was out by a factor of a thousand.

You edited this post twice yet left in.

ABSOLUTELY KNOW UNDERSTANDING

//snip//
BTW, was 2000 sticks of dynamite enough to bring down the tower??
I heard the debunkers say it would take way more than that...

edit on Sun Feb 6 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: MOD NOTE: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

backinblack

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:17 AM

link

reply to post by Alfie1

I am pointing out that a B 25 put a hole 20 feet high and 18 feet across in the building. That impact was less than a hundredth part of the energy of the impact of UA 175 but Jim is incredulous that a 330,000 lb aircraft at high speed forced it's way into the Tower.

Umm, no..
The video YOU accept from 9/11 shows a plane do what is by science impossible...

Logical one

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:33 AM

link

Originally posted by backinblack

Umm, no..
The video YOU accept from 9/11 shows a plane do what is by science impossible...

Can you actually quote me exactly what science says is"impossible" regarding the crashing of a jet airliner into 2 uniquely constructed buildings?
edit on 6-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

backinblack

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by backinblack

Umm, no..
The video YOU accept from 9/11 shows a plane do what is by science impossible...

Can you actually quote me exactly what science says is"impossible" regarding the crashing of a jet airliner into 2 uniquely constructed buildings?
edit on 6-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

By the accepted video. Dissapearing into the building with little or no sign of damage..

BTW, nice that you answer to a post directed at another poster..

So can you explain their assumption that the power of 2000 sticks of dynamite brought gown a tower??

Though it;s cool how you guys ignore facts posted by your mates..

Logical one

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link

Black, I thought that this is how public forums operated?

The question still stands........which scientific laws are you referring too?

If it's "scientifically impossible" as you suggest then it should be quite easy for you to quote the the scientific law that says it is "impossible"?

backinblack

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link

Originally posted by Logical one
Black, I thought that this is how public forums operated?

The question still stands........which scientific laws are you referring too?

If it's "scientifically impossible" as you suggest then it should be quite easy for you to quote the the scientific law that says it is "impossible"?

Watch the OP's videos of planes dissapearing into the towers then you explain how scientifically they did that..
Enought BS from you...Start showing HOW it happened.....

Logical one

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link

Black, just admit it...... you know of no scientific law that says it is "impossible"......you've just swallowed hook line and sinker what the "truthers" have spouted out.

I am no building engineer, nor am I an impact expert.....but then again I guess you aren't either.

I can give you my layman's take on it though if you want.

but I'll wait for you to request my layman's take.......just so we are clear that I claim no "expertise" on the matter.
edit on 6-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2011 by Logical one because: typo

wmd_2008

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link

reply to post by backinblack

WOW I made a spelling mistake (need to stop multi tasking) if that's how you want to play it bib lets see has anyone who believes what they saw on video said that the plane was undamage so lets see.

The walls were the steel vertical uprights, aluminium cladding panels and glass, the plane was traveling at a few hundred miles per hour DO you honestly think a NORMAL TV/VIDEO camera would really show what happens at the moment of impact.
(photoraphy /video not your strong point)

Of course the plane would be damage BUT THE IMPACT HAD ENOUGH ENERGY to break through the walls!!
it really is that simple.

THIS is the hole left in the Empire State Building(pic below) by a far lower energy impact WITH SOLID MASONRY WALLS. Look at the buckled floor beam a solid beam not the type of spaceframe trusses used in WTC,if a solid beam could be bent even although the masonry took the impact from a plane weighing a few tons do you really think the WTC would resist a far greater mass at many times the speed.

We have people saying that a bird hitting an aicraft can damage it so how can the aircfart damage the twin towers FOR EXACTLY the same reason the bird damages the aircraft.
SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT THE PROCESS!

So on another thread I have along with others had to educate you on photography do you want the same with construction 32 yrs this year in construction mate!!! First job in design drawing department of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company so I think I know more than you about it!!!!

Also as we have 1001 videos all over the net all showing what happened taken by JOE PUBLIC live as it happened how can they all be fake!

The plane would have been damage BUT it still had enough energy in the impact to go through the walls!!!!!

NO 25/30 fps TV/video camera will show the real DETAIL OF THE IMPACT!!!!
edit on 6-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: EXTRA WORD REMOVED

FDNY343

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008

Underlined and bold above in your quote THAT shows you have ABSOLUTELY KNOW UNDERSTANDING of the physics in this situation THINK ABOUT IT.

HOW does the softer bird damage the PLANE,then apply the same logic to the aircraft impact then you may have learned something!!!! A clue ENERGY!!!!

The impact energy has been worked out on another thread here as the same as 2000 sticks of dynamite which was quite fuuny as it was his teacher WHO had the same beliefs as you, he claimed 2 sticks of dynamite till it was pointed out he had confused mega joules with billion joules so he was out by a factor of a thousand.

You edited this post twice yet left in.

ABSOLUTELY KNOW UNDERSTANDING

BTW, was 2000 sticks of dynamite enough to bring down the tower??
I heard the debunkers say it would take way more than that...

2,000? Most likely yes, if positioned properly. Now, you also have to add the heat energy in there too from the intense fires. Which I have estimated to be in the area of 10 billion joules.

Resurrectio

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link

reply to post by JimFetzer

It is you that looks silly Jim. You and your arrogant posturing is laughable. Your credentials are laughable! If I am a commander of a comic book parade.. You could spin me as a commander.... but in the end, it is still a comic book parade. Get over yourself.. You have OBVIOUSLY been out classed here.. Go back to your uncontested blog site, you will prosper there!

You have been nothing but confrontational. Your questions have been answered, yet you are not responding to any questions. Like any truther, you have flash phrases and talking points... When these are proven to be hollow, you seem to jump subjects.. Are your flash phrases and talking points set in stone? Are your claims open for debate, or only the answers to your questions?
edit on 2/6/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)

Resurrectio

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker

The evidence refutes that figure of eight (8) slabs (floors) of concrete that had to be "penetrated" by the Boeing 767 operating as United Airlines Flight 175.

Do you know what angle the plane hit the tower at weed?
8 stories is not really that tall.....

Really? Did you just say that? That is nearly 100 feet! Do you understand the angle of impact that would be needed to cover that height?

Alfie1

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1

I am pointing out that a B 25 put a hole 20 feet high and 18 feet across in the building. That impact was less than a hundredth part of the energy of the impact of UA 175 but Jim is incredulous that a 330,000 lb aircraft at high speed forced it's way into the Tower.

Umm, no..
The video YOU accept from 9/11 shows a plane do what is by science impossible...

Which 9/11 video did I accept ? We have the Naudet bros. for the North Tower but then a whole raft of videos for the South Tower as in some examples here :-

www.youtube.com...

Then of course we have all the witnesses on the streets who saw it with their own eyes.

I too would like your explanation as to " what is by science impossible ".

But hey, if you want to be a Jim Fetzer disciple don't let me put you off. I am sure his arguments are doing a sterling job of confirming to any mainstream people who get to hear of them that 9/11 truthers are indeed all nutters.

JimFetzer

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link

What is astonishing is that anyone would take a computer animation seriously without making sure that the input was justified by the evidence. In this case, it is not. I have provided a diagram that shows the intersection of the alleged plane with eight (8) floors of the South Tower, each of which represents an acre of concrete, where the plane is ostensibly entering the building EVEN THOUGH IT IS IMPACTING WITH EIGHT FLOORS OF AN ACRE OF CONCRETE APIECE ON THE HORIZONTAL. Even weedwhacker ought to be able to appreciate that and cease childish games by denying it. The principle in computer science, "GI/GO", "garbage in/garbage out", applies to the Purdue animation. I can't believe anyone would still be presenting it at this rather late stage of the discussion. Does weekwacker also believe the plane would make cookie-cutter images like cartoon characters?

Since a tiny bird makes a hole in the fuselage of a commercial carrier when it impacts with it in flight--where the bird only weights a few ounces--compare that to an acre of concrete, 4-8" deep, on the horizontal. Suppose one of these floors were floating in space and a plane hit it at 530-560 mph. What do you suppose would happen? The plane would be sliced and come apart, with wings, tail, fuselage--not to mention bodies, seats, and luggage--flying in every direction. For any of you to doubt this displays either enormous ignorance or massive denial or simply "faking it" for the purpose of defending an indefensible theory. It would have been physically impossible for a Boeing 767 to have impacted with the South Tower and make the smooth and faultless entry shown in the videos: www.disclose.tv...

reply to post by weedwhacker

JimFetzer

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link

Not to accuse you of sloppy research, but what are the alternative explanations that I discuss in my initial post? And which of those is best supported by the weight of the evidence as I explain it and why? As I have observed before, you have to (1) present my argument (so we know whether or not you have even understood it) and then (2) explain what I have wrong. In this post, you have done neither. And are you one of those who seriously thinks that way were are seeing in videos like this is a real plane impacting with the South Tower? Maybe you need to watch it over again and again: www.disclose.tv...

reply to post by Alfie1

edit on 6-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

JimFetzer

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link

I have asked you to explain my position and what I have wrong. You need to deal with (1) the impossible speed, (2) the impossible entry, (3) the plane passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, and (4) the absence of strobe lights, for openers. Tell us you think this is a real plane impacting with a real building, because your pointless denials do not constitute arguments or show that I am wrong: www.disclose.tv...

reply to post by Resurrectio

edit on 6-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

Logical one

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link

JIM, I notice you didn't address my questions, I'll put that down to the fact that you accidentally overlooked them:

So I'll ask the questions again:

If it was a set up as you and Raphael seem to entertain, then why have no Firefighters come forward crying foul.......because I'm sure they have most of them seen the Naudet film (I'm not just saying the plane impact clip either)???

And If the firefighters were in on the act then why would they rush to the scene where they might meet their death
knowing full well that the buildings were going to collapse?

Again I ask if the Naudet brothers knew the buildings were going to collapse.........why did they race into the buildings with the fire crew?

I'll assume If you don't respond then you have no answers to the questions and are stumped, but are too proud to admit it.
Come on Jim, don't run from little old me forever.