FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
CGI / Hologram / No Planes
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 46, 47, 48  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Ningen



Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:35 pm    Post subject: I'm being honest Reply with quote

It has not been proved to me that a Boeing jet hit the South Tower.

Why are you here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hocus's 'No-Numbers Below The Belt' scenarios

The knife into butter allegory is applicable, even traditional, but mass and velocity being interchangeable, the conditions of a ~500mph object punching through the skin of a structure built for vertical load and not horizontal resistence, more closely approaches the dynamics of a knife through air. The Towers were never meant to be puncture resistant, and the horizontal backing of floors and trusses actually ensured that the perimeter skin would puncture without time to buckle. That is a good thing. Even the mass of wings and fuel-in-wings being sufficient to puncture (unlike Pentagon where it was not), and you have a plane-shaped hole.

Pentagon was different, a wall built for greater anti-penetration characteristic than vertical load strength; there, only the fuselage and engines made it through. The fuselage (rather, the mass of the plane in line with fuselage being compressed accorionlike but towards the center, it was hollow, but all mass generally along axis of travel) making a pretty neat hole. The fireball begain outside; some of it was pushed inside through the engine holes (inertia) or split second later, sucked inside (as the end of the fuselage's mass passed through the portal you have a vacuum, not unlike the one that can suck floating survivers underwater behind a quickly-sinking ship). So you have lift of a rising fireball drawing fresh air from below, and vacuum from the ballistic object having entered the building drawing fire in. These two things add up to green grass outside, hell on Earth inside.

My explanation given entirely without quoting any actual figures (except one, which was put there to discredit this paragraph), because posting figures about events that can also be generalized in words, is sort of an occupational hazard these days. ;-) It encourages those with dissenting, or more refined or more informed explanations to respond in kind with words rather than pull a gainsaying figure off the shelf to make you look like a silly liar.

Quote:
Why are you here?

Same reason as everyone else: as a source of food for creatures more powerful than I.

___
Grabel's Law: 2 is not equal to 3 -- not even for large values of 2.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:38 pm    Post subject: Re: I'm being honest Reply with quote

Ningen wrote:
It has not been proved to me that a Boeing jet hit the South Tower.

Aircraft hit the towers. It's a fact. Do you acknowledge that fact?
Ningen wrote:
Why are you here?

I'm here for all the right reasons. You?

_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ningen



Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stallion4 wrote:

Quote:
Aircraft hit the towers. It's a fact. Do you acknowledge that fact?


Maybe. I think something probably hit the towers, but am not convinced they were Boeing 767s.

Stallion4, why are you calling me dishonest? I may be wrong, but I honestly believe this, having read arguments on all sides.

And I repeat my question -- why are you here? You say for the right reasons, and suggest I am not here for the right reasons.

Here is the purpose of this forum, according to Fintan Dunne:

Quote:
Reply to this topic with general evidence about the issue of the planes at the World Trade Center being CGI inserts or Holograms and/or
no planes at all.


This means that it is OK to discuss this issue here. It means it is not OK to attack people merely for raising the issue. That's what you are doing.

So I am here for the right reason, and you are here for the wrong reason.

Am I wrong? It would help if you explained what your "right reasons" are. Better yet, explain why the evidence in support of CGI/Hologram/no plane is wrong. If you have already done that, and have nothing more substantive to say, then stop posting. Please.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ningen



Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hocus Locus wrote:

Quote:
The knife into butter allegory is applicable, even traditional, but mass and velocity being interchangeable, the conditions of a ~500mph object punching through the skin of a structure built for vertical load and not horizontal resistence, more closely approaches the dynamics of a knife through air.


When you are say that mass and velocity are interchangeble, are you not simply saying that a less massive object moving at a greater velocity could generate as much kinetic energy as a more massive object moving at less velocity?

The questions are how much kinetic energy was there, and how much was dissipated when the plane impacted the external columns, floors, and core columns.

Saying the external columns were built for vertical load, not horizontal resistance, does not mean that the external columns had no horizontal resistance. That is a function of their thickness and strength.

The studies I have read suggest that the plane should have lost most of its kinetic energy to get through the external columns and floors. Therefore, I think it is impossible that the plane went in like a knife into butter. The analogy stands.

Quote:
The Towers were never meant to be puncture resistant, and the horizontal backing of floors and trusses actually ensured that the perimeter skin would puncture without time to buckle.


This relates to something that Hoo Fatt said -- she said that it was OK not to include the floors, and that including the floors would result in "more conservative results" because it would increase the bending resistance of the external columns. Her purpose was to show how thick the walls of the columns would have to have been in order not to be penetrated -- she said 20 mm. So I assume that "more conservative results" would mean that if the floors were included, the external columns would resist penetration
with walls somewhat less than 20 mm. On the other hand, the idea of bending resistance being increased sounds like what you are saying -- the external columns would be quicker to fragment without the backing of the floors, so they would be easier to be penetrated, requiring thicker columns walls in the real world where they are backed by floors.

Regardless, Hoo Fatt said 46% to penetrate the external columns without floors, and Wiezbicki said 40% to get through the floors, so even if the floors would result in less kinetic energy dissipated by the external columns (which Wiezbicki said form a continuous wall), the combination of the external columns and floors would result in a loss of kinetic energy of well over half just to get through the columns and floors, which are much less than the length of the plane. So I do not see how the plane could have slowed down so little, even taking Salter's 18% which is disputed.

I can see that the Pentagon wall would be more resistant. I have not spent much time on the Pentagon, but my understanding of the argument is that the plane would have to have come in so low that it would have scraped or gouged the ground.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
heiho1



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just as an interesting addendum to this discussion, and as further refutation of the "columnular debris ejection" theory, consider this quote from the NIST final report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf

Chapter 2, page 22:

Quote:
Large object exited north face on vicinity of intersection of 81st and 82nd floors.


This sounds to me like the "depleted uranium dildo exiting the building"...so apparently NIST either supports the hologram theory or *something* substantial did in fact physically exit the building.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This person MUST be lying too...

Forward to 3:48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZxVOY53A&mode=user&search=

"I was on top of the roof at 25 Park Place. Me and the Super heard the loud noise from the jet. We look up and we see this big jet like a 737, or a 727... It was a big jet. We saw it coming, just looking like it was sideways. At first, we thought it was just going to try to miss it... 'BANG' right into the middle of it, like around the 70th floor, and then a half hour later we see the second one bang into it." -9/11 Eyewitness

_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
heiho1



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, again, my reason for asking questions is the bizarre nature of the *exiting* object. Do you or do you not still contend that the exiting object is columnularly ejected debris?!

This thread is not my major argument for 9/11 being worthy of investigation nor is it one that I would use in a typical 9/11 discussion. On this thread, however, I'm very interested in the avoidance of the question. I have no idea what people saw that day, I was asleep in Brooklyn when the towers were hit. I have no problems with there having been planes or not but the real question being asked on this thread is whether or not the public videos have been manipulated. At least that's my real question.

It's a question you seem damn intent to avoid discussing...

This on the same forum which takes for granted that modified images of Saddam are being published. So, it's possible to modify Saddam footage/imagery and stage the death of a stooge but the same possibility for the modified plane footage is impossible? Why is that exactly?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

heiho1 wrote:
So, again, my reason for asking questions is the bizarre nature of the *exiting* object. Do you or do you not still contend that the exiting object is columnularly ejected debris?!

This thread is not my major argument for 9/11 being worthy of investigation nor is it one that I would use in a typical 9/11 discussion. On this thread, however, I'm very interested in the avoidance of the question. I have no idea what people saw that day, I was asleep in Brooklyn when the towers were hit. I have no problems with there having been planes or not but the real question being asked on this thread is whether or not the public videos have been manipulated. At least that's my real question.

It's a question you seem damn intent to avoid discussing...

"Damn intent to avoid discussing"? Surely you jest. I haven't avoided anything. It's smoke and debris that's seen ejecting from the South tower, not an intact plane or a CGI insert. However, some plane parts were small enough to eject through the exit hole, such as an engine, landing gear, etc..

heiho1 wrote:
This on the same forum which takes for granted that modified images of Saddam are being published. So, it's possible to modify Saddam footage/imagery and stage the death of a stooge but the same possibility for the modified plane footage is impossible? Why is that exactly?

Please post a link to where I've ever mentioned that the Saddam footage was faked.

_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
heiho1



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stallion4 wrote:
heiho1 wrote:
So, again, my reason for asking questions is the bizarre nature of the *exiting* object. Do you or do you not still contend that the exiting object is columnularly ejected debris?!

...
It's a question you seem damn intent to avoid discussing...

"Damn intent to avoid discussing"? Surely you jest. I haven't avoided anything. It's smoke and debris that's seen ejecting from the South tower, not an intact plane or a CGI insert. However, some plane parts were small enough to eject through the exit hole, such as an engine, landing gear, etc..


If that's the case, why does the NIST report describe it as an "object"? Not as a "debris ejection" or something along those lines, but as an "object"?

Quote:

heiho1 wrote:
This on the same forum which takes for granted that modified images of Saddam are being published. So, it's possible to modify Saddam footage/imagery and stage the death of a stooge but the same possibility for the modified plane footage is impossible? Why is that exactly?

Please post a link to where I've ever mentioned that the Saddam footage was faked.


I never said you personally mentioned that...you are one of many people posting on this thread and they all are being asked the same question. I said "this is on the same forum"...clearly you are not the only member of this forum. Clearly members of BreakForNews.com have posted discussions about manipulated images of Saddam on this forum:

http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1510&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Clearly Fintan has stated publicly that he believes that manipulated images of the WTC collapse, as well as the 7/7 "bombers", have been circulated. What I am interested in is the insistence of people that impact footage could *not* have been modified but that Saddam or WTC still images or 7/7 bombers images could have been modified. This seems incongruous to me. If the manipulation of video and still imagery is par for the course in psychological warfare, why should I not anticipate manipulation of the impact videos?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

heiho1 wrote:
If the manipulation of video and still imagery is par for the course in psychological warfare, why should I not anticipate manipulation of the impact videos?

It is best to expect but not anticipate tampering in all media. Think of it as a yin-yang 'healthy' duality.

One part of you is open and accepting, such as when someone else is presenting a truth or an image appears to you the first time, believe what you are seeing, completely. Take it at 'face value', respond with true instinctive emotion, accept it as real.

Another part of you is closed and opposing, resenting looking for telltale signs of smugness, incohesion of body language such as excessive blink reflex where it had not been before, aversion of eyes (if that is not the custom or known personal trait), strange repetition or pauses in language, the appearance of unaccustomed words (for the person), for images, zoom to its greatest extent to ask yourself, what is the white point, has it been changed? What does 'normal' JPG or MPEG chatter look like? What does magnetic tape head noise look like, and where could one expect it to appear frame by frame? Do the boundaries of interesting objects match the characteristics of tone, bluriness of what is adjacent or comparable? If you are being expected to look for a certain object how suggestive is the shape of what is presented, with how much detail, and could there be something else (yet outside your experience) it could be? If so, what websites or image searches might bring up relevant comparison data? Which direction are the light source(s) coming from, and reflective objects? Do the highlights of objects match? Do the shadows? Approach hue, saturation and brightness as three separate investigations.

Then there is sentiment: what is the motivation of this person to take as much time to present, are there generally recognized endeavors in the search for truth that one has taken a tangent from (always worthy, but) How much time spent is in the budget? Are we over-budget, if so, why? If I spot a glaring inconsistancy in something, how do I present it to the group? Should I mention it at all?

It is just so much easier to believe. Or disbelieve. What is difficult is changing states between belief and disbelief. Which is why changing states should be practiced along with everything else: because in order to disbelieve, you nonetheless have to come up with an alternative explanation for what you are being told, what you are seeing, (or in the case of sentiment issues) a 'dark' or 'light' motive for someone to be doing what they are doing.

For example, I am engaging your mind with all these possibilities, so you fail to notice that little fuzzy spider crawling along your shirt. Or you should have assumed as such.

So it doesn't sound so absurd: a technique of pickpockets in a crowd is, have your accomplices stake out likely persons. You go to the front as a concerned citizen and have them announce that there are pickpockets in the crowd and everyone should take extra care. Your accomplices are watching their targets, who will instinctively place their hands on the thing they are carrying that is most valuable. While chance of success is hampered, the loot is better. Sherlock Holmes used a similar ruse in A Scandal In Bohemia, by creating a ruse to be inside the building as an accomplice blew smoke into the window and someone shouted "Fire!" Plot details may vary.

While you were scanning the crowd for pickpockets, I pocketed the spider.

All this imaginitive recasting of the senses and changing states of awareness of same-things is to develop the faculty of mental parallax. Which is the ability to provide yourself with possibilities.

Of course, to become reasonably proficient in spotting image artifacts, and equally adept at explaining them away, and spot the techniques for deception that one as or less clever than oneself would use, and the various ways of fudging too-difficult tasks by creating plausible cloaks ("the road sign blocked the rest!")... one would have to brush and stamp and fake a lot of images.

That is what we do as we bumble along in life, we are forging falsehoods in our minds, then with the use of fingers and mind, making them true. And verse visa.

One must do this in secret of course. When adept, you will be able to do it in secret even from yourself.

And that is when you just begin to glide easily along the surface of the world, noticing things that come to your attention because they are interesting or important.

Children do all of this, all the time. This duality and adeptness is how they become unique peoples.

___
What are opposable thumbs good for? Opposing other thumbs, of course.
~Hocus Locus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RedMahna



Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1512
Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

holy shit i just spent the entire afternoon re-reading everything on this thread... a lot of the links are no longer valid, but that's okay for what i was looking for.
i'm not supporting no plane theories 100%, nor am i convinced manually flown commercial aircraft was used.
there are plenty of news and civilian videos, but no one has anything focused outside the immediate area that displays a flight path across a larger Manhattan sky. even the one video with the 21 various shots has only 2 amateur clips of what seems to be taken from Hudson County in NJ, across the river (west of Manhattan). those would be the best "proof" of plane used for the second hit against the WTC.
i am familiar with the area since i lived just west of NYC. people in Jersey would have the best view, in my opinion. and that's what makes me curious, because the morning was clear. the NJ Turnpike runs along parallel to Manhattan across the river. there are tens of thousands of commuters on the pike. there are as many truck drivers on the same road.
i've been looking around for first-hand accounts of any of these commuters, especially truckers, on the internet. haven't yet found any.
i drove a truck around that time and never heard one eye-witness account of a plane approaching. (if you know truckers, they love to talk.)
so, i'm assuming there was no approach, because even at high altitudes, were it they dropped out of the sky nearby, planes could not have gone undetected in a sky that had not one cloud in it (i was in Brooklyn that morning about 6am and in Woodbridge, NJ, by 7am - no clouds in the sky).
the approach would have been all wrong, since JFK and LaGuardia traffic doesn't fly over the Bronx - people would have noticed this immediately, as far north as Yonkers, NY, if it was coming in low ... as i believe the actors in the 9/11 docu-dramas have portrayed it (passengers seeing skyscrapers up close).
no PhD facts here, just my wondering... i guess i could call some ex-coworkers to see if they saw or recall either plane approaching. it would take me a while to do, cos i've been out of touch with all of them.
would it be worthwhile? it's not like i'd have sworn statements.
red

_________________
just cos things are fucked up doesn't mean it isn't progress...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 46, 47, 48  Next
Page 14 of 48

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.