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 ... 44, 45, 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
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree 100% with the logic posted above, I take similar views of those kind of situations when it come to reason. Planes were the central key element to the event, there's no debate about that, What can be debated is what they actually were. I'll never accept Passenger planes as the culprits, maybe tankers, maybe Global Hawks or yet known military aircraft, but certainly not 767 Pass Jets. Neither will I accept Arab Pilots simply because I don't see one ex military Pilot turning over his ship to a Hijacker without one hellava struggle. The only possible way was if he felt immediate threat to the plane and passengers due to a bomb or they had weapons other than BOXCUTTERS.

I'm trained enough so that none of the 19 Arabs would be more than a quick few second walk through, even 2 on 1 especially if only armed with a freaking razor of sorts. So I can't imagine ( ALL ) the male, even some FEMALE passengers being so cooperative, even if they had no training of any kind. So given these pilots were also most likely trained, you can toss in the possibility of crashing, blowing up in mid air, or hitting a designated target of choice and the calm cool collected turning over control of the aircraft isn't plausible. Now if one was to feel cold steel pressed against your skull from behind you might submit and bend over. Otherwise, I'm not buying.

Certainly box-cutters could be sold to the public where as hiding a semi-automatic weapon in your sock would open the lawsuit door wide enough to drive a truck through. IMHO it's more probable that something else happened when it comes to the planes and how they were gained control of. JMHO.

As for there being no planes at all, I don't buy that either. I just don't believe they were piloted passenger planes. As you've said, those that pulled it off wouldn't allow a human to chicken out at the last minute and spoil the whole thing in PLANE SIGHT.

Another key aspect that not many notice or discuss is the photographic evidence of their being at least TWO EXPLOSIONS during the second strike. Clearly see in this pic.




The first strike was similar in nature.

Here is a seat cushion from one of the planes but that's not what catches my eye. It's the people as their actions seem to run the full course.



Hombre'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If the planes went through because of high speed, how come this bullet didn't go through this sword?
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=mIDWG9Zn8j8

9-11 was a MILDEC operation. The military hijacked the airwaves and broadcast fake images onto people television sets. These images of an airplane hitting a building were repeatedly aired. These "wartime propaganda" cartoons were passed off as real in what was the biggest hoax ever perpetrated.

Watch "September Clues" and "911 Octopus". Don't just say these are "disinfo". Back it up, because FYI.. TV Fakery is something that has been shut out from virtually every known fake. Shouldn't that tell you something?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3223
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Carpainter wrote:
If the planes went through because of high speed, how come this bullet didn't go through this sword?
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=mIDWG9Zn8j8


Watch close, the bullet is CGI!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stannrodd



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 521
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Carpainter wrote:
If the planes went through because of high speed, how come this bullet didn't go through this sword?
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=mIDWG9Zn8j8

9-11 was a MILDEC operation. The military hijacked the airwaves and broadcast fake images onto people television sets. These images of an airplane hitting a building were repeatedly aired. These "wartime propaganda" cartoons were passed off as real in what was the biggest hoax ever perpetrated.

Watch "September Clues" and "911 Octopus". Don't just say these are "disinfo". Back it up, because FYI.. TV Fakery is something that has been shut out from virtually every known fake. Shouldn't that tell you something?


If the bullet was aimed at the flat side of the sword, rather than blade edge, then the sword would have broken, or the bullet would pass through.

Katana blades are very strong things compared to a lead bullet.

Simple physics.

The planes penetrated the flat side of the buildings with ease at full momentum. The WTC towers were very strong things compared to a tubular aluminium (not lead) aircraft, hence they did not pass through in one piece but were shredded by the steel core and perimeter columns and so did not produce such massive damage on exit.

Had the plane hit a large sword blade edge on I would expect the plane to be split down the middle .. wouldn't you? Some of the core steel would have acted like the sword on edge, some perhaps like the flat blade. Some columns survived some didn't. The planes didn't survive.

Simple physics.

Amateur stills and video footage taken by locals and tourists also shows planes hitting the towers, not just broadcast video.

Stann

_________________
Ultimately, the study of all that is .. based on everything we have learned about our existence and our universe .. is only theory... 1984
PsytationStation
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stannrodd



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 521
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hombre wrote:
I agree 100% with the logic posted above, I take similar views of those kind of situations when it come to reason. Planes were the central key element to the event, there's no debate about that, What can be debated is what they actually were......

...... Another key aspect that not many notice or discuss is the photographic evidence of their being at least TWO EXPLOSIONS during the second strike. Clearly see in this pic.



Hombre'


Here's another Hombre from the opposite side ..



We agree on this one..

Stann Very Happy

_________________
Ultimately, the study of all that is .. based on everything we have learned about our existence and our universe .. is only theory... 1984
PsytationStation
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
911conspiracytv



Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Less than 20 people took a photograph of the 2nd plane. A photograph that has circulated, that is. Weird, eh?
_________________
http://www.911conspiracy.tv
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stannrodd



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 521
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

911conspiracytv wrote:
Less than 20 people took a photograph of the 2nd plane. A photograph that has circulated, that is. Weird, eh?


How can you state this .. as if fact and be sure of this.

I have a list bookmarked of many more than 20 photographers .. collected from non USA websites.

How boring for a free country. They must have (whoever) took out links for you guys about four years ago.

That would be sadd wouldn't it.

Never mind.

You guys have got all the nukes needed to destroy planet Earth.

Go kill your enemies !!

Stann

_________________
Ultimately, the study of all that is .. based on everything we have learned about our existence and our universe .. is only theory... 1984
PsytationStation
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stannrodd wrote:
Lord Carpainter wrote:
If the planes went through because of high speed, how come this bullet didn't go through this sword?
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=mIDWG9Zn8j8

9-11 was a MILDEC operation. The military hijacked the airwaves and broadcast fake images onto people television sets. These images of an airplane hitting a building were repeatedly aired. These "wartime propaganda" cartoons were passed off as real in what was the biggest hoax ever perpetrated.

Watch "September Clues" and "911 Octopus". Don't just say these are "disinfo". Back it up, because FYI.. TV Fakery is something that has been shut out from virtually every known fake. Shouldn't that tell you something?


If the bullet was aimed at the flat side of the sword, rather than blade edge, then the sword would have broken, or the bullet would pass through.

Katana blades are very strong things compared to a lead bullet.

Simple physics.

The planes penetrated the flat side of the buildings with ease at full momentum. The WTC towers were very strong things compared to a tubular aluminium (not lead) aircraft, hence they did not pass through in one piece but were shredded by the steel core and perimeter columns and so did not produce such massive damage on exit.

Had the plane hit a large sword blade edge on I would expect the plane to be split down the middle .. wouldn't you? Some of the core steel would have acted like the sword on edge, some perhaps like the flat blade. Some columns survived some didn't. The planes didn't survive.

Simple physics.

Amateur stills and video footage taken by locals and tourists also shows planes hitting the towers, not just broadcast video.

Stann


The situation is worse for the plane. It's not just crashing into one hard edge. It's crashing into a rack of them. The edges of steel floorboards, that is. The Plane Theory is that because of high speed, real time was suspended ( Laughing ) and thus a hollow, aluminum airplane (Yes, hollow, Fintan) with wings and a tail that is known to break off in crash situations all sliced through the building like a knife going through butter.. No parts break, no crumpling, and no slowing. It doesn't "smash".. it flies through the building as if it's flying through a cloud.

Fintan dismisses the problems of the "nose out" and "trajectories" while trying to associate tinfoilery with TV fakery. Heads up Fintan.. It's not working. No matter how many problems you find with the theory itself.. the impossible is not possible and videos that show the impossible are fake.. no matter what witty and seemingly logical rebuttal you have. If a plane dives in one video, pulls up in another video, and flies in straight in another video.. two or all of the videos must be fake. Common sense.

I've explained to stallion4 repeatedly why his "Why wouldn't they worry about cameras catching the real event????" argument does not hold water.. yet he keeps bringing it out. Not surprisingly, he is failing to treat the situation maturely once again. It's either "LOL NO PLANES" or "UR A FED!!!!" with him.

The 911 movement was set up and is controlled by the 911 perps. They cover up the evidence of TV fakery so they can hide the media involvement in the plot.

stanrodd: Why does it matter that there is amateur footage? If the perps want to fake a number of videos of an event in NY, they would have to fake amateur footage. Now, pretend we're both Media/CIA/FBI/Military/etc... Could we not get a video from the fakery boys and yell "We've got a video of it!".

Of course, in response to this, stallion4 and Fintan will probably say something like "LOL you think theyre ALL IN ON IT ROFL", ignoring the fact that their videos have been proven fabrications time and time again. Go watch "September Clues" and "911 Octopus".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stannrodd



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 521
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Carpainter wrote:
The situation is worse for the plane. It's not just crashing into one hard edge. It's crashing into a rack of them. The edges of steel floorboards, that is. The Plane Theory is that because of high speed, real time was suspended ( Laughing ) and thus a hollow, aluminum airplane (Yes, hollow, Fintan) with wings and a tail that is known to break off in crash situations all sliced through the building like a knife going through butter.. No parts break, no crumpling, and no slowing. It doesn't "smash".. it flies through the building as if it's flying through a cloud.


So you at least entertain the idea of planes do you?

Quote:
The situation is worse for the plane.


Do you know how a 767 and it's wing in particular is constructed ?



I don't have a problem with the physics ... and your sword analogy is a good one though slightly misdirected ..

In the tower versus plane scenario, the plane is the sword and the tower is the bullet.

It's all relative at the impact.

Stann

_________________
Ultimately, the study of all that is .. based on everything we have learned about our existence and our universe .. is only theory... 1984
PsytationStation
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
911conspiracytv



Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stannrodd wrote:
911conspiracytv wrote:
Less than 20 people took a photograph of the 2nd plane. A photograph that has circulated, that is. Weird, eh?


How can you state this .. as if fact and be sure of this.

I have a list bookmarked of many more than 20 photographers .. collected from non USA websites.
...
...
Stann



I'm going off of this list here:
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?s=fd4e2150e407251f22c4367872fa0a24&showforum=76

It would be great if you could help with your additions. Please?

Thanks in advance.

_________________
http://www.911conspiracy.tv
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stannrodd



Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 521
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll have a looky see what I can come up with.

Here's one taken by a William Kratzke not sure where I found it now. But there is a copy at this page I just found.

www.xanga.com/windfaktor

The one below I saved many years ago now, and having looked thorugh your list .. it's not there.



Stann Wink

_________________
Ultimately, the study of all that is .. based on everything we have learned about our existence and our universe .. is only theory... 1984
PsytationStation
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stannrodd wrote:
Lord Carpainter wrote:
The situation is worse for the plane. It's not just crashing into one hard edge. It's crashing into a rack of them. The edges of steel floorboards, that is. The Plane Theory is that because of high speed, real time was suspended ( Laughing ) and thus a hollow, aluminum airplane (Yes, hollow, Fintan) with wings and a tail that is known to break off in crash situations all sliced through the building like a knife going through butter.. No parts break, no crumpling, and no slowing. It doesn't "smash".. it flies through the building as if it's flying through a cloud.


So you at least entertain the idea of planes do you?

Quote:
The situation is worse for the plane.


Do you know how a 767 and it's wing in particular is constructed ?



I don't have a problem with the physics ... and your sword analogy is a good one though slightly misdirected ..

In the tower versus plane scenario, the plane is the sword and the tower is the bullet.

It's all relative at the impact.

Stann


Quote:

So you at least entertain the idea of planes do you?


Just to demonstrate how ridiculous it is.

Quote:
Do you know how a 767 and it's wing in particular is constructed ?


This image proves a point that should already be obvious.. A Boeing is hollow. It also shows a creation that should not survive going through a hi-speed collision with a steel building.

Quote:

I don't have a problem with the physics ... and your sword analogy is a good one though slightly misdirected ..

In the tower versus plane scenario, the plane is the sword and the tower is the bullet.

It's all relative at the impact.


Tower=Sword
Plane=Bullet

The plane in the film is moving at hi-speed, as is the bullet, while the Tower is stationary, as is the sword.

The plane in the film causes the impact to the stationary, impacted Tower.. just like the sword. The Towers have steel floor pans and a plane would have had to go through a good bit of them.. I'm not saying "None of the plane should go through". I'm saying that all of the plane should not go through as if it's going through air without any crumpling/crushing or parts breaking off.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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 ... 44, 45, 46, 47, 48  Next
Page 45 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.