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 ... 36, 37, 38
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2905
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bri wrote:
Don't even bother, it's a waste of time. Your mind could be better wasted(or used hopefully) than in this thread!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2905
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laughing had to quote myself to get the point across correctly...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rory breakr



Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bri wrote:
Don't even bother, it's a waste of time. Your mind could be better wasted than in this thread!


Not so much, I have spent a bit of time to become familiar with the people/theories among the no plane theory ... there are some interesting anomalies with the facts of the planes, but the nose of the plane theory is as bizarre as anything. The theory incorporates alot of hear say about the origins of the fox 5 video... all I know is - the images i posted are not a composited plane nose, they cant be. They are not the same shape.
Yet, Simon Shack avoids that issue by using low quality images and cherry picks the frames he would like his audience to "consider".

Also, September Clues by Simon Shack is filled with bullshit & distraction. I am working an a thorough debunking. I will certainly post the link as it is completed.

_________________
If the milk turns out to be sour,
I ain't the kind of p*ssy to drink it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rory breakr wrote:
I am working an a thorough debunking. I will certainly post the link as it is completed.


Before you waste your time on this "thorough debunking", go to a billiard hall and rack two red balls, beside each other, on the pink spot. Then hit them with the cue ball.

When you can get both of the red balls to converge on the black spot, or to hit the back cushion at exactly the same spot, let us know. Make sure to record this amazing contra-physical feat on video.

It is utterly insane to think that a collision of a jetliner with a building could have caused a columnar ejection of material from the opposing side of the building.

A bullet entering a body does not cause a columnar ejection of material.

Such an impact causes material to be spread outwards in an increasingly conical manner (due to the same effect as the physics above of hitting two billiard balls).

The only reasonable explanations for the "nose out" video is that #1 the video(s) are complete bullshit, or #2 they are huge mistakes made by creative personnel (i.e. graphic artists) who didn't understand basic physics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rory breakr



Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

carcdr wrote:
It is utterly insane to think that a collision of a jetliner with a building could have caused a columnar ejection of material from the opposing side of the building.

Every shot shows this, watch the video by youroom101 I posted a couple posts back.

carcdr wrote:
Such an impact causes material to be spread outwards in an increasingly conical manner.

spreading outward? Do you mean like what happens instantly after the small, dark, shape ejects and is engulfed by the larger, bright, explosion.

Every video of the post impact ejection shows this.

carcdr wrote:
The only reasonable explanations for the "nose out" video is that #1 the video(s) are complete bullshit, or #2 they are huge mistakes made by creative personnel (i.e. graphic artists) who didn't understand basic physics.

That is your (mis?)understanding of "reasonable" and "basic physics".

But it is based on:

#1 you think you know exactly what this explosion would look like.
(even thought it has never happened before)
or
#2 you belief that the shape that ejects out the other side of the building is a micro-precision match with the nose of the plane seen before the apparent impact. (It is not, see last 3 frames before the blackout)

_________________
If the milk turns out to be sour,
I ain't the kind of p*ssy to drink it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rory breakr wrote:

Every video of the post impact ejection shows this.


OK. So every video is suspect.

Quote:

That is your (mis?)understanding of "reasonable" and "basic physics".


It's based on my understanding of physics.

I was serious about the experiment I posited.

Show us a video of two red balls, placed on the pink spot, hit by a cue ball (with or without the use of a cue), which converge toward the black spot.

Quote:

But it is based on:

#1 you think you know exactly what this explosion would look like.
(even thought it has never happened before)


No, it is based on my knowledge of what this explosion *could not* have looked like.

Quote:

or
#2 you belief that the shape that ejects out the other side of the building is a micro-precision match with the nose of the plane seen before the apparent impact. (It is not, see last 3 frames before the blackout)


Clearly, you have no understanding of basic physics.

I find no possible physical explanation for what we see.

( 1 ) if this was office contents being ejected from the building, it would have spread outward (see the above billiard experiment).

( 2 ) this cannot be a commercial 767/757 commercial airplane, since the floors of the WTC were about 12.5' and the fuselage of the 767/757 jet was taller than this - it would have been ripped to pieces on its way through the wtc

( 3 ) This might be a missile, which just happened to slide through the building. But, the final "explosion" looks nothing like an explosion of a missile.

Basically, this shot is bullshit.

The only question is "why does this video exist"?

Is it a goofy attempt to cover up the Chopper-5 nose-out video?

Or, is it just a psy-op?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hawkwind



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 698

PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rory breakr wrote:
bri wrote:
Don't even bother, it's a waste of time. Your mind could be better wasted than in this thread!


Not so much, I have spent a bit of time to become familiar with the people/theories among the no plane theory ... there are some interesting anomalies with the facts of the planes, but the nose of the plane theory is as bizarre as anything. The theory incorporates alot of hear say about the origins of the fox 5 video... all I know is - the images i posted are not a composited plane nose, they cant be. They are not the same shape.
Yet, Simon Shack avoids that issue by using low quality images and cherry picks the frames he would like his audience to "consider".

Also, September Clues by Simon Shack is filled with bullshit & distraction. I am working an a thorough debunking. I will certainly post the link as it is completed.


I like your stoic stance Rory, you are very welcome to take a shot at this delusional and persistent head fucking … have at it. Just remember that the counter- intuitive nature of many physics concepts is always trumped by individual interpretation (i.e. “my understanding”). Defiantly hold on to the “consciousness creates reality” jag, so when some family member or government agency chucks you into a hole in the ground or sets your rotting meat pile on fire or maybe dumps you on the side of the road … your belief system will always say defiantly to reality … “your not the boss of me”! Long live the self as deity! 911 was a hologram and we all work for the government and can be contacted at a PO Box on some isolated island, fuck the survivors … better yet, send an email to Fox News … Subject = Nose Out. Wink

- Hawk

_________________
"It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rory breakr



Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not following your billiard ball analogy. You dont have to try to explain it again either, I dont have the interest to pursue it.

Quote:
( 2 ) this cannot be a commercial 767/757 commercial airplane, since the floors of the WTC were about 12.5' and the fuselage of the 767/757 jet was taller than this - it would have been ripped to pieces on its way through the wtc

I think you are trying to say that the nose of the plane would not go through the building. I understand that and think it can go with out saying in this friendly exchange. I don't think the dark ejection is the nose of the plane, composited or real (if there was a plane).

Quote:
(3 ) This might be a missile, which just happened to slide through the building. But, the final "explosion" looks nothing like an explosion of a missile.

I don't think a missile nose would survive with it's shape either, but getting back to my point initially - Do you think we are looking at the nose of the plane. if so it would maintain it's shape while visible. It does not in the frames I provided earlier. The thing that I think Nose Out Theorists are missing is if you believe this was an accident and has been covered up for letting the nose slip out (- Ace Baker, Simon Shack), than the fact that all the live shots, broadcast shots & amateur shots that show a view of that north side of the south tower, show a dark small explosion exiting first. Followed by a bright, fire explosion that engulfs the first.

Isn't that pretty lucky for the the person (Kai Simonsen, according to Baker) who made the Fox5 live error, right?

If your answer is that all the videos are faked (aka, all the explosions are fake) - then Simon Shack has infiltrated your ability to think straight.
He has taken his theories down to every thing is fake -
the buildings and even the bridges.

_________________
If the milk turns out to be sour,
I ain't the kind of p*ssy to drink it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rory breakr wrote:
I am not following your billiard ball analogy. You dont have to try to explain it again either, I dont have the interest to pursue it.


I didn't explain it. I gave you an experiment to try out. To think about.

The answer is: if you placed two (red) balls beside each other on a spot and then hit them with a third ball, the two (red) balls would deflect outward in 45-ish degree angles. Depending on the angle of incidence, the balls might deflect equally in opposite angles or differentially in non-equal angles, or in various other angles.

The target balls would deflect *outwards*.

There is no scenario that I can imagine that would cause the balls to deflect in a way that made them converge back together again (i.e. inwards).

What I see in the snapshot/video is something that converges to a point.

Either this thing is some sort of (relatively) undamaged "nose" of something, or this thing is contra-physical.

I've already given the reasoning that this cannot be the nose of a 767/757 class airliner. I've given the reasoning that this is not a missile.

There's nothing left.

This snapshot/video must be fake.

Quote:

I don't think a missile nose would survive with it's shape either, but getting back to my point initially - Do you think we are looking at the nose of the plane.

No.

I don't see evidence that a commercial plane hit the Towers.

Basically, we're looking at bullshit. The "nose out" was a mistake - the graphic artists who presented us with the "nose out" simply fucked up. They allowed a graphic artifact to flow into the wrong region of a "live" broadcast. Later, graphic artists concocted a physics-bereft cover-up of the "nose out" by inventing the scenario that we're discussing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hawkwind



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 698

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


_________________
"It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carcdr



Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 355

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks.

Exactly my point.

Every time this guy hits a group of balls, they scatter outwards - away from each other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rory breakr



Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
rory says:
I don't think a missile nose would survive with it's shape either, but getting back to my point initially - Do you think we are looking at the nose of the plane.

Quote:
carcdr says:
No.

I don't see evidence that a commercial plane hit the Towers.

Basically, we're looking at bullshit. The "nose out" was a mistake - the graphic artists who presented us with the "nose out" simply fucked up. ...


Ok, so I need to clarify the question from above that you responded to:
(And sorry for the delay, my free time is minimal these days.)

Do you think we are looking at the nose of the plane? (real or a composited plane) that shows it nose on the other side of the building?

By referring to the "graphic artists ... fucked up" I assume you are talking about a composited plane.
If it a composited real or an animated plane image that was added to the live feed of the explosion ... my 2 questions remain -

1. what about the frames that do not have the shape (and not close either) to the nose of a plane?

2. how is it possible that the other shots show this same type of explosion if it a unique event?


after all,
we do see the 'nose' type explosion (dark small first, then engulfed by fire-y large):


from the angles that it should be visible:


I don't understand why the Fox 5 shot was "hidden" from the public if all the videos show this.

_________________
If the milk turns out to be sour,
I ain't the kind of p*ssy to drink it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2905
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Question for No Planers:

If No-Planes is a way to get rid of evidence and make sure everything goes smoothly, how can you rely on C4, thermate, nukes, or beam weapons to do the job without leaving sure-fire evidence?
However, it's possible the beam weapons were from Atlantis. Surprised
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gawker



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 96

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This posted yesterday, via Rawstory.com

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC_0404.html
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 ... 36, 37, 38
Page 38 of 38

 
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.