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, 4 ... 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
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes. My equation is simply: if you accept that the planes were probably switched, then they could have been anything.

A lot of people on other forums are going through all sorts of contortions trying to explain how normal commercial 757's could have torn through steel buildings. And if you limit yourself to commercially manufactured Boeings, then you have to work around their structural limitations, and devise physics equations that allow for what looks very odd and surreal. Kind of like NIST backwards engineering the tower collapse scenarios to fit the fact that they towers did indeed collapse, even though their 3D models couldn't initiate the collapses. So they began with structural failure, and worked back to what could have caused it. Result? Inferior steel that got past Underwriters Labs quality control techs. One of whom then complained, he wrote a letter, then he was fired, blah blah blah.

And btw, I still do see a pod. I don't think it had much of anything to do with what went on, but I see one, always have. And why not throw in some technical bullshit like an attachment, make sure enough time has elapsed from the first hit and all cameras are rolling, then tilt the sucker to port so it's modified belly is glistening in the sun, for all to see the meaningless bump - maybe even shoot a little laser cannon at the building right before impact for a nice visual? Hey, it gave me something useless to argue about for my first year of investigation. Confused

But I also don't argue that some sort of incendiary wasn't used to insure that the fuel went up immediately and spectacularly. No sense going through all this precision flying if you don't get your fire, now is it?

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1713
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All this discussion of the improbabilities of re-engineering planes and vehicles, and how many ppl would have to be involved etc., always brings to my mind the procedures that these SpecOps ppl have been using for donkey's years to provide 'sanitised' stuff to them.

Is their any evidence that this was done on 9/11? I remember reading a series of articles in which someone was arguing that all these anomalous conjectures could be immediately put to rest by producing some evidence from the crash scenes of 'time-critical replacement' number-stamped parts.

Have we ever been shown any evidence that the aircraft in question were *not* 'sanitised' versions of thier domestic equivalents? Then again, thinking about it, usually they sanitse stuff so that if, say, a SpecOperative is caught, they theoretically couldn't be traced back to the US (or wherever) coz of all the 'Mil-Issue' and 'Made in US' tags that would be stamped on all their gear. Maybe in a situation like 9/11, they would not just 'blank' out all the relevant stamps, but just replace them with whatever they *should* be, if they were the real deal. Hmm.....

Just thinking out loud...

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's an additional issue, the serial numbered parts. There are literally thousands on each plane, and the first thing the NTSB does at a crash scene is identify one or more of those parts in order to be certain which plane has indeed crashed.

Reportedly - and I can't vouch for this report's integrity (from an EX-military source, mind you) - that was not done even once regarding the 4 planes involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Quote:
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. - by George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)


http://physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
MattMarriott



Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 125

PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:40 pm    Post subject: Demolition cover-up and planes hoax = mass media at work Reply with quote

WTC demolition - Bombers release video proving it to exhaustion - New milestone in disinformation - Quiz - Why?

A video in three parts. The first and only part I've watched (no need to see the rest):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043
Apparently it covers to exhaustion the demolition, so that even the last idiot can have no doubts left about what the majority undestood long ago: the WTC towers were brought down by explosives.
The interesting thing is that this video is released by the same people that detonated those explosives.
This sets a new milestone in illustrating the "tell as much truth as required, as long as people will swallow the core lie" technique of the BIG LIE Framework.

Web of Disinformation (=CIA fakes) sets a new milestone - Quiz - why?

This is the ultimate example so far, because this video, produced by the CIA, and distributed using their web of disinformation ("911 Truth Movement - PLEASE HELP SPREAD THIS VIDEO..."), apparently reveals about every detail of the demolition of the towers.
Two main goals could be recognized in the few minutes I watched it.

Now the quiz is for you to explain which are those goals, other than the two obvious aspects:
- selling CIA fake Eric Hufschmid, mentioned first time in the first seconds of the video;
- selling the core lie that there were planes.

Hint 1: it's related to the demolition itself.
Hint 2: it appears at least two times in the video, probably more, I didn't watch the whole thing.
Hint 3: one of the goals is to cover-up another cover-up which was launched the day after 9/11. A cover-up of both the core lie (the "planes") and of the core cover-up.
Hint 4: another goal is to cover-up what was unprecedented about the demolition, i.e. the core cover-up.

Quiz - Answer
1. - to cover-up the hoaxes produced by the media. This is why the video includes the faked photo of the tower with the upper part tilting in the sequence of the explosion - which was exposed by Fintan Dunn in the cover page of this site - despite the fact that when you see the video there's no tilt.

2. - to cover-up the unprecedented technique used for the controlled demolition. That's why the audio mentions up to bottom demolition.
To cover-up the fact that the bomb used was in fact launched from the bottom. The only kind of bomb that could turn instantly the WTC core into dust.
From:
http://911-for-dummies.blogspot.com/2006/05/mini-hydrogen-bombs-core-cover-up-of.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A few remarks as to planes involved on 9/11-2001:

- modifications of Boeing planes have been made. (And they were fined for exporting planes with this tech abroad). Sources are out there.

- these are not major modifications, but small ones (chips), that in the event it might crash into buildings ( :roll: ) probably would not be discovered.

- the parts involved in these modifications most likely had a serial numbers.

- the people involved in these modifications (engineers) would have thought they were installing "ordinary" special technology, even if chips and other tech might have been tampered with (conjecture)

- all though switches may have occured (one or more planes), it is my opinion that remotly controling planes (under the guise of a highjacking) allready in traffic (modifications could have been made some time back) would be easier than switching planes and remot controlling them into buildings.

Could the military have procured planes for drill and exercise purposes, or perhaps other private enteties, or had the planes involved in the operation been in traffic for some time before the technology was "activated"? A simple check during maintenance to ensure that the technology was still working is all that would have been necessary in this scenario.

Some way to overide "normal" control over such technology remotely and block communication with the planes would also have been necessary.

Silent planes flying towards their destined targets via remote controlled technology in air space where FAA is confused due to military exercises. Given that the ability to scramble jets was crippled (inability or confusion) this would not be all that hard, would it?

That is, if it wasn't an advance version of this; :roll:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2788064127190645046&q=hologram&hl=en

As for the WTC tilt, erh.. Doesn't the videos show the tilt? I'm sure it does...
Or do I have the wrong tower? Wasn't Fintan's photo analysis regarding the south tower?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799&q=wtc+collapse

-DL Occam-
Wink

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
StillDiggin



Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 88
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:25 pm    Post subject: Originally posted in the wrong thread.... Reply with quote

Hey guys. As you can see, I'm the latest newbie - at least I was when I started this post several hours ago. I figured I'd listen to the "tin foil" audio first.

I feel like a kid in a candy store on this sight. I've been banging my head against the monitor for a month and a half now, just trying to get a clue about the big picture. Those audio files should give my head time to heal.

I need a little help here, though. I saw those planes go so cleanly through the WTC buildings that I felt compelled to support the "no planers" today.

Then it occurred to me that it would have been much easier to remove the sections of steel from the outside columns on the floors they knew would be hit.

Timewise, they had the whole weekend. It could have been easily concealed from the inside. Structurally, they may have only had to slice it and still leave it in? I don't know. Whatever the case, creating an "open door" would surely have been simpler than holograms.

This also makes sense if you look at the impact points. Since the south tower was hit lower, the plane may have had to be on an angle and hit closer to the corner to minimize the number of columns that needed to be "doctored," while still being able to maintain normal loads?

Pure speculation and wild-ass guesses, but surely simpler than holograms.

Any thoughts?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
StillDiggin



Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 88
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since nobody else is jumping in, I'll update my opinion for whoever happens to venture into this forum.

I conjured up my theory of "doctored steel in the impact area" in an attempt to validate the existence of planes. At the time, the only other option I was aware of was holograms.

After reviewing some of the material regarding "eyewitness" accounts, as well as the option of CGI implants, I no longer believe in the theory I presented in my previous post.

I would remove it, except that it contains elements that are common to my current beliefs.

My current belief is that the planes we see in any video, including Naudet's, are CGI inserts.

The common elements from my original theory are based on accessibility and concealment.

The only thing that is different is the "doctoring" aspect. Replace "removing or cutting steel" with "planting explosive charges," and voila!

Even the structural considerations I mentioned would still be plausible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
StillDiggin



Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 88
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For some reason, there are many people who lack the common sense/visual ability to understand that the nature of the WTC "plane impacts" are physically impossible.

People either "get that" or they don't. Those who don't, keep getting hung up on the speed of the plane - thinking if a weaker object hits a stronger object fast enough, not only can it overcome it - it will remain completely intact.

So the next time I find myself barreling toward a steel building in my car, I have to remember to hit the gas, so my car won't get damaged until I'm inside the building.

And that's just my common sense. When you add in all the other evidence out there, it's just so obvious to me that I'm dumbfounded that people still haven't agreed on this point.

Maybe that's why "no planers" seem to be so adamant. No matter how hard they try, they can't seem to get their point across to the majority of the movement.

The helicopter that captured the only "live" shot of the second plane was equipped with a WESCAM system. This is the same technology that is able to superimpose a first down marker on a football field, while not appearing on a player who crosses it. Subsequent replays showing the plane could also have been "ready to go." As for the rest of the 16 or so total videos and the Naudet film, they had all kinds of time to create those.

See WESCAM in "FOX?" chopper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiq66fdSTM4

Think about it. All the helicopter had to do was stabilize, line up the shot, insert the plane/first down marker using a couple of test runs off air, and then detonate the explosion, timing it with the on air image. This would be pretty easy to time if the detonator were in the same helicopter as the camera.

This is the same reason why nobody can ever get all the plane approach angles to line up. Because of the position and angle of the helicopter shot, they never had to line up the plane with the hole, nor did any of the early videos that don't show the impact face. Editors of the later videos had to actually line up the plane with the hole; they needed more time to synchronize everything. When did the first video that showed both the hole and the plane first get released? Not anytime soon, I'll bet.

No matter how hard they try, the subsequent angles will never line up with the "live" shot, because the "live" shot wasn't accurate enough, because it didn't need to be (nor did the early replays that didn't show the hole). In fact, the early replays probably show the greatest approach discrepancy, due to the lack of time they would have had to "process" what the "live" footage actually portayed.

When you add this analysis in with the varying plane-speed calculations between different videos, it makes for an awefully compelling argument.

Of course, this logistical analysis is based on assumptions - but they're pretty logical assumptions in my opinion.

I have to do some research to find out when they first released a video with both the hole and the plane.

Stay tuned for updates.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
StillDiggin



Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 88
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:57 pm    Post subject: Seeing is believing... Reply with quote

So far, I've scanned through the first 16 parts of CNN's "As it Happened" footage on Google Video. Each of these segments being approx. 10 minutes long; let's call that 160 minutes. No video replay shows both the plane and the hole at the same time. I seem to have run out of parts, but I'll keep looking. If anyone knows where I can find more footage, please let me know. My guess is that those replays weren't aired until 9/12/01.

Getting to the subject line of this post: "Seeing is believing," take a look at this screenshot from "In Plane Sight" and see if you can point out what's physically impossible about the picture.

http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/?action=view&current=impact.jpg&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch1

Where is the hole in the building between the engines and the fuselage that the wings would have made?

Certainly, this plane wasn't travelling so fast that it entered the tower by osmosis!

I urge everyone who has "In Plane Sight" or any other video souce of this impact angle to go ahead and look for yourselves.

Also, can someone PLEASE tell me how to get the photo itself to appear in the post, so I can stop making people link to it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1713
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

StillDiggin said:
Quote:
Certainly, this plane wasn't travelling so fast that it entered the tower by osmosis!

LOL!
Quote:
Also, can someone PLEASE tell me how to get the photo itself to appear in the post, so I can stop making people link to it?

You mean - like this?



You have to take the link from the blue name link at the bottom of the Photobucket page, and strip all the Java shite off it so it looks like a normal link, like this:

Quote:
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/impact.jpg


instead of like this:

Quote:
javascript:window.open('http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/impact.jpg','FullView','width=700,height=500,resizable,scrollbars,location'); void('');

Hope that helps...

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
StillDiggin



Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 88
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
StillDiggin



Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 88
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry for all the posts, but these ideas keep flying out of my head. I have another coincidence/logical assumption to back up my theory.

The affected floors of the "plane impact" with WTC2 were 78 thru 85. I've often asked myself if there was a reason for this. I've looked through tenant lists looking for a pattern or a target, but I'm starting to think now that I was looking in the wrong place.

I was evaluating the inside of the building for potential targets. What if these floors were targeted for their outside characteristics?

I'm sure everyone who has been around the 9/11 truth movement long enough has noticed the the two dark "rings" around each tower, seemingly dividing it into thirds.

Notice how the bottom (port) wing of the "plane" that "struck" WTC2 happens to be level with the top of the upper "ring."

(great thanks to Continuity)

I mentioned in my original "WESCAM analysis" post that the helicopter cameraman probably "lined up the shot." However, from that distance, it would be extremely difficult to line up the plane without a highly visible frame of reference. Counting floors from the top down would certainly be a tedious task.

And so I have now expanded my theory to include the assumption that the elevation of the "impact" was pre-selected in order to allow the cameraman to more easily line up the shot by using the upper dark "ring" as a reference point. This got him "in the ballpark," but not close enough to escape the scrutiny of the eagle-eyed "no-planers."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=U4AlmPyQ4IU

Of course, one might argue that they could have chosen the middle or bottom of the dark "ring" just as easily as the top. This is true, and I cannot begin to guess why they did choose the top. Surrounding building clearance issues? Structural considerations? Didn't want to kill the guys at Morgan Stanley? Arbitrary coin flip? I'll leave that question for someone else to figure out.
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, 4 ... 46, 47, 48  Next
Page 3 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.