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, ... 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
FaxMam



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arrow

Last edited by FaxMam on Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3864

PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DC

the F4 footage.

Look at it 00:35 minutes in. Pause it there. What do you see?

I know what I see. I see reinforced concrete being cut like butter by one of the F4's wings.

Planes were used.

atm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DATM

I re-reviewed that footage, and re-watched it at the point that you indicated, and I'm not sure that we are seeing a 'wing cutting through concrete like butter' - it's not in the YouTube video, there, because it cuts out too early, but I remember seeing somewhere else them showing that concrete block *after* the 'plane had plowed into it, and there were just a couple of 'dents' in the concrete - that's it. That was the sum total of the extent of the damage to the block.

I think that what we're seeing there that *looks* like the wing slicing through the barrier is actually a.) the outermost part of the wing that 'overlapped' the barrier carrying on forwards due to momentum and b.) dust and debris from the crash/explosion going around the side of the barrier after impact.

_________________
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
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3864

PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DC

you said:

I think that what we're seeing there that *looks* like the wing slicing through the barrier is actually a.) the outermost part of the wing that 'overlapped' the barrier carrying on forwards due to momentum and b.) dust and debris from the crash/explosion going around the side of the barrier after impact.

I bow to better judgement, however, I should be very grateful if others viewing these posts would comment as appropriate.

Deeplogos: you have the kit, do the shit Wink .

atm
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: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have not seen the block after the F4 hit the concrete block, but it does on the face of it look like the wing cuts through it. My guess would be that the wing continues in the planes trajectory on the outside of the block, giving the illusion of it cutting through. The wing might have crushed the corner of the block it impacted as this would be the weakest point.

The F4 hits a solid object that distributes the energy more even accross the surface. This is not the case of the south tower, where the plane is literally shredded, and thus appears to be melting into the building. Each of the engines would do more damage than the entire fuselage, but one of them did not do structural damage, since it came out on the other side.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAlDULpUNCI

I do not believe that the planes or explosions were CGI'd, allthough some of the footage may have be cut and "amplified" to maximize their psychological output, so to speak. Also, the plane was meant for people to see, and thus would flight 11 be a means for people to fix their cameras on flight 175 as it hit the building. I would be far too difficult to CGI things into frames, if parallel footage would prove that it wasn't there.

What I do think is that Flight 175 seems to have been under some kind of remote gyroscope control (artificial horizon), coordinates plotted for it to hit just above the sky lobby. I believe this is evident from the slight ajustment made just before it hit the building, an ajustment I don't think the pilotes would have been able to to. I'll elaborate on that in another thread.


CGI faking (bad): The tech to make flawless CGI is available, but news casts/ handheld footage is difficult.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnTfezIkp_U

-DL-

_________________
"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
and i



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 300

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the following is an article written by Gerard Holmgren and can be found at www.911closeup.com

----------------------------------

Why they didn't use planes

Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?

1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.

Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."

Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.

This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.

What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.

In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.

So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.

Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.

Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves.

So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.

Now to the other problem.

Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.

Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.

This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots 2) Remote control them.

The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.

Remote control.

Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.

1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.

Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes.

Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.

And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.

And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.

1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.

2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target.

And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.

In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.

As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.

In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
and i



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 300

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

something simple to consider are airline transponder codes...

Transponder codes are four digit numbers transmitted by the transponder in an aircraft in response to a secondary surveillance radar interrogation signal to assist air traffic controllers in traffic separation.

Emergency codes

* 7700: Emergency
* 7600: Lost Communications
* 7500: Hijack
* 7777: Military Interception

There are 4 discrete locations on board the supposedly hijacked aircraft where this simple code could have--and would have--been punched in to alert ATC of the hijacking. there is no way that 5 guys with box cutters subdued everyone on the planes and took control of the cockpits without someone in the crew first having entered the 4 digit transponder code for "Hijack." Not on all 4 planes. The odds are beyond astronomical.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hawkwind



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:21 pm    Post subject: This Reminds me of Something ... Reply with quote

Gerard Holmgren wrote:

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.


Sir Bedevere: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
Mr. Newt: Burn them!
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn apart from witches?
Peasant #1: More witches! [Peasant gets slapped]
Peasant #2: Wood!
Sir Bedevere: So, why do witches burn?
Peasant #3: .......... 'Cause they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good! So how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant #1: Build a bridge out of her!
Sir Bedevere: Ahh, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
Peasant #1: Oh ya.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me, Does wood sink in water?
Peasant #1: No, no, it floats. Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What also floats in water?
Peasants yell various answers: (Bread!) (Apples!) (Very small rocks!) (Cider!) (Gravy!) (Cherries!) (Mud!) (Churches!) (Lead! Lead!)
King Arthur: A duck!
Sir Bedevere: Exactly! So, logically.....
Peasant: If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore?
Peasant: A Witch!

Monty Python - Holy Grail


Hmmm .... Cool

- Hawk

_________________
"Look up here, I'm in heaven. I've got scars that can't be seen. I've got drama, can't be stolen. Everybody knows me now." - David Bowie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



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

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two things to consider in regards to planes and their appearance upon striking the buildings:

1. In my world and my experience with how intel ops are conducted, all variables that can eliminated are removed. Therefore, they did not count on 4 simultaneous hijackings succeeding that day, and therefore, in regards to the 2 incidents in which aircraft were going to be visible - WTC 1 and 2 strikes - the planes were swapped. And if the planes were swapped, that also provides for them using any type of aircraft or modified aircraft they chose to use. Normally, you wouldn't think aluminum wings would cut through a steel-structure's steel facade, such as we appear to be seeing. However, if they replaced the normal model 757's or 767's with specially-modified models, perhaps with leading-edge-steel-reinforced wings, or internally-reinforced wings (and perhaps nose cone), then this would be quite doable.

2. Don't discount the structural integrity of wings whose gas tanks are almost full. An empty paint can fired at a brick wall will do minimal damage, crumple and fall away, but the same can filled with paint, fired with enough velocity will behave more like a cannonball, and penetrate the bricks.

Just adding my 2.317 cents.

_________________
"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
elbowdeep



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 395

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Two things to consider in regards to planes and their appearance upon striking the buildings:

1. In my world and my experience with how intel ops are conducted, all variables that can eliminated are removed. [I agree] Therefore, they did not count on 4 simultaneous hijackings succeeding that day, and therefore, in regards to the 2 incidents in which aircraft were going to be visible - WTC 1 and 2 strikes [I agree] - the planes were swapped. [ok possible] And if the planes were swapped, that also provides for them using any type of aircraft or modified aircraft they chose to use. Normally, you wouldn't think aluminum wings would cut through a steel-structure's steel facade, such as we appear to be seeing. However, if they replaced the normal model 757's or 767's with specially-modified models, perhaps with leading-edge-steel-reinforced wings, or internally-reinforced wings (and perhaps nose cone), then this would be quite doable [Ahhh... I doubt it]Wink .

2. Don't discount the structural integrity of wings whose gas tanks are almost full. [Ok, now you are talking, but I must ask, where are the tanks located? fore/aft of wing? all the way to the tip?] An empty paint can fired at a brick wall will do minimal damage, crumple and fall away, but the same can filled with paint, fired with enough velocity will behave more like a cannonball, and penetrate the bricks. [However, an empty paint can fired FAST ENOUGH will also penetrate][Agreed]

Just adding my 2.317 cents.


I agree the planes may have been swapped, for CONTROL purposes, but I will respectfully disagree on the modification aspect.

The number of people involved in "engineering" structural modifications to an aircraft (or two), to reinforce the leading edge of the wings, of that size in "secret", would have been too great a risk to take. This is a MAJOR job. If this were true, then I would take a serious look at Boeing as being an accomplice. I believe that the number of people to pull this off must have been quite small, and the more "changes" to the usual that had to be made, just increased the risk factor for something going wrong. We all agree on that.

Furthermore, using your own argument, if they *had not* been successful, and the "modified" planes happen to be shot-down (and pieces retrieved), then there would be absolute evidence of a massive operation (not that we would have seen it, but nontheless, the risk factor would have been increased, as they didn't know then how things would pan out).

So, just use regular planes, make sure the velocity is as fast as possible, loaded up with fuel, hit it near the top, rather than the bottom, (as the beams near the top of the structure don't have to be as solid as those near the bottom)

_________________
One day the cows will sprout wings and fly away...
http://twitter.com/elbowdeep
http://elbowdeep.posterous.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rumpl4skn



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

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm just presenting a supposition that would allow for aluminum to cut steel, in the right situation.

The only disagreement with your's is that I don't think modifying 2 planes in a secret govt hangar would mean a lot of more mouths to close, particularly if the work was done years in advance. I've had 3 brothers in the Air Force and Navy (one did NSA training and can consequently speak fluent Russian), and according to them, there are military engineers who do piecework regularly in undisclosed locations who don't even see the outside world. Apart from the occassional hooker, twice a month. : )

But it doesn't matter. They were real planes, and they sliced into the towers, one way or another.

_________________
"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
elbowdeep



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 395

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
I'm just presenting a supposition that would allow for aluminum to cut steel, in the right situation.

The only disagreement with your's is that I don't think modifying 2 planes in a secret govt hangar would mean a lot of more mouths to close, particularly if the work was done years in advance. I've had 3 brothers in the Air Force and Navy (one did NSA training and can consequently speak fluent Russian), and according to them, there are military engineers who do piecework regularly in undisclosed locations who don't even see the outside world. Apart from the occassional hooker, twice a month. : )

But it doesn't matter. They were real planes, and they sliced into the towers, one way or another.


Yes, please suppose! This is good discussion!

If it was done years in advance, I can agree, and could have been done by different crews over the course of years... each not knowing what the previous was on about, but again, if there is no evidence to support going down that road, why must we even go there? We have to be careful not to go down those roads. THEY want us to. If we get close to the truth, they send a minion in to disrupt whatever clarity we can agree on.

At this point I think we can agree that the probability of the planes being structurally modified is pretty low, especially since there is no evidence other than some oppinions on what a plane *should* look like as it hits a building... about as low as a 3 buildings coming down from slight structural damage (and some say fire) within a day. Wink Maybe if there were some evidence to the planes being modified, like a pod or something... just kidding!.

_________________
One day the cows will sprout wings and fly away...
http://twitter.com/elbowdeep
http://elbowdeep.posterous.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
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, ... 46, 47, 48  Next
Page 2 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.