CGI Plane Insert?

[spooked911]

Check out this slo-mo version of the "Cheney hit" video-- watch on full-screen mode, and watch 6-8 seconds in as the "plane" goes in. Hard to see how this is not a digitally-inserted plane:

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





no wing marks:

[LARED]

1. This reminds me of a recently coined 9/11 maxim

No plane, no brain.

[Realityhack]

211. QFT n/t

[Realityhack]

2. You are seriously suggesting that the second tower was not hit by a plane? seriously???

What kind of fuck up logic is that?

[seatnineb]

23. Yeah....U got a problem with that.

[Ohio Joe]

3. Well then...

What was it my Mother saw hit the second tower? She has no doubts it was a plane.

[seatnineb]

22. Gotta love U anonymouse internet eye-witnesses..so authentic n/t

[Ohio Joe]

40. Interesting

If I understand you correctly, you believe I am a liar. Fair enough, it is true that you do not know me. Tell me this then, do you believe there was anyone that witnessed the second impact? If so, what do you believe they saw?

[LARED]

41. If you get a typical reply it will go something like this

"What I think is not important, only that the truth be exposed"

[Ohio Joe]

42. Probably

I really find it fascinating though.

[jberryhill]

44. Answers on that vary

In the event a truther doesn't answer you, there is something of a range.

My favorite is that there were shills pre-planted on the streets, so that after the explosion, they would be saying things like "Wow, a plane just hit the building", and others in the trauma would come to "remember" having seen such a plane.

Then, with all of the networks showing the "fake video" it would drive the point home.

Never mind, of course that there were no moving images of the first plane available that day (or not until much later in the day).

[seatnineb]

47. Indeed:

“It was a giant billow of fire blowing out the east side of the building,” she said. “I did not see the plane hit the building – it was far enough away that THE WHITE PLANE HAD DISSAPPEARED AGAINST THE SKY – so I thought it was a bomb. But we had CNN on the TV set nearby, and they replayed footage of a plane crashing into the building.
http://www.star.niu.edu/campus/articles/092401-alumna.asp

[seatnineb]

46. Where was your mother in relation to the WTC? n/t

[Ohio Joe]

48. You have already made clear your belief I am a liar

and I am cool with you believing that. You have a valid point that I am just some random poster on the internet and have no credibility as such. I would hope that you understand that after being called a liar by you that I see no point in recounting my mothers story so you can then call her a liar.

If you do not wish to answer my questions, that is of course up to you.

[seatnineb]

50. If I am so debunkable......why not just tell me where was your mother on 9/11?

[Bolo Boffin]

51. It's not that you're debunkable but that you are disagreeable.

Hey, I'm not saying I'm not. But when you are, you have to be aware that it's enough for most people not to want to discuss things with you. If you're going to act that way, be prepared for the consequences.

[Ohio Joe]

52. Well...

First:
"If I am so debunkable"
I never said or implied any such thing.

Second:
"why not just tell me where was your mother on 9/11?"
hmmm, I thought I was rather clear on that, let me know which part you did not understand and I will do my best to elaborate. Then maybe.... Just maybe if you answer my questions, I will answer yours.

[seatnineb]

55. U put me in a catch 22 situation....I will get banned if I call U a liar

...and i am not calling you or your mother a liar .....but 9/11 was an extraordinary event...and any testimony has to be scrutinised.

The reason i ask is becos there were planes flying around to the west.....at the time of the wtc 2nd hit:

like this:




...which could be this:



there was also something flying at the time of impact to the east of the wtc:



I just wanna know what your mother saw ....thats all.

Peace.

[LARED]

56. Are you aware that

Newark International Airport is about 4 or so miles West of the WTC location? Newark is one of the busiest airports in the country

[seatnineb]

62. And are you aware that witnesses saw planes like this

Mark Burnback:
"I did not see any windows on the side..the plane was flying low...I was probably..a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low.....and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport ...it was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just ... looked like it did not belong in this area...."

Are you telling me planes of the above description took off from newark

Note:

Burnback did not see the plane that he describes .....hit the building....he assumed it had.

[LARED]

67. Interestingly you have no problem

believing Burnback even though there is plain evidence that a plane with windows impacted the trade center



If you're going to tell me its planted please explain how all that materials was placed on the roof of WTC 5.

So either he's lying or he was mistaken about what he saw.

On the other hand you imply the many eyewitnesses that saw a commercial airliner fly into the building are all liars.

Also I am saying nothing of the sort that the plane he saw came from Newark. Follow along closely please. You showed some images of plane in the background of the WTC looking toward the West impling there was something amiss. My point was that it would be completely unremarkable to see air craft in the western skies because Newark Airport is just a few miles directly West of the WTC.

[seatnineb]

69. Ok..lets look at those who saw the plane hit...

Ok..so lets concentrate on the witnesses who did see a plane hit the wtc

Like Christine Sweeting



here in the uk On september 10th 2008 channel 4 screened a new documentary called "9/11 hotel".....which focused on the survivors of the marriot hotel wgich was crushed by the collapsing wtc's.

In the docu...Christine claims her daughter took this foto:



And now Here is Rob Howard's foto which had been circulating on the internet for years:



by superimposing one on the other...you get this:



Someone is lying...maybe they all are.

[LARED]

78. I don't have to concentrate on anonymous witnesses

I know people that saw the plane hit

So you found someone possibly claiming to have taken a picture that was not theirs. Big deal. BTW, both show a commercial airliner about the impact the WTC.


If you want to go through life pretending something other than flight 175 impacted the WTC have fun.

[seatnineb]

83. See post 24

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x229695#230081

[Ohio Joe]

66. Are you even reading my posts?

I will try saying it one more time. As soon as you answer my questions I will consider answering yours.

on edit -
"U put me in a catch 22 situation...."
Do you know what a Catch-22 is?

"I will get banned if I call U a liar"
From your first response to me - "Gotta love U anonymouse internet eye-witnesses..so authentic n/t"
This is not calling me a liar? Then what is it saying?

One more thing, before you post, there is a little button labeled "Check Spelling", please use it.

[seatnineb]

70. We can go round in circles n/t

[Ohio Joe]

71. Then you are not going to answer my questions?

Thats fine, also very typical of "truthers" I've found here. They want answers to all of their questions but refuse to ever give any answers. I wonder what your afraid of?

[seatnineb]

74. I don't what to get banned. thank you n/t

[Ohio Joe]

77. From my post #40

"Tell me this then, do you believe there was anyone that witnessed the second impact? If so, what do you believe they saw?"

Answering these questions will get you banned? I think not. (I'll admit, the second question was worded badly, it should be "If not", not "If so").

It is really simple. I don't care what you think of me, not one bit. Hell, I even admitted you were correct and that I was unreliable. Why would you be banned for saying something about me that I freely admit? What I do care about is the prosecution of those that used 9/11 to commit atrocities. Insane ideas that have zero basis in reality distract from the real crimes.

[seatnineb]

84. Ok..

I believe that there are many witnesses who only saw the explosion...but by seeing the explosion infer that that they have seen the plane hit the building(which is tecnically correct-if a plane existed).

I believe that there are witnesses who saw a plane(White elephant) flying within the vicinity.....and who then saw the explosion...and by seeing both the plane and the explosion (but not the impact)...infer/imply that they saw the plane that eventually hit the building.

I believe there are witnesses who are lying when they saw the plane hit the building...for whatever reason.

[Ohio Joe]

165. ok, I'll try to post this again

Sorry for the delay, my internet connection is spotty (at best) the last few days.

My mother was working across the Hudson from the towers, on the Jersey side at the time. After the first plane hit, her and her co-workers went up to the roof. The second plane came in lower then planes normally fly, so it caught everyones attention, they watched it fly into the second tower.

[seatnineb]

171. Thanks for responding.

I have had internet problem too.

I have a witness from the jersey side too:

His name is David Thom....and his testimony was up on 9/14/01

He said he did not see the plane:

In the words of Dave Thom:
After a while, I saw a huge fireball on the second tower -- being on the far side, I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE and assumed a bomb or something had gone off.
http://www.tgeneva.com/~davethom/

But it does not end there...he took fotos as the explosion took place....showing his viewing angle:


if a plane existed...this is what he would have seen;


I have sent an email to Dave Thom asking where he was looking a the time of the approach...and he never responded...

I guess you could say he was looking else-where....but i fail to see how he would not have noticed it as it approached.

[vincent_vega_lives]

172. What's even more insidious

is the implied motive that goes along with the claim that you mother is a liar.

[balantz]

4. The whole video is a fake. n/t

[LARED]

5. Maybe the plane was not faked, but was vaporized

as it flew through the air by a Direct Energy weapon.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Not the DEW.

The plane was disintegrated instantaneously by the galvanic corrosion present on the surface of the building. It just burned right up. The plotters knew this would happen, so they had to plant bombs to mimic the damage the plane would have done.

[LARED]

7. Perhaps this is similiar to the Lasaga Cell

Covert Italian forces at work on 9/11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion#Lasagna_cell

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Yes, who would have noticed bulk shipments of table salt to the Twin Towers...

I think we're onto something. It could have been applied by the window washers. Are any of them available for interviews now? No?

This is HUGH!

[seatnineb]

25. fake Planes/ meteors hitting the wtc were part of the american cultural psyche

..for several decades before 9/11

1970's new york times article(don't know exact date)


1998 film armageddon

[vincent_vega_lives]

174. "the american cultural psyche"

I SERIOUSLY doubt this even made up a fraction of "the New Yorker's cultural psyche" let alone all of America's!

[seatnineb]

180. If the islamists hated the USA so much...

Why did they not fly a plane into the WTC in 1971..or 1981....hel even in 1991.

Is that becos the special effects technology was not up to scratch.

[vincent_vega_lives]

183. KISS

Keep It Simple Stupid. Quite a bit reviled in your post.

If the islamists hated the USA so much...

The implication of your post is that there are no "Islamists" that hate the USA enough to perpetrate mass murder on Americans. Is that your intended implication?

Why did they not fly a plane into the WTC in 1971..or 1981

PlaneS - plural remember? And OBL, KSM and the other co conspiratiors were hardly of age to pull off such a feat in 1971, and busy with the Soviets in Afghanistan in 1981.

....hel even in 1991

because they were busy devising a truck bomb plot to knock down the WTC in 1993.

[seatnineb]

184. You contradict yourself...

Sure thing Vince...The islamists hate the USA so much.....that they decided to fight the soviet union....and who did that benefit.......the usa.

your 1 dimensional thinking is there for all to see.

[vincent_vega_lives]

188. Pot-kettle-black

Wow you lack of understanding of a situation is mind boggling. OBL LOVED America because he fought the Soviets in Afghanistan??THATS your reasoning?

You think the Mujahadeen gave a shit about global politics? "Oh we can't drive the godless infidel invader out of our bother muslim's homeland because it may grant the Great Satan political capital."?

GTBFKM!

[seatnineb]

193. You are speaking gobledegook

Wow you lack of understanding of a situation is mind boggling. OBL LOVED America because he fought the Soviets in Afghanistan??THATS your reasoning?

Ask Ahmed Badeeb

He was BinLaden's at mentor....he also helped the CIA reclaim their stinger missiles from the Afghans.

Small world....or coincidence...or are the CIA just full of fuckin shit..just like Bin Laden.

[vincent_vega_lives]

197. To you perhaps

Ah I see where you're going with this. CIA...Al Queda...one in the same. There is no world wide anti Western Islamist movement? It's all a front for...what exactly?

No doubt the CIA, ISI and GID have been/are intertwined with some aspects of the mujhadeen, but I think your view is rather simplistic. The reality is far more chaotic.

[seatnineb]

200. CIA and the mujahadeen were intertwined to the tune of Billions of $

During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/10/ghost_wars_how_reagan_armed_the.

[vincent_vega_lives]

206. That page is gone.

The Soviets invaded in 1979. Carter authorized CIA funding in 1980. The Afghan resistance recievied assistance from the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Kingdom and China. All was filtered through the ISI. The US financed it but Pakistan effectively ran the resistance movement. The ISI channled resources to the warlords they supported.

The US backed certain warlords over others, like the more moderate and western Ahmad Shah Massoud. None of our aid made the stanch islamists in the country our friends, like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who was favored by the ISI.

You seem to view the conflict in very simplistic terms. It was and is anything but.

[seatnineb]

207. Yeah...I know that story backwards

But who had the initial concept of flying aircraft into stuff:

Clarridge(Director of CIA counter terrorist center) commisioned them(CIA Counter terrorist engineers) to work on a highly classifed pilotless drone equiped with intercept equipment, an infared camera , and low noise wooden proppellars .It might fly over head at 2,500 feet and locate the American hostages.He spent $7 million dollars on 5 prototypes in what he dubbed the Eagle program.

Another use for the drones might be sabotage operations in Libyia.Claridge wanted to load one drone with 200 pounds of C-4plastic explosives and 100 pounds of ball bearings.His plan was to fly it onto Tripoli' s airfield at night,blow it up, and destroy a "whole bunch" of commercial airliners sitting unoccupied on the ground.He also tried to load small rockets onto the drones that could be used to fire at pre designated targets.

But all the technology was in it's infancy.

Ghost Wars
By Steve Coll.
Page 144.

[vincent_vega_lives]

209. The Japanese (n/t)

[seatnineb]

210. True..But the japanese did not use UAV packed with explosives! n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

221. No they used a MAV packed with explosives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_bomb

A UAV packed with explosives is called a cruise missile.

[seatnineb]

223. Ok...thanks for info. n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

173. Even more insidous

That particular plan was constructed completely of thermate 11 years ago. They maintain a fleet of thermate aicraft in 'plane' sight just for such an occasion when one needs to fly one ito a building to demolish it in order to fake a terrorist attack.

[jberryhill]

9. Now that was thoughtful...

Good one.

[seatnineb]

24. Just to remind people how much **** you have peddled down the years

In the words of LARED:
Sat Mar-20-04 08:47 PM
I personally know about two dozen people that watched flight 175 fly over their place of business in NJ and then saw it crash into the WTC. So unless holgrams can travel four or five miles and make really really loud noise, you've entered fantasy land.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In the words of LARED:
Thu Dec-15-05 02:39 PM
I know a dozen people working in NJ that were watching the WTC fire from a roof top in Bayonne as the that plane passed overhead. They are located about 1.5 to 2 miles away from the WTC and watched it impact the building
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

So Lared...

Regarding your anonymouse friends:

Was it a dozen or half a dozen friends who saw the plane?

Were they 4-5 miles away...or 1.5 - 2 miles away?

Or do you just make up stuff depending on your mood?

[LARED]

87. Wow you dug that up again

Big deal. Two posts 20 months apart that basically say the same thing. You think this makes me some sort of BS artist, or maybe I just didn't recall with perfect detail.

At the end of the day, you're the one living in a fantasy world where people didn't see flight 175 impact the WTC. I can live with that, and you can repost my slight error until the cows come home but it does not diminish the facts one iota.

[catnhatnh]

92. Yep...it is...(a big deal)...

"slight error"??? yeah 50 to 100% error in numbers of eyewitnesses IN THE FLIGHTPATH that YOU PERSONALLY KNOW multiplied by distance errors of 66 to 300% ???

Let's do math like some others do on the board...5 miles X 24 eyewitnesses = 120 and 1.5 miles X 12 eyewitnesses = 18...So your "slight error" is 120=18???

And you laugh at us.

Since were not sure if we're at war or peace with Oceania, what is your CURRENT truth??? 6 eyewitnesses at 50 feet or 48 eyewitnesses from 50 miles???

[LARED]

100. Did you ever consider that in the 20 intervening months

I looked up the distance. Ie one was a guess and the other was based on checking a map?

Also just to add your mathematical argument is as full of whole as your CT.

[catnhatnh]

107. And what did you check...

when a full half of your witnesses went "POOF"...a census??? AGAIN A "SLIGHT ERROR"???? I've seen you harp on the smallest discrepancies all over this board attacking anyone with suspicions that what we were told contained lies. And then you obviously lie/exaggerate and follow that by stating your lie/exaggeration is somehow not germane. So where are your other dozen witnesses?

[AZCat]

109. Wow, that's some bad math.

1. You're mixing units - not proper!
2. Distance doesn't vary linearly with credibility, and I'm pretty sure number of eyewitnesses doesn't either.

[catnhatnh]

110. Let's discuss LARED's math...

since he claims to be a font of truth-telling. Or better yet let's discuss a brand new conspiracy theory....In 2004/2005 did LARED use a directed energy weapon, mini-nukes, or a pod to vaporize half of his witnesses?

[AZCat]

111. You're assuming numbers meant the same thing...

at the time of each quote. Maybe 24 in 2004 numbers means 12 in 2006 numbers? Numerary deflation?

[catnhatnh]

112. Actually YOU are assuming that you can challenge...

...numbers I posted tongue-in-cheek and divert discussion from LARED's blatant switch in the number of witnesses he "personally knows". And you can forget that flying. Better get used to seeing WDYWG? (where did your witnesses go) on every thread he posts to since I have this page bookmarked and a long memory.

[AZCat]

114. Yeah, nobody cares about your "find".

I think it's pretty pathetic that you went to all the trouble to track down a difference in claims made by a poster on an internet forum twenty months apart. You seem to assume that finding a difference somehow matters.

[catnhatnh]

117. Your fact checking seems every bit as accurate as LARED's...

And you urge us to read for context? Seatnineb found the discrepency, I merely commented on it's scope. But thanks for playing....

[AZCat]

118. I don't know what you're talking about.

Does this have anything to do with Bob Marley? Because I like Bob Marley. And he is much more relevant (to what, I don't know) than whatever this discrepancy is.

[catnhatnh]

119. Let me talk slowly here....

...a "difference" = a discrepency...got that? The discrepency under discussion is LARED's magic "disappearing" eyewitnesses. If you find Mr. Marley more enjoyable and relevent than this discussion, then by all means, go to the lounge and post about him. If you stay here however the topic is has LARED failed to be candid about how many personal associates of his witnessed an aircraft crashing. I wonder why you care so much however?

[AZCat]

120. Failed to be candid?

That doesn't seem right. He seems to be perfectly candid. In both cases he explicitly stated a number. He has offered an explanation for the discrepancy. What more do you want?

[catnhatnh]

121. No, actually he did not...

he did rationalize the distances involved but failed to address the more important question of how many people he knew that were eyewitnesses. This is not given to glib explanations or glossing over-as proof I see no explanation from LARED here of that little conundrum.

[AZCat]

123. Hmmm. Not how I read it.

Post #87
Big deal. Two posts 20 months apart that basically say the same thing. You think this makes me some sort of BS artist, or maybe I just didn't recall with perfect detail.

Post #100
Did you ever consider that in the 20 intervening months
I looked up the distance. Ie one was a guess and the other was based on checking a map?

That seems to be an adequate explanation for both discrepancies. Maybe LARED, like the rest of us, realizes that you're making a mountain out of the proverbial molehill.

[catnhatnh]

125. So if LARED said his eyewitnesses...

...saw FOUR airplanes strike the towers, would that be "basiclly the same thing", or would it be bullshit? By the by...for how long have you considered yourself personally to be "the rest of us"? Because your estimate of crowd size seems as muddled or dishonest as his...

[AZCat]

126. Four is pretty close to two.

Especially when considering eyewitness testimony.

[catnhatnh]

127. And appearently....

when counting the number of eyewitnesses you personally know.

[AZCat]

128. Twelve? Twenty-four?

He was pretty close. Anything over seven is hard to get right.

[catnhatnh]

129. Yet in his first account...

...he exceeded his number of fingers and toes combined! Know what is demonstrably lacking here? A cogent explanation from LARED...

[AZCat]

130. You can count to over one million using your fingers and toes...

if you use binary. Just fingers gets you a hair over a thousand.

I think LARED's explanation is adequate. It is you who seems to think there is some mysterious motive behind the discrepancy. Oh my god! LARED lied about how many friends he has in New Jersey! The world is ending!

[LARED]

135. Dude, please keep in mind you are a no planer/ fake plane

advocate. No one outside a few clinger-ons thinks you have any credibility at all simply based on the positions you hold.

Do you really think there were no witnesses to flight 175 hitting the WTC? Really? Are you that removed from reality?

[LARED]

136. Thanks nt

[LARED]

133. The witnesses did not disappear. I was not there and was

telling you information I got from said witnesses. I actually have no idea exactly how many people were on the roof. But that does not matter because I know reliable people that were there. They saw the plane fly not just over head, they SAW IT FLY INTO THE WTC.

[LARED]

134. The pressure is too much, I've cracked under the bright lights

of you fantastic ironclad interrogation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=229695&mesg_id=230435

So now you know the sordid truth. I guessed differently twenty months apart as to the number of people on the roof. I feel so guilty, as now the truth about no-planes/ fakes planes will be exposed. :sarcasm:

[LARED]

132. It ok, they have so little actual evidence the trival takes on

bigger than life proportions to them.

[Thorandmjolnir]

178. Actually, I care

So your statement "nobody cares about your find" is wrong :).

[LARED]

131. Huh oh you booked marked it.

:scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:

Andre has had it bookmarked for a few years now, and it has not changed a thing. He stills blathers on about fake planes, people snicker, and I will manage to live on knowing I misspoke.

Feel feel to follow in his footsteps.

[anigbrowl]

163. What a fail

You are 2 miles away from one end of an airplane trajectory. You observe the plane come towards you, pass overhead, and reach its destination. It's entirely reasonable and consistent to say you observed the plne's flight over a distance of 4 or 5 miles.

[seatnineb]

98. DU posters like U have a habit of changing your testimony

Markses claimed in march 2004 that all he saw was the explosion.

Thu Mar-04-04 05:10 AM

Posted by Markses(to purveyor)

Just then, I saw a young black man, very close to me looking up at the sky. He said “Holy fuckin’ shit!” and his face was contorted and there was the unbelievable rush of noise and then the loud explosion and I’m certainly not talented enough to convey the timing of all this, very fast, seemingly all at once, but I remember it as a chronological sequence, though I don’t feel it that way. I pivoted right towards the sky, towards the loud explosion, and saw the fireball burst from the building – huge – and close: the first hit (“The First One”), North Tower (World Trade Center 1), downtown Manhattan, U.S.A.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...2x398075#398456

3 months later in July 2004 Markses claiims that he had in fact seen the plane itself:

Mon Jul-19-04 05:07 AM

Posted by Markses(to Seatnineb)

And I'll tell you this, friend: I saw a large passenger jet, almost certainly a 767, fly over my head at high speed and low altitude, and crash into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. With my own eyes I saw it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...125x14285#15016

[LARED]

99. Let me repeat myself and add

At the end of the day, you're the one living in a fantasy world where people didn't see flight 175 impact the WTC. I can live with that, and you can repost my slight error until the cows come home but it does not diminish the facts one iota.

People do make mistakes, they often are inaccurate or misspeak. That's a whole lot different than advocating completely idiotic theories that intelligent people know is foolishness. Theories so dumb it is hard to imagine what motivates folks to cling to them in the face of overwhelming reality.

[seatnineb]

101. You forgot to add that witnesses lie....9/11 is a classic example n/t

[LARED]

102. So do CT'ers ...... 9/11 is a classic example

[seatnineb]

105. Simple question...did your friends see the plane approach

..from the verazzano bridge?

[LARED]

122. No, they were on roof top of a building on

22nd street in Bayonne NJ. They told me the plane flew practically overhead.

[AZCat]

124. Oh my god!

LARED claims his friends were directly below the plane, yet my cursory review of nothing a map I found on teh internetz shows he cannot be right! The sky is falling!

[LARED]

164. I found something even better

I was digging through some old files and found this image. I took this from the roof of the building I used to work at using a 35 mm camera around 1996 or 7. The same place my friends were standing when flight 175 flew over Bayonne.



This is a zoomed-in shot.

[anigbrowl]

10. It's caused by the slow motion

The original video is likely 30 frames per second (well, technically 29.97 but you don't want a lecture on NTSC specifications).
Slowing it down to 200 fps means stretching the video out to almost 7 times the original length. Of course, that would look very choppy and jerky because there would only be movement every 6-7th frame, so many video editing/FX packages will use a technique called interpolation - analyzing the image in each frame and then generating a new image based on the difference between pairs of frames. Unfortunately it's not perfect, which is why bits of the plane keep flickering.

So yeah, there is CG involved; but not to put the plane there, just to slow down its movement. If it was footage of something unremarkable (someone jogging down the street, say), you'd have the same problem, bits of the jogger's legs or clothing would be flickering.

[JackRiddler]

11. Once again, ignorance of video tech. Sort of 'stonishing!

Maybe this idea comes from the movies, eh? I mean, all things look *so* much more real there than in the supposedly real news footage of just about... anything! Why, imagine how much more real the shoe scene of two days ago would have looked if only it had been a Hollywood production.

And the forensic image analysts in the movies can slow down and zoom in on the most microscopic detail, even on consumer video shot with a telephoto lens at great distances, and still get perfect resolution and definition, revealing the smoking gun clue.

[jberryhill]

12. Yup

In fact, if one wants to find a bigger "mystery", ignore the plane and the towers and watch the "melting" features on the building to the left.

Spooked will have no clue what you are talking about.

[anigbrowl]

13. Wait until there's more footage from this camera

'zOMG reality is wobbling we're living in the MATRIX!!1!'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSnH41t_dzQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y484jV_2IfA

[dlaliberte]

14. Rational reason for missing plane parts

Thanks for this explanation. I'd seen this video and wondered how it might have happened.

The rest of the videos make consistent sense, and yes there were planes crashing into the towers. Other no-plane theorists have obscure arguments that we don't need, and don't make sense when you consider that the videos and photos consistently show it is the wrong kind of plane rather than the commercial aircraft we were led to believe. Why would they fake the wrong kind of plane? And why would they fake the flash before impact?

I suspect that some people who promote the no-plane theories are part of the coverup, by proposing obviously false theories so that people will tend to lump together all alternatives to the official lie as looney, including the truth.

[LARED]

15. How does this information affect your belief in pods? nt

[dlaliberte]

80. No-plane fakery reaffirms the evidence for pods on real planes

Are you suggesting that the extra equipment (the pod) visible in several videos and photos is a similar artifact to the missing wing artifact visible in only one video that can be explained by the slow-motion processing of the video? If so, that proves you haven't looked at the pod evidence, or you are lying about what you do know.

The fact that straw men push the no-plane theories is evidence of a cover-up because it makes all theories sound just as preposterous.

And all those proposing no-plane theories need to explain why the supposedly fake videos and photos consistently show the same wrong type of planes.

[LARED]

88. I'm suggesting there is no pod

and those that cling to pod theories need help.

[dlaliberte]

91. So you are a no-pod theorist - got any evidence?

Those who cling to the official lies need help. The evidence is overwhelming, and growing. Wake up already!

[LARED]

104. You want evidence for no - pods???

In other words you want me to prove a negative. Go back to school.

[William Seger]

20. The plane parts are not really "missing"

It's just a combination the fact that the hue and intensity of the wings is so very close to being the same as the building on one side and the clouds on the other, plus some motion blur, plus loss of both image and color detail in the image compression. I'd have to dig it up again, but with a better version of the video it's possible to detect the "missing" wings with a histogram adjustment that exaggerates subtle differences. Most "no-planer" seem to know nothing at all about either videos or digital imaging in general, but that doesn't stop them from creating YouTube porn for bullshit addicts.

I always LMAO when fuzzy thinkers like Spooky claim that imaging flaws are evidence of a CGI inserted plane, when the exact opposite is true. If it's a fake, then the fakers did a really good job of duplicating the kind of imaging flaws that should be expected in real video, but the no-planers have "out-smarted" them by being too dumb to realize how good they are.

[seatnineb]

21. Faking planes is possible.

[dlaliberte]

28. possible, but not necessary and not sufficient

Although it is possible to fake images of planes, it would be difficult to do in the very short time that was available (unless they prepared them ahead of time), and it should be possible to detect the pixelation and other artifacts, and there are many people who saw the actual planes. I've seen very confusing theories of misaligned images, etc, but it is all suspicious, and moreover, it is unnecessary.

The main reason it is unnecessary to propose no-planes is that the videos we have available show the wrong planes.

Those who persist with the no-plane theories are thus part of the coverup, in my opinion.

[seatnineb]

31. Thats fair enough....just keep an open mind and its cool n/t

[hack89]

59. What type of plane do they show? nt

[dlaliberte]

68. Excuse me, but your pod is showing

* Several witnesses claim, and photos
and videos reveal, that the planes were not the normal commercial airliners we
were led to believe.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=huK0MAb0Xa4
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oVH5jm06pJY

* An off-center flash is visible in all videos a split second before
the impact of each plane, which appears to be a missile or incendiary device
fired into the buildings.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ev2qYxWI38Q
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6LrwqmSJwhQ

* To create as much fire as possible, hopefully spreading to other
floors and/or terrorizing the public with a huge fireball, the plane
crashes alone might not be enough. These missiles would have the
effect of igniting the fuel, which might otherwise not happen. Other
planes have crashed into buildings and done much less damage.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/56559

The Appendage, or Pod on Flight 175
http://letsroll911.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48%3Apod-appendage-flight-175&catid=34%3A-planes-strike-wtc&Itemid=1

"The Appendage or Pod on the Fuselage of "Flight 175" One of the more controversial issues among 911 researchers, if for no other reason than it is so obvious and easy to see that something is terribly wrong with this aircraft. It was recorded and shown by all News Media sources, CNN, ABC, FOX, New York Times, Camera-Planet, Newsday Magazine and countless others. It doesn't matter what it is. What matters is that it shouldn't be there, and shows beyond reasonable doubt that this was not Flight 175, which took off from Boston International Airport on 911."


"Boeing was asked to identify this equipment, obvious in almost all the
news photos from 911. They refused to identify it, and instead suggested
that these questions be answered by the 911 Omission."

---

Preempting the debunkers reply, copied from another thread:

Debunking the Debunkers - Appendage on Flight 175
- A Short History on Pod “Debunkers”

http://911anomalies.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/debunking-the-debunkers-appendage-on-flight-175/

"The pod “debunkers” nearly always reference the pod evidence with the ridiculous no-plane or TV fakery theories." -- hmm, sounds familiar

"The pod is actually a wing fairing or reflection" - saw that, debunked that.

How about, "It couldn't have been a pod because why would it be there? Pay no attention to that flash before impact because: The flash is a static discharge, sparks or reflection" Um, the flash is before impact, and on the right side directly in front of that pod thing.

"Conclusion

The pod and flash evidence are strong evidence for a 9/11 inside job. The “debunking” efforts are unmerited and can easily be debunked themselves. They also demonstrated the smear campaigns against the researchers themselves as demonstrated by the charges that Phil Jayhan edited the footage which we completely debunked.

We hope you keep an open mind on this subject and take a look at the aircraft evidence for yourself."

[hack89]

73. Thanks for the trip through memory lane

haven't heard from a pod person here for a very long time. Does this mean that the truth movement intends to recycle all their old arguments since they haven't found anything new in years?

[dlaliberte]

75. The truth remains true forever

Your response qualifies as a standard silly poo-poo retort, almost identical to the other response I got a couple days ago.

Show me any evidence that the evidence referenced is flawed. Otherwise, please keep your poo-poo to yourself.

[hack89]

76. Spend some time in the archives

there is a reason the pod people haven't posted here for a long time. I am not willing to condense thousands of posts into the simple answer you so desperately want.

[dlaliberte]

79. Spend some time updating your script

So you know of a reason (only one reason?) that the "pod people", as you affectionately call them, have not posted? And you claim that giving this reason would require condensing thousands of posts? Is it really that complicated? Wouldn't it serve your purpose to have a simple prepared summary?

Does it look like I desperately want a simple answer? To me it looks like you are desperately trying to avoid the issue. I'd say you have nothing beyond laughing at the pod people for your defense.

Anticipating your response to this, I expect either something like "Do your own research" or "ok, its _____" where you fill in one of the previously debunked standard debunkings, since you didn't read anything I referenced.

[hack89]

89. You're a little too late

come 20 January the 911 truth movement will deflate like an old balloon.

Sorry, but I got tired a long time ago of the same arguments over and over again - that's why I don't really care what you think. If you had something new than perhaps I would be interested in engaging with you but the truth movement is stuck in a rut - a rut that it will be in for a very long time.

[dlaliberte]

90. 20 January? Too late? What are you predicting?

Inauguration of Obama will be exciting, but by no means will it deflate the 9/11 movement. For me, it was just after the election that I started to take stock of what we were up against. Those who implemented 9/11 will still be in control.

The 9/11 movement is growing stronger. More and more evidence is coming out, and the world situation only grows worse. More people are waking up.

So, I don't think you are sorry at all. I think you have nothing new in response to what I referenced, which was new. You don't want to look at it, so you throw up a smoke screen.

[hack89]

95. Without hatred for Bush

all that will be left is a tiny core group that will spend the next 20 years rehashing the same stuff over and over again. Look at the JFK sites for a glimpse of your future.

There is no new evidence coming out - you are proof of that as you peddle pods. Call me when the movement can name just one low level conspirator - ever wonder why after seven years they still can't?

[spooked911]

229. Luc Courchesne, who made this video, is a low-level conspirator.

And anyone who was involved in making these 2nd hit videos, particularly those who have a background in 3D animation/art, is a low-level conspirator.

[William Seger]

29. LMAO! Ya think?

Well, of course it's possible to fake a plane in a video. What I was discussing was the impossibility of "no-planers" to detect it if they don't even know what to look for.

[seatnineb]

30. shit fuck No-planers like Fred want U 2 think they don't know what

...to look for.

They allow you to debunk them.

They are on your side.

You don't even know it.

[William Seger]

32. (That's what you think)

(Me and Fred were just laughing about your post at the office Christmas party. :eyes:)

[seatnineb]

34. Funny thing is U take him seriously...he wants U 2 debunk him..

Same goes for Simon Shack.

[Mist]

16. For a while now, I've thought it's not a matter of "planes/no planes," but rather

unidentified/possibly military planes, combined with faked footage of commercial jets seeming to hit the buildings. This would also account for the bits of plane wreckage not matching commercial jets.

[scrinmaster]

17. Show me plane wreckage that didn't match commercial jets.

[Mist]

18. I misspoke--the engine parts found were not consistent with a 767, but

were, apparently, commercial engine parts. My bad.

[Make7]

19. "One doesn't need to be a jet engine expert ..."

One doesn't need to be a jet engine expert to see that they are the correct size to be either high-pressure turbines or compressor rotors from a 767, which have diameters of between 2.5 and 3 feet.

The photograph on the left shows a portion of Flight 175's engine at the corner of Church and Murray Streets. The idea that this assembly, which is about three feet in diameter, is too small to be from a 767 is unfounded. Boeing 767s use high-bypass turbofan engines such as General Electric CF6-80, the Pratt & Whitney PW4062, or the Rolls-Royce RB211. Such engines have a fan measuring nearly 10 feet in diameter, but their core, containing the high-pressure turbines, compressor, and combustion chamber, is about a third of that diameter.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/

-Make7
 

[spooked911]

38. True-- but why can't we have an expert in these engines

confirm that this is the right engine for a UA 767?

[jberryhill]

45. How many have you contacted?

[spooked911]

82. I contacted a few people at a company I found that services these engines.

This was about a year back. No one returned my emails. I even used my real name.

I concluded they didn't want to touch the issue.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Because then all you would say is that the conspirators knew enough to plant the right parts.

Or that the expert was afraid of losing his job or was paid off, etc.

Seriously, why should officials spend a second of time answering your every question? Your beliefs are unfalsifiable. There is no amount of evidence you would accept here.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911

That's a gathering of accounts and pictures of plane parts from the NYC attacks. Hundreds of thousands of people saw the second plane hit WTC 2. If you can't accept that level of testimony, a expert saying it's the right engine isn't going to satisfy you at all.

[spooked911]

81. you're right

but the funny thing is that the reverse is true for you-- no amount of evidence will convince you that it was an inside job.

[spooked911]

86. let me clarify-- I *am* open to new evidence

and, I have analyzed that debris page--

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/10/aircraft-parts-around-wtc-evidence-of.html

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/10/yellow-life-jackets-everywhere-real-or.html

Note, I am somewhat open to the idea that a plane hit the north tower, but less so for the south tower.

[catnhatnh]

94. Got any data...

on the dimensions of the street sign in the photos?

[SidDithers]

26. Do you expect it to bounce off the side of the building?...nt

Sid

[seatnineb]

27. No....just enter the building more realistically

Just like this plane test in the 1960's....as it's wings get sheared by the poles:




Meanwhile on 9/11:

[William Seger]

33. How do you know what it looked like after it entered the building?

It seems reasonable to think the plane was pretty well destroyed when it crashed through that wall, and the video made from the FEA sim shows exactly that. I don't know what you're trying to say here: What would you expect it to look like from the outside?

[seatnineb]

35. I would have expected some oscillation of the wings:

Here is a plane that crashed in 1996:

See how fragile those wings are:





But the plane that hit the wtc....the wings do not oscillate at all:

[William Seger]

36. Oscillation? How much oscillation would you expect in 1/10th of a second

... when the plane is moving at over 500 MPH?

[seatnineb]

37. Typical....you hide behind the speed factor and ignore the physics.

But 1st...this is how a cgi plane crashes into water...with its wing intact....and no oscillation.







...but in the real world..the wings oscillate and/or break off

[William Seger]

39. The plane went straight into the building

... and the wings were inside within three frames. What "physics" are you talking about?

[seatnineb]

43. So how could the wings enter the building within 3 frames of video

...when in other plane crashes........wings are such fragile components:

[AZCat]

53. That looks like the Controlled Impact Demonstration.

Maybe you ought to read up on the experiment and look more closely at the photos (check the Nasa Dryden archive). The landing was orchestrated in a way intended to rupture the wing tanks. It didn't happen on accident.

[seatnineb]

54. i take your point.....but wings are fragile

[AZCat]

57. Well, "fragile" is a relative term.

It depends on where the wing is hit. The farther out, the greater the moment about the wing root, but the cross-section is also smaller. It also depends which way the wing is hit. Since the cross-section isn't symmetrical about the long axis, its response to transverse forces changes depending on the angle.

[seatnineb]

61. They can be shorn through and sheered off

If you could liken the trade center vertical perimeter colums:



to one of these steel cutters used in the 1984 nasa test:



....see the effect they have on sheering through the wing:





also note the instant ignition in the above....compared to no ignition in the plane below



despite the fact the wings of this plane are at this point shorn by the wtc

[AZCat]

63. That's the problem.

You'd need to know details of the cutters used in the CID (colloquially known as the "Crash In the Desert") and compare them to the perimeter columns in order to determine whether the behavior on impact of the wing of an aircraft would be similar.

If you look at the photos, you can see that the ignition occurs beyond the point of impact, which makes sense since the wing and fuel are traveling quite quickly. The same thing happened at the WTC towers - the ignition and subsequent fireballs started past the point of impact, not before it. In the photo at the bottom, the wings have not yet been impacted on the WTC skin - only the nose/fuselage has.

[seatnineb]

64. The wings are already partially in the wall:

I would say by half way(give or take)...with the left wing which would have made contact 1st....further inside...yet no isghn of an ignition....and the video would have been of good enough resolution to cature it...if ther had been an ignition.

[AZCat]

65. I'm not really sure where the fuel tanks are in the wings.

I'd have to look at a drawing to see if they're that far forward. The only thing that appears to have hit is the engine nacelles, which wouldn't be causing a fire.

[seatnineb]

72. This gif shows the entrance..

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Also, wings hold up those massive engines when the plane is on the ground

And support the fuselage when the plane is in the air.

So "fragile" is a very relative term here.

[seatnineb]

60. But wings can be perforated:

Like so...

This test was done in 60's...shows how those vertical poles ripp through the wings..




and from a more closer angle...see how those poles cut through the wings like butter




Also....the fuel in these wings ignite almost instantly...




something that did not happen on 9/11

[Bolo Boffin]

85. You provided no links to your pictures there.

I'm not questioning their authenticity. I just would like more details on those crashes.

Including this particular piece of information -- how much fuel did those wings have loaded into them?

Flight 175 was loaded full of fuel for an intercontinental flight -- something the terrorists were counting on.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean, seatnineb, that you are a no-planer?

[seatnineb]

97. More fuel means more chance of it igniting....

Something that did not appear to happen as the wings of flight 175 as they were perforating the building.

here are the links:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PwTKqi2znKY

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QHZY0-XUmMA

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4bDNCac2N1o&feature=related

Its up to you decide whether I am a no planer.

I am just the messenger

[Bolo Boffin]

108. More fuel meant more support for the structure of the wing

It ignited just fine once it was spread out.

You are just the messenger. It is up to me to decide whether you are a no-planer. Well, bring your message. Do you think those videos are faked? Because that's the crucial message. Take some responsibility for your convictions.

Your namesake did.

[seatnineb]

113. I don't think so.

It ignited once it spread(inside the building)?

What stopped it from igniting here:


...when a spark for ignition had already been provided when the cockpit hit the wall



Yes...I think all those 45 videos and counting are fake.

If i am wrong...so be it.

[AZCat]

115. It doesn't matter if the spark is there if the fuel isn't exposed yet.

The fuel still wouldn't ignite until the tanks were compromised.

[seatnineb]

139. But the tanks are exposed....the wings are being cut by the steel!

And this is where the fuel is being stored:



..and those wings are crashing against the floors:



..which contained the electrics for the lighting ect ect.

Yet there is no inginition of that fuel in the wings.



Impossible

[Bolo Boffin]

141. You still haven't provided links to information about those other crashes

where we could find out things like those planes being low on fuel or low on speed or purposely run to burn fuel before attempted crash landings.

You know, things that would make them utterly useless to compare to Flight 175.

[seatnineb]

145. So you are not going to ignore me then! LOL!

The rest of your post is a pathetic joke.

[Bolo Boffin]

154. I didn't say I was going to put you on Ignore.

I said I have the choice to confidently ignore you if I wish.

You will seize upon anything rather than document your crash pictures.

[seatnineb]

169. But will NEVER ignore you.It's my duty. n/t

[AZCat]

144. No, no, you've got it all wrong.

The fuel doesn't ignite while it is still in the tanks (not really, anyway). It must be either a vapor or aerosolized (which lets it get very quickly to a vapor) in order to combust. That doesn't happen while it's still in the tanks. The breach occurs, and the fuel begins to leave the tanks as a mixture of liquid and vapor (the quality depends on the circumstances). Only then does the fuel ignite. In our case, by the time this happens the aircraft wings have penetrated into the structure and we don't see the fireball on the outside of the building.

[seatnineb]

146. LOL! I never said it ignited in the tanks!

As for this:

the breach occurs, and the fuel begins to leave the tanks as a mixture of liquid and vapor (the quality depends on the circumstances). Only then does the fuel ignite

It is correct:

These wings are now half way in the building



...which means they have been breached...and yet there is no ignition.

I noted you tried to say that the foto in question showed the wings having not made contact with the wtc skin.

You knew you were wrong...so did LARED and Bolo..yet they said nothing!
LOL!

[AZCat]

147. The one you showed earlier was before the wings made contact.

At least that's what it looks like to me.

What you are missing is that the ignition may indeed be occurring, yet not apparent to those on the outside. It may be blocked by the wing, or the structure itself.

[seatnineb]

149. A plausible explanation that maybe the view of the ignition is blocked

But that is why i specifically chose this foto which shows contact and penetration.



...and not something like this:



..which shows the plane's approach BEFORE it has contacted the building.

But when the cockpit hit the wall...there was an instant fire/explosion/spark:

[AZCat]

150. You mean we SAW a burst of light (whatever it was) when the cockpit hit.

There may have been others that occurred later that we were just not in a position to see. I'm not saying that my hypothesis is correct, just that it's plausible.

[seatnineb]

151. I respect your hypothesis and I believe it is the only explanation

if you believe in a plane hitting the building.

But having seen other plane crashes involving ruptured fuel tanks...I am convinced that it is a fake.

[AZCat]

152. That's cool.

Doubts are one thing; certainty is another.

[seatnineb]

170. Well iam certain that Flight 175's did not ignite when they should have done

[vincent_vega_lives]

175. It takes more than the fuel tanks to be ruptured for an explosion

1. Tanks ruptured
2. fuel arsolized
3. ignition source.

This takes time. granted only fractions of a second, but with an aircraft moving at over 700 feet per second, an object can move quiet a distance and with great momentum in fractions of a second.

[seatnineb]

179. The circumstances were already conducive for an explosion:

When the cockpit(which contains the electronics) hit the facade there was a flash/explosion



Yet as the wings enter...no explosion:



Eventhough every plane crash that features ruptured fuel tanks has a fire

[vincent_vega_lives]

187. Not quite that simple

When the cockpit(which contains the electronics) hit the facade there was a flash/explosion

But no aerosoled fuel yet.

Yet as the wings enter...no explosion:

not quite yet. time keeps on ticking, ticking, ticking, into the future...tanks ruptured, but fuel not yet at the right air/fuel mixture for conflagration, and recall that the fuel required for ingition continues to move forward at the same speed of the aircraft. it will take a few fractions of a second for the expanding gas cloud, which is a relative low speed conflagration, not a detonation mind you, to overcome that forward speed of some 700 fps and exit the building on the side the plane hit.

Eventhough every plane crash that features ruptured fuel tanks has a fire

As did this one...both of them, and claiming otherwise is just plane crazy.

[seatnineb]

190. Ok....a reasonable hypothesis.....but

The purdue analysis indicates that the fuel tanks are not ruptured until after the plane has entered the building:





Which is hilariouse.....becos the wings would have been ruptured instantly....this is what happend to british airways plane when it's wing collided with another plane:



Witnesses reported seeing part of the engine of a British Airways jumbo jet aircraft, Flight BA011, falling onto the runway when it collided with the tip of the wing of an Sri Lankan Airlines Airbus A340.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566334/Planes-collide-at-Heathrow-airport.html

And whilst the fuel/airmixture of the wings may not be enough for conflagaration....the already burning fuel/air mixture in the engines certainly is:

Yet still no explosion/fire/flash as the engine is inside:


Wierd.

[Bolo Boffin]

116. Your opinion about it doesn't matter here. A liquid provides support for the container it's in.

That's just the way the world works.

And it's incredible to me that you think 45 videos and counting have been faked. However, I am glad to hear it because I can choose to safely ignore anything you say from now on. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

[seatnineb]

140. In other words....you have no rebutal...ignorance is bliss huh? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

142. Sorry, ball's in your court

You haven't provided the links yet. Makes me think you're the one that know you're busted.

[seatnineb]

148. You wanna spam....its all you got left...and it ain't enough to save you.

Have a dose of tragic reality:

As a consequence of the events, the BEA said, "at least one fuel tank was ruptured in one or more places, resulting in a substantial fuel leak.

"The leaking fuel caught light and a very violent fire ensued throughout the duration of the flight. The fire broke out within a few seconds of the tyre blowout and thrust was lost in one, then two, engines.

This is what happened to that plane:



Yet on 9/11...ruptured fuel tanks do not explode:

[Bolo Boffin]

155. "Yet on 9/11...ruptured fuel tanks do not explode"

Um...



There's a little problem with your police work, seatnineb.

[seatnineb]

157. I am not talking about the plane once it is completely inside the building

...and you know that.

I am talking about the plane as it enters the building:



I see no fuel tank explosion.

Do you?

[Bolo Boffin]

158. ...

How much time elapses between the two?

I mean, I know that when you look at all the frames in between, one by one, it seems like hours go by.

But, really, how much time elapses between that frame and the explosion?

Just enough time for a ruptured fuel tank to start scattering fuel around?

Q: Your picture of the Concorde on fire, is that at the instant the fuel tank ruptured?

[seatnineb]

159. Every other plane crash features an instaneouse explosion

...as soon as the fuel tank is ruptured:





Its only the 9/11 plane(if as you believe it is real) that does not:


I am not sure about the concorde foto other than to use this:

Debris was thrown against the wing structure leading to a rupture of tank 5. A major fire, fuelled by the leak, broke out almost immediately under the left wing.
http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Concorde,_Air_France,_AW_GND_FIRE_LOC,_Paris_France,_2000.

[Bolo Boffin]

160. Almost immediately

I don't see the problem here.

Well, I do. You're making up criteria, refusing to provide links to be held accountable, and working up a story over it all.

But that's not anyone's problem but your own.

[seatnineb]

166. No that's your problem

I'll let the pictures do the talking

Flight 175's sheered wing(and it has to be seeing as it is partially inside the facade)..failing to ignite instantly




...and a REAL plane's wings instantly igniting:

[Bolo Boffin]

181. You still didn't provide links to other information about your second plane.

So that we can judge "instantaneous" for ourselves.

[seatnineb]

185. I provided links to the videos...and I am sure U can count n/t

[scrinmaster]

93. Those aircraft were probably traveling much slower than the airliners that hit the WTC and Pentagon.

[seatnineb]

96. Steel will always sheer through the wings..no matter what the speed.

Remember newtons 3rd law of motion..

For every action...there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[LARED]

103. LOL -

That's about the dumbest thing said in a while, and truly betrays your ignorance.

[seatnineb]

106. The only thing which is Dumb is the shit that U believe in....

Like this;



In the words of Stanley Praimath:
The bottom wing just sliced to my left,<snip>.
The bottom wing just sliced right through the office<snip>
The plane wing is wedged in the office door 20 feet from where I am...under that desk"

Yet Praimath's office was in the corner of the 81st floor(highlighted)



Care to tell me how an aluminium wing has gone through a steel facade..and through steel/concrete floors.....LOfuckinL!

[LARED]

137. According to your logic it is impossible for water to cut steel

Yet it happens ever day.

[seatnineb]

143. Pathetic analogy...

And what does the steel do to the aluminium.

It shreds it:

Here is THE STEEL cutter:


And its effect on an aluminium wing

[LARED]

153. You're right it was a lousy analogy

So let me ask you a question. I have a 1" carbon steel pipe in my garage. There is an aluminum lamp post on the corner of my street. According to you "Steel will always sheer through the wings..no matter what the speed"

So according to you if I struck the pole (0 velocity) with my pipe (~10 to 15 MPH) I should be able to sheer right through it no problem.

[seatnineb]

156. How bout hitting a steel post with an an aluminium pipe LOL!

So are you seriously saying that the wings of the plane sheered steel columns without being sheered themselves?

LOL!

[LARED]

161. No nt

[seatnineb]

167. Then tell that to purdue.

Who seem to believe that a planes wings can remain intact as they perforate a steel concrete structure:




..real wings are far more fragile:

[Realityhack]

212. A largely horizontal impact at lower speed works differently...

than a higher speed vertical impact. I am shocked I tell ya... SHOCKED!!!!!

Seriously. Have you seen solid block impact tests for aircraft? The wings don't sheer off. They took some time to sheer off in the horizontal test you show, much further distance wise than they had in the 9-11 impacts.

Your juvenile 'analysis' based on what appears to be willful ignorance is pathetic.

[seatnineb]

213. Make a proper comparison:

There is displacement of debris from the wall...the moment the f-4 phantom hits:
I would assume portions of the wing to be part of that debris.


Wheras Flight 175 is nearly 2/3rds inside or completely inside before any displacement of debris is seen...and the wings completely penetrate:



Which does not conform to any other plane crash physics:



Got anything else to offer?

[William Seger]

162. You persist in repeating that logical fallacy

The sensible explanation is that the wings and the columns were both destroyed in the impact (actually, the tips of the wings didn't cut through the columns), but the debris from both mostly went into the building because of the inertia. There is no reason to assume that the wings "sheered steel columns without being sheered themselves," and you can't post enough LOLs to cover up this flaw in your reasoning. And the idea that aluminum wings can't cut through steel is a good example of how your "common sense" cannot be trusted. You can cut through steel with anything (including liquids and gasses) by simply putting more strain energy into the steel than it can withstand. That energy was (mass*velocity^2)/2 of the wing, regardless of the composition, but you also persist in ignoring that the wings were not all aluminum -- they had a strong alloy framework -- and that the wing tanks were filled with fuel which had much more kinetic energy than the aluminum skin.

WHY do you keep throwing out the same failed arguments? It's pointless and annoying.

[seatnineb]

168. The fallacy is yours

Starting with this:

You say debris from the wings both mostly went into the building:

Sorry mate..according to the video...the whole wing tip went into the building

Frame 1


frame2


your own video debunks you.

The rest of your reasoning is flawed.

[William Seger]

176. You've got to be kidding

In the first place, enlarging those video frames doesn't actually add any details that aren't in the original, and there's certainly not enough detail to tell what happening to the wings. Specifically, if they've been shattered into small pieces, you're NOT going to be able to resolve those pieces in that video.

Second, that's NOT a solid wall: it's 14" square columns about 39" on center, with windows between. (And btw, if those columns and windows aren't even resolved in the video, why would you expect to see severed columns and small pieces of debris?) MOST of the debris simply went through the windows, even at the wingtips where the columns were not cut.

Third, in frames after your last one, you CAN make out vague, unresolved clouds of debris where the wings hit. You're trying to pull a fast one by not showing those frames.

Fourth, if you'll check out the reports from the scene, you'll find that there WAS a lot of small plane debris on the street after the crash, so the plane certainly did not "melt" into the building as no-planer crackpots assert after looking at fuzzy videos and applying fuzzy thinking.

[seatnineb]

177. Wrong

The video was of sufficient resolution to capture fine particulates.

As witnessed by the ensueing explosion:



If ANYTHING had broken off that wing we would have seen it.

As for the wall not being solid you are correct....but the wtc was not just composed of an outer wall.

There were the floors:


and the core:



..all of which would effect the deceleration and momentum of the plane as it entered the building.

The clouds you refer to emanate from the WTC after the plane enters the building ..where is the same cloud as the wings are partially inside and out......oh yeah..nowhere to be seen.



As for the plane parts that you mention...gotta link that showsto pieces of wing on the streets ...or specifically wing tips...did not think so.

[Bolo Boffin]

182. You have some nerve asking for links when you refuse to provide them yourself. n/t

[seatnineb]

186. Yawn...is this the best that DU's 9/11 debukah's have to offer.

You got any links to wing parts being found on liberty street or somewhere south of the south tower?

Did not think so...but hey i could be wrong.

[Bolo Boffin]

191. No links for you until you produce the links you've been asked for previously

By continuing to evade these requests, you demonstrate a lack of good faith in these discussions.

[seatnineb]

194. Bolo...stop describing yourself. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

195. More evasions from seat. n/t

[seatnineb]

196. Just saying it does not make it true Bolo.

Funny...if you really had a link to show that parts of the wing did in fact break off and fall down on the south side of the south tower...you would have produced them...knowing that it would debunk me....but so far nothing.

Instead..all you can do is spam.

Keep trying.

[Bolo Boffin]

198. No, but the facts bear me out.

You've been asked to provide links to information. Instead, you quickly began demanding links from others and playing this silly game.

No links for you until you demonstrate good faith. I will not be holding my breath.

[seatnineb]

201. Keep waiting..whilst I bludgeon U with more doses of real plane crashes

[vincent_vega_lives]

189. "fine particulates". ROFL!!!

I hope you are never hit by one of your "fine particulates" in that photo. By comparing them to the WTC corner piece, each must be between 6 and 12 feet long.

Unless you are referring to the smoke, which is certainly consists of "fine particulates".

[seatnineb]

192. No wonder you believe in the plane videos...U can't see

The fragments in the video maybe glass/concrete/steel...whatever....but they are vidible:



Yet when the planeENTERED the building.....no fragments sheered off its wings...or any other part of the plane:



meanwhile in the real world:

[William Seger]

214. Jeeeez

Talk about cognitive dissonance. Your own photo below shows debris falling immediately after the impact:


Granted, you can't tell from that photo what's plane debris and what's building debris, but we KNOW from other photos and eyewitness accounts that there was plane debris:

http://74.125.95.102/translate_c?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.pbase.com/peteburke73/image/1459859&prev=/search%3Fq%3DFBI%2Breport%2Binterview%2Bof%2Bdetective%2Bchin%2Bseptember%2B12%2B2001%26start%3D30%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26pwst%3D1&usg=ALkJrhgDSm1Ip-Xga1pAOifqSya8Um9_nQ

Was that witness mistaken about some of the debris being plane debris? No:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911 (Scroll down to see the debris on Liberty Street.)

It's easy to see why even most "truthers" think that "no-planers" must be disinfo: It's hard to believe that they really believe the things they assert. But I've had that same feeling over several decades of listening to crackpots, so I don't see any need to suppose that the bad guys put the "no planers" up to making the "truth movement" look bad. Crackpottery is a fascinating subject.

[seatnineb]

219. I am not denying that there was plane debris...

Or that there were smoke plumes after the engines entered:

But when the wings enter:

there are no parts OF THE WING BREAKING OFF:

Tell me Will do you actually see anything breaking off in these 4 frames:






If there was...the resolution would have been good enough to capture it:

[William Seger]

216. And BTW

... I can't help but noticing that you're trying to duck out of the fact that the frames immediately following the impact DO show clouds of debris where the wing tips hit:



Your argument isn't just preposterously illogical: it's fraudulent.

[seatnineb]

218. Dont be shy Seagar...show people a larger picture.

The wing tip enters:



In the subsequent frame nothing is seen:



BTW..gotta link to wing parts being found south of the wtc?

Or do you just make stuff up as you go along.

[William Seger]

220. You need ot look up the "rule of holes"

(Here's a hint: http://www.incits.org/tc_home/v2htm/docs/minutes/0301V2P10/ViceChairSlides/slide-1.html)

Enlarging the photos doesn't add any real detail, of course, and I seriously doubt that anything I post will cause you to open your eyes, but here's an enlarged photo a couple of frames after where you dishonestly lose interest, clearly showing what you claim doesn't exist: an (unresolved) cloud of debris being blown back after the wings entered the building:



And, in fact, with a little histogram adjustment, we can see those clouds beginning to form in the enlarged photo YOU posted:



As for "wing parts being found south of the wtc," I've already told you what I think happened: Any part of the plane that hit steel columns would have shattered into small pieces, and parts that hit the (wider) windows would have gone right through. I've shown you your own photo, showing debris falling after the impact, and I've linked to plenty of photos of plane parts. For you to continue to insist that your irrational and debunked argument should be taken seriously unless someone can identify the "wing parts" in those photos is beyond absurd: it's fraudulent.

And that will have to do it, for a few days at least. When I get back home and find that you have once again restated the same bullshit while completely ignoring the obvious rebuttal, then maybe I'll take it up again. Or maybe not.

[seatnineb]

222. I'm more than glad to show people what U don't want them to see.

In frame 1 the wing tip is on the verge of entering:



In Frame 2 the wing tip has entered..and there IS NO SMOKE PLUME...this is the frame u don't want people to see.



In frame 3 the smoke plume begins to form



So these 2 frames show what the wall looked like without a smoke plume:

And what it looked like with a smoke plume:


No need for your histogram bullshit..which don't actually show anything anyway.

So according to the video the wingtip enters the buiding-and only afterwards does a smoke plume form...something which is clearly impossible.

Just to remind people of how fragile wing tips are:

This wing tip was ripped of a British airways jet after it collided with another plane on a runway:



And you have no fotos of damaged wing parts south of the WTC.
Becos no parts of the wing broke off the plane(according to the video)
Period.

And I will be waiting for you IF you return.

[Vroomfondel]

138. This video looks fake to me

It's not one that I've seen before. Also, the numerous south tower plane-hit vids I've seen are fairly unambiguous. 9/11 was definitely an inside job, but I am quite sure that two 757's hit the towers. I think that suggesting otherwise is disinformation to make those who question 9/11 look like fringe nuts.

[anigbrowl]

199. Time for this hideously malformed thread to die

[seatnineb]

202. Probably cos your group have had an ass-kicking n/t

[anigbrowl]

203. I don't think endlessly repeating BS counts as kicking ass.

[seatnineb]

204. Thats why your side has not kicked any!

[anigbrowl]

205. Wow. I bet you came up with that all by yourself too

The OP is about video suggesting maybe one of the planes wasn't there. It's been clearly demonstrated that this is a video artifact of the slow-motion process used on the footage. Thus, /thread.

[seatnineb]

208. But this witness did not see the plane that you claim exists.

'Handschuh was standing on the corner of Liberty and West when he heard a noise that "seemed to come from everywhere." He thought that perhaps a large natural gas main in the building let go. "But all of the sudden the second tower explodes into flame. And I'm standing underneath it. And I think, OK. This is a second bomb. This is not an accident." Handschuh instinctively raised the camera to his eye. "I have the fireball coming out of the West Street side".
http://www.takegreatpictures.com/HOME/Colu...ne_Eleven_0.fci

This is Handshuh's foto...revealing his viewing angle:



He would have seen this plane...if it really existed:

[William Seger]

215. Wow. "He would have seen this plane..."

... if he was looking up. :eyes:

[seatnineb]

217. He was looking up..i emailed and asked him..I suggest you do the same

Here is his email address:

[e-mail]

To say he was not looking up actually shows that you spout bullshit....without a shred of evidence to back up your bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

224. Okay....if you e-mailed him.....

it shouldn't be hard to post his e-mail address here. For that matter, it shouldn't be hard for you to post the e-mail you claim to have received from him.

[seatnineb]

225. I have posted his email address-can U read?

And if you are so fuckin cocksure that I am lying...then all U gotta do is email him and ask....can't be difficult now can it?

Or maybe it is.

[SDuderstadt]

226. Sorry...I overlooked the e-mail address, but....

I e-mailed him and he said he was not looking up.

[seatnineb]

227. You did...that was quick ! LOL! n/t

[Redstone]

228. Uh, guys? Things SHEAR off airplanes upon impact, not SHEER.

Redstone