i have my own views as to which testimony is more reliable. it's hard for me to believe this sort of thing is done in good faith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc_abbtRBEo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcxx4GF_53g
That little animated image is self-defeating as far as the argument about the tail staying centered int he frame. The camera is clearly moving with the plane and relative to the backdrop. You can see quite clearly in the first picture that there is more space to the right side of the building at the end of the video than at the beginning. That's how motions of observers relative to the observed bodies works. If you run at the same speed as someone else, it doesn't appear that either of you is moving. On the same note, if you run past someone running the opposite way, moving at the same speed as yourself, they appear to move twice as fast to you. In a relative sense, the building DOES move into the plane, but only because the camera's movement has given the plane the appearance of a stationary object.
i find the lack of wake vortex particularly compromising to the plane theory. @ 0:30 onwards, one sees a lovely mushroom cloud floating undisturbed in the seconds after "impact". a large plane at speed throws off extremely powerful wake-vortex, not apparent here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkZKOqYMbXo&feature=related
to valject:
i look at 0:55 onwards in the clip provided by onebornfree, and i see the background stable, camera equidistant from the two buildings.
The particular video you have linked couldn't possibly have shown a wake vortex. They dissipate in a second or two, and the camera wasn't zoomed in on impact. Also, the video's main subject is ludicrous. First off, the mark being indicated by an arrow isn't made from impact with a plane. It's made from shit melting inside the building...which, by the way, can CLEARLY BE SEEN HAPPENING IN THE VIDEO. The black mark slowly extends from the point of impact as time lapses.
A wingtip vortex can last longer, but running into a building will scatter the vortex, and that's putting aside the effects of the heated air and other gases during the explosion, not to mention the jetwash pushing the wingtip vortex outward, since the jets are under the wing.
http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html
no wake vortex apparent at 2:10 onwards, where apparently a "plane" has just travelled into a building at several hundred mph. hollywood's good, but not that good.
as i understand it, wake vortex lasts much last longer than one or two seconds. airports allow at least five minutes between flights for the effect to dissipate. the cloud is undisturbed by any apparent wake turbulence.
"i look at 0:55 onwards in the clip provided by onebornfree, and i see the background stable, camera equidistant from the two buildings. "
Strange, that. I see a building that has moved a good half-inch from the right side of the screen.
"no wake vortex apparent at 2:10 onwards, where apparently a "plane" has just travelled into a building at several hundred mph. hollywood's good, but not that good."
Putting aside that that video seems to imply that the nose of the plane striking a building should immediately cause the tail to slow down, which, by the way, if it did, it would be measured in deci-seconds, tops, what exactly is it you're expecting to see? You wouldn't see a wake vortex except in the swirling smoke of the explosion, by which time the vortex has dissipated. Are you perhaps thinking of jetwash? Jetwash disappears the moment the engine hits that building, one way or another. And at that distance, with such a lousy camera to boot, jetwash is all but invisible, especially against the backdrop of the open sky. Pay attention to a plane overhead flying into a cloud some time. You barely see the wake vortex, if you see it at all.
The wingtip vortex is what lasts about two or three minutes, but it is almost entirely outside the field of the plane, along the sides of the wings. It doesn't move ahead of the plane, as the drag of the wings is required to create it, and it lasts a while, but parts as it lasts. So it can be a danger to a plane taking off for a few minutes, because the next plane might cross that path. The vortex does not stay in one place the entire time.
http://is.gd/yB0cjB
seems real to me.
Nobody's saying they ain't real. I'm saying you can't see them. Geez, look at how small it is from THAT distance. It could be a smoke curl from several hundred feet away. If it was visible past all the smoke around it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk
this cloud looks perfectly undisturbed as it floats away from the building. i don't buy it.
Once it floats away it's not in the vortex. Look at the picture you JUST sent me as an example. That is a very, very big cloud anyway. You wouldn't see a wake vortex being kicked up inside it. Look at the size of the plane compared to that smoke, and consider the fact that the explosion is an outward force that likely far out-accelerates the speed of the wind in the vortex. And you're ignoring the fact that a wake vortex exists in open air, but scatters immediately on impact with a building.
i'm not ignoring this. after the explosion has passed, i'd still expect far more residual turbulence from displaced air arising from a very large commercial aircraft at high speed disappearing into a buiding. the cloud is indeed big, but looks completely undisturbed as it gently flloats up and away from the building.
newson: i'm not taking a stand on the visuals of the demolition itself (undecided), but the aftermath does show a notable lack of rubble. and the seismic footprint doesn't seem right.
i'm not taking a stand on the visuals of the demolition itself (undecided), but the aftermath does show a notable lack of rubble. and the seismic footprint doesn't seem right.
Unfortunately, there are many similar problems [shadow, sunlight, strange buildings and other anomalies] with most of the still photographic record that Prof. Wood uses to bolster her arguments. Remember, there is no way of knowing for sure whether or not those photos are real [just as with the collapse sequences].
False In One False In All?
For myself, I found it safest to apply the common law legal principle of "false in one, false in all"- that is, once the conclusion is reached that the "plane into building" videos are all clear fakes [due to the impossibility of the physics involved and other anomalies] , that it is far safer for me to assume that all of the other photographic evidence is also fake, unless it can be proved otherwise "beyond a reasonable doubt", rather than waste time theorizing as to exactly what was used to demolish the towers.
Fake plane videos mean that planes could not have caused the towers to collapse, [because there weren't any] , doubly so since if real planes _had_ hit, they still could not cause the collapses seen in the footage.
In other words, I find:
[1] Plane into building videos are all fakes,
[2] I must therefor assume "false in one, false in all", that is, once a "witness" [i.e. the government and the media], has given testimony that is proven to be false [i.e. all "plane into/through building" videos], then it should be assumed that all of the other "evidence" supplied by that witness cannot be trusted [no exceptions!].
[3] based on "false in one, false in all" principles, I concluded for myself that is far safer to not believe any part of the governments story[i.e.no hijacked planes, no hijackers, no planes into buildings, no magic 10-20 second collapses, and far fewer victims than the 3000 odd claimed -if any].
If you are interested, I wrote an essay on my unusually warped line of reasoning called "9/11 Video and Victim Fakery, the Matrix, vs. your Freedom" here: http://www.beyondpoliticsand911.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=395&sid=be2ac2ac00a7c95575374a5cd4cb487c
Regards,onebornfree.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
So are all the people that saw a plane hit the building liars? Are they deluded? Co-conpsirators? Attention hounds?
Well its all speculation isnt it. I would say anyone that you saw interviewed on the news was scripted. As for actual individuals, i think most of them didn't see anything, but are just saying they did(liars if you want). But there may be some that actually did see the planes hit the towers it would take an ACTUAL investigation to know for sure right?
I would wager hundreds of different news stations interviewed hundreds if not thousands of different eyewitnesses that said they saw a plane hit the second tower. Are you saying that in every case there was someone manufacturing witnesses? So not only are there conspirators in the government, but literally every single news director and news reporter that covered 9/11?
I have investigated off and on for five years 9/11, watched nearly every single video/audio and seen every image available. I have over 10000 pictures of 9/11 i have 50gb of original news footage, over 20 lectures, over 50 documentaries.
My conclusion: three controlled demoilitions and four missiles. (possibly three missiles, as shankesville could have been a bomb inside a trailer or a missile hitting a trailer.)
I have covered every question you can think of and i have a general idea of who had the means, who benefitted and who is actually responsible. As well as how they managed to wire up the buildings, what happened to the air defenses. How they managed to take over the media and how they managed to not allow incriminating footage of missiles or bombs get on to the TV or internet.
But to be honest, you do not want to know. just forgot about it...
Give me a rough estimate of how many people are in on the conspiracy? It must be over 10,000.
With decompartmentalization and intelligence classifcation it is far less. There is a handful of people that know the whole truth, then there is a bigger group that know some of the truth and then there is a bit bigger group that know the official story was a lie but do not know the whole truth.
It would not require that many people if you understand how they could have done it, once you have an actual official lie to work with, people do not need to actually know it is a lie, they can just repeat the lie and people will think it is the truth.
Why can't i edit or delete my posts in this thread, i wanted to delete my previous post.
Can you give me a rough estimate of how many people know the whole truth (or most of it) and how many people aided the conspiracy?
Very difficult to say as it was a complicated operation with many aspects.
I would say the initial people responsible for the idea was under 100. Then each aspect would have someone that would be responsbile for that aspect alone and they would not know the entire picture. But even then of that 100 a percentage might not have known the full extent to what was going to happen, that we will never know.
Probably a team did wtc 1 and 2 with roll on or spray on (gel) explosive, i couldn't estimate the team, but not much. 30-50 ?
Remember It would be within the interest of the people responsible that as little people know as possible and people that did know too much were most likely threatened or killed off as can be seen in various examples that i will not go into.
So we had the inital people behind it, the people wiring up wtc 1 and 2, apparently 7 was already wired up for demolition as a security measure during construction. Then we definitely had a IT team of hackers that did various things that i won't go into.
The media is another aspect but the anchors and camera man and everyone in the studio were not "in on it" if that is what you think. But that is also complicated.
The biggest operation came afterwards with cover up that lasted years. But by that time they had the official lie and people did not need to "in on it" to actually assist with furthering the conspiracy.
I do have answers to your questions, honeslty. But I do not think this is realy the best place for this topic and to be honest, i do not care to try and convince you. I have had countless arguments/discussions about 911 on internet forums with people of all types.
Even if i answered your questions i doubt that i would be able to convince you anyway, you are probably just humouring the topic out of curiosity and laughing your ass off.
It is also a lenghty topic and would require a lot of typing to answer your questions properly. I will answer your questions briefly.
1) there was witnesses that said it was a missile and there was witnesses that said it was not a plane and that it was a bomb, don dahler first witness on abc, first thing he said is that it was a missile.
2) I do not know what sort of compensation or threats against family or their own life, i would be speculating.
3) same as above
4) same as above
Very well. You figured it out. It wasn't a plane crashing into a building. It was me. I cast a magic spell that caused this "plane" to crash into a building. I sat in a dark room with candles all over the floor, summoning demons to do my bidding. The lack of a vortex is because I cancelled it out with magical energies equivalent to the swirling air. Let me tell you, the calculations were very tricky. Almost opened a gate to hell. And causing that explosion with a magical fireball at PRECISELY the right time was no picnic, either.
Don't worry, though. All the people that supposedly died were just magical figments of the imagination. I tried to soothe things a little by also creating the illusion that those people might not have existed, but were made up by the authorities.
i think reynolds does a reasonable job addressing the witness issue here:
http://nomoregames.net/2008/02/28/the-original-no-planers-most-witnesses-at-the-wtc-heard-and-saw-no-planes/
holmgren also has a concise piece - why they didn't use planes - which make the case that witnesses are a tractable problem, if the presumption be that the media is in the loop.
http://www.911closeup.com/
Download mp3 of don dahler first abc witness. Now if you listen to the audio carefully, my theory is that they edited the audio by inserting the word "prop" before the word plane. While don was saying this was not a plane they made out as if he was saying that it was not a prop plane.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=2674UACR
but isn't that more or less what the official version boils down to - some mystic in a room of candles, plans and executes a devilish military operation through a mental haze of renal failure? and yet still manages to avoid the fbi wanted-list for the very same crime?
Yes. That's the point I'm making. You can neither prove that it happened as portrayed in media, nor that it was a conspiracy. Any amount of claims of fake video can be made for either side. But the conspiracy side is the one existing in the realm of "magic". It is the one that has the most details to be fleshed out. Therefore, you can't just make a claim, receive a counter-claim, and then make your own claim again without addressing the counter-claim. It's easy to appeal to conspiracy. But a conspiracy on thin evidence, with the old "Well, a bunch of people are involved in a cover-up" as an answer to any possible brick wall the conspiracy might hit, makes the entire debate worthless. Show why a lack of a wake vortex proves anything. "Hollywood isn't that good" isn't an argument. Can you say without any doubt that you can account for every atmospheric phenomenon, the force of the explosion, the size of the smoke cloud, the suction of air through the building, the building as a blockade to wind, etc, as it might interfere with a wake vortex? I wager that you cannot, unless you are just heedless of anything relevant. And it's easy to say that a group of people keeps it hush-hush. How? What are the factors that could make it more difficult for them to do so? I in no way suggest conspiracies aren't possible. I cannot prove here and now that anyone on that plane existed. I don't know them, I don't know their families, and I can't even say that there isn't a giant conspiracy against me and that the WTC is still standing...everyone's just pulling a gag on me. But you have to show me a little more than your own personal promise that it happened, and your flat out denial of any rebuttal without an explanation.
Until then, I did it with magic.
nothing to do with the planes-yes-or-no argument, the wtc site's appearance is bizarre. the photos under the headings "steam" and "rust" are begging for some explanation.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt4.html
to valject;
no, i cannot prove what the wake of the putative jet would look like as it interacted with the smoke cloud. but the cloud strikes me as incongruent with the wake of a 500 mph airliner's wings. even if the impact truncates the vortex. there's still of a lot of air that still should be in flux, and i can't see it in the filmettes.
everyone knows airplanes hit the world trade towers. what we don't know is to what extent members of our rogue government knew about the event before it happened and what part if any they played in it.
The people who are saying there were no airplanes, are trying to confuse the issue and make the 9/11 truthers look bad.
smartass: "9/11 truthers are doing a fine job of that themselves".
me: well, that is your opinion, but these "no planes" people are still trying to confuse the issue and make them look even worse.
"everyone" doesn't know. i certainly didn't bother to think about airplanes/no airplanes, but others obviously did, hence the discussion about morgan reynolds etc.
i wasn't there personally to see anything, so necessarily believed what i saw on tv. whether the theory appeals to the public or is confusing not interests me little.
to onebornfree:
i don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. that some of the footage is suspect, doesn't mean that all is. any great deception is built with a certain element of truth.
the afterwards-shots of the site displayed by woods and others don't seem doctored, nor does a manipulation really make sense. i mean, fumes coming from the site many years after the event don't really help the conventional narrative (how many years can carpets tiles burn for?), nor does instant rust or structural joint-failure seen in the reconstruction zone. what is with all this bringing and removing of topsoil, anyway? i'd be less interested in the method of demolition used were it not for the strange aftermath of the destruction.
i'm wanting some sort of explanation for shots like this truck, with a round puncture hole in glass, and weird, pattern-burning. conventional demolition or explosion doesn't satisfy me here.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/indexpics/010911_WTC6_911_1328.jpg
i want somebody to explain cogently why primed and painted steel is rusting almost immediately in the site area. see disintegrating beams:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ3.html#beams
to mountain dew:
no-planes necessarily implies media complicity. complicity doesn't necessarily mean vast numbers of conspirators.
directed energy was apparently trialed in the panama invasion many years ago, so it's not strictly comic-book stuff. perhaps 9/11 was a more sophisticated and large-scale implementation of new weapon technology. i don't know, but it's something i won't exclude a priori.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4395186847658162031#
strange disfigured metal debris similar to that located in the vicinity of 9/11 also was found in the invasion of iraq, suggesting battle tests of new directed energy weaponry. completely unburnt bodies with heads and test completely incinerated.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3270057318896077743#