9/11 Truth

Reply

onebornfree replied on Fri, Mar 12 2010 12:07 PM

rated by 0 users

BibleLibertarian:

I have watched a few a few "9/11 truther" videos, including Loose Change and Truth Rising out of curiosity. I have still not made up my mind about what happened because I cannot trust that either the 9/11 Commission Report (which I have also read) or the conspiracy theories have all the facts available.

Have you seen "September Clues" ?

Regards, onebornfree.

Reply

viresh amin replied on Fri, Mar 12 2010 5:18 PM

rated by 0 users

Anyone read the Charlie Sheen open letter?

I recently had the pleasure of sitting down with our 44^th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, while he was out promoting his health care reform initiative. I requested 30 minutes given the scope and detail of my inquiry; they said I could have 20. Twenty minutes, 1200 seconds, not a lot of time to question the President about one of the most important events in our nation’s history. The following is a transcript of our remarkable discussion.

————————————————————————————————————————

Charlie Sheen – Good afternoon Mr. President, thank you so much for taking time out of your demanding schedule.

President Barack Obama – My pleasure, the content of your request seemed like something I should carve out a few minutes for.

CS – I should point out that I voted for you, as your promises of hope and change, transparency and accountability, as well as putting government back into the hands of the American people, struck an emotional chord in me that I hadn’t felt in quite some time, perhaps ever.

PBO – And I appreciate that Charlie. Big fan of the show, by the way.

CS – Sir, I can’t imagine when you might find the time to actually watch my show given the measure of what you inherited.

PBO – I have it Tivo’d on Air Force One. Nice break from the traveling press corps. (He glances at his watch) not to be abrupt or to rush you, but you have 19 minutes left.

CS – I’ll take that as an invitation to cut to the chase.

PBO – I’m all ears. Or so I’ve been told.

CS - Sir, in the very near future we will be experiencing our first 9/11 anniversary with you as Commander in Chief.

PBO – Yes. A very solemn day for our Nation. A day of reflection and yet a day of historical consciousness as well.

CS – Very much so sir, very much so indeed…. Now; In researching your position regarding the events of 9/11 and the subsequent investigation that followed, am I correct to understand that you fully support and endorse the findings of the commission report otherwise known as the ‘official story’?

PBO – Do I have any reason not to? Given that most of us are presumably in touch with similar evidence.

CS – I really wish that were the case, sir. Are you aware, Mr. President, of the recent stunning revelations that sixty percent of the 9/11 commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack?

PBO – I am aware of certain “in fighting” during the course of their very thorough and tireless investigative process.

CS – Mr. President, it’s hard to label this type of friction as “in fighting” or make the irresponsible leap to “thorough,” when the evidence I insist you examine regarding 6 of the 10 members are statements of fact.

(At this point one of Obama’s senior aides approaches the President and whispers into his ear. Obama glances quickly at his watch and nods as the aide resumes his post at the doorway, directly behind me.)

PBO – No disrespect Mr. Sheen, but I have to ask; what is it that you seem to be implying with the initial direction of this discussion?

CS – I am not implying anything Mr. President. I am here to present the facts and see what you plan to do with them.

PBO -  Let me guess; your ‘facts,’ allegedly supporting these claims are in the folders you brought with you?

CS – Good guess Mr. President.

(I hand the first folder of documents to the President)

CS – Again sir, these are not my opinions or assumptions, this is all a matter of public record, reported through mainstream media, painstakingly fact checked and verified.

(the President glances into the folder I handed him)

CS – You’ll notice sir on page one of the dossier dated August of  ‘06 from the Washington Post, the statements of John Farmer, senior council to the 9/11 commission, his quote stating, “I was shocked how different the truth was from the way it was described.”

PBO – (as he glances down at the report, almost inaudible) …. um hmm….

CS – He goes on to further state “The [NORAD Air Defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years….”

(the President continues to view the documents)

Charlie Sheen writing 20 Minutes with the President. Photo by Alex Jones.

CS – On pages two and three, sir, are the statements, as well, from commission co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, commissioners Bob Kerrey, Timothy Roemer and John Lehman, as well as the statements of commissioner Max Cleland, an ex-Senator from Georgia ,who resigned, stating:

“It is a national scandal. This investigation is now compromised. One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.”

He also described President Bush’s desire to delay the process as not to damage the ‘04 re-election bid. They suspected deception to the point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. Mr. President, this information alone is unequivocally grounds for a new investigation!

PBO – Mistakes were clearly made but we as a people and as a country need to move forward. It is obviously in our best interest as a democratic society to focus our efforts and our resources on the future of this great nation and our ability to protect the American people and our allies from this type of terrorism in the coming years.

CS – Sir, how can we focus on the future when THE COMMISSION ITSELF is on record stating that they still do not know the truth??

PBO – Even if what you state, might in some capacity, begin to approach an open discussion or balanced debate, I can’t speak for, or about the decisions certain commission members made during an extremely difficult period. Perhaps you should be interviewing them instead of me. Wait, don’t tell me; I was easier to track down than they were?

CS -  Not exactly sir, but let’s be honest. You’re the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, the buck stops with you. 9/11 has been the pretext for the systematic dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your administration is reading from the same playbook that the Bush administration foisted on America through documented secrecy and deception.

PBO – Mr. Sheen, I’m having a difficult time sitting here and listening to you draw distorted parallels between the Bush/Cheney regime and mine.

CS – Mr. President the parallels are not distorted just because you say they are. Let’s stick to the facts. You promised to abolish the Patriot Act and then voted to re-authorize it. You pledged to end warrantless wire tapping against the American people and now energetically defend it. You decried the practice of rendition and now continue it. You promised over and over again on the campaign trail, that you would end the practice of indefinite detention and instead, you have expanded it to permanent detention of “detainees” without trial. This far exceeds the outrages of the former administration. Call me crazy Mr. President, but is this not your record?

PBO – Mr. Sheen, my staff and I authorized this interview based on your request to discuss 9/11 and deliver some additional information you’re convinced I’d not previously reviewed. Call mecrazy, But it appears as though you’ve blindly wandered off topic.

CS – Sir, the examples I just illustrated are a direct result of 9/11.

PBO – And I’m telling you that we must move forward, we must endure through these dangerous and politically challenging years ahead.

CS – Mr. President, we cannot move forward with a bottomless warren of unanswered questions surrounding that day and its aftermath.

PBO – I read the official report. Every word every page. Perhaps you should do the same.

CS – I have sir, and so have thousands of family members of the victims, and guess what; they have the same questions I do and probably a lot more. I didn’t lose a loved one on that horrific day Mr. President and neither did you. But since then I, along with millions of other Americans lost something we held true and dear for most of our lives in this great country of ours; we lost our hope.

PBO – And I’d like to believe that I am here to restore that hope. To restore confidence in your leaders, in the system that the voting public chose through a peaceful transfer of power.

(An odd moment of silence between us. Precious time ticking away).

CS – Mr. President, are you aware of the number of days it took to begin the investigation into JFK’s assassination?

PBO – If memory serves I believe it was two weeks.

CS – Close. Seventeen days to be exact. Are you aware sir, how long it took to begin the investigation into Pearl Harbor?

PBO – I would say again about….two weeks.

CS – Close again sir, eleven days to be exact. Are you aware Mr. President how long it took to begin the investigation into 9/11?

PBO – I know it must have seemed like a very long time for all the grieving families.

CS – It was a very long time Mr. President – four hundred and forty  days. Roughly 14 months. Does it bother you Mr. President that it only took FIVE HOURS for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the initial attack to recommend and endorse a full scale offensive against Iraq?

PBO – I am not aware of any such purported claim.

CS – I have the proof Mr. President, along with scores of documents and facts I’d like you to take a look at. Here.

(I hand him another file – much thicker than the first)

PBO – I see you came prepared Charlie.

CS – No other way to show up Mr. President.  When in doubt over prepare I always say.

PBO – Now you sound like the First Lady.

CS – That’s quite a compliment sir.

PBO – As you wish. Please continue.

CS – Sir, I’d like to direct your attention to the stack of documents in the folder I just handed you. The first in from the top is entitled “Operation Northwoods”, a declassified Pentagon plan to stage terror attacks on US soil, to be blamed on Cuba as a pretext for war.

PBO – And I’d like to direct your attention to the fact that the principle draftsman of this improbable blueprint  was quickly denied a second term as Joint Chiefs chairman and sent packing to a European NATO garrison. Thank God his otherworldly ambitions never saw the light of day.

CS – I wouldn’t be so certain about that Mr. President.

PBO – I could easily say the same to you Charlie.

(the President checks his watch)

CS – The next document reads “Declassified staged provocations.” Now, Honestly Mr. President I wish I was making this stuff up. I’m certain you are familiar with the USS Maine Incident, the sinking of the Lusitania, which we all now know brought us into WW1, and of course the most famous, the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

PBO – Of course I am familiar with these historical events and I’m aware that there’s a measure of controversy surrounding them. But to be quite frank with you, this is all ancient history.

CS – Mr. President, it has been often said; “Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.” And I concede to you sir, these events are the past.

PBO – A vastly different world young man, shouldering a radically disparate state of universal affairs.

CS – No argument sir, I‘m merely inviting you to acknowledge some credibility to the pattern or the theme. Case in point; the next document in your folder. It was published by the think-tank,Project For a New American Century and it’s entitled “Rebuilding Americas Defenses”, and was written by Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush. To quote from the document sir – (the President interrupts)

PBO – “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

CS – Touché, sir. Your thoughts on this statement Mr. President?

PBO – I would call this a blatant case of misjudgment fueled by an unfortunate milieu of assumption. For some, the uninformed denial of coincidence.

CS – Interesting angle sir. Nevertheless, Vice President Cheney didn’t stop there. In early 2008, Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh and MSNBC, both reported that Cheney had proposed to the Pentagon an outrageous plan to have the U.S. Navy create fake Iranian patrol boats, to be manned by Navy Seals, who would then stage an attack on US destroyers in the Strait of Hormuz. This event was to be blamed on Iran and used as a pretext for war. Does any of this information worry you Mr. President?  Should we just ignore it, until these realities can be dismissed years from now by our children, as ancient history as well?

PBO – Of course this information worries me, yet it’s not nearly as worrisome as you sitting here today suspiciously implying that 9/11 was somehow allowed to happen or even orchestrated from the inside.

CS – Mr. President I am not suspiciously implying anything. I am merely exposing the documents and asking the questions that nobody in power will even look at or acknowledge. And as I stated earlier, I voted for you, I believed in your message of hope and change. Mr. President I have come to you specifically hoping for a change. A change in the perception that our government has not yet made itself open and accountable to the people. These are your words Mr. President not mine. The lives of thousands were brutally cut short and those left behind to suffer their infinite pain are with me today Mr. President. They are with me in spirit and flesh, and the message we carry will not be silenced anymore by media fueled mantras insisting how they are supposed to feel. Deciding for them, for 8 long years, what can be thought, what can be said, what can be asked.

PBO – And I appreciate your passion, I appreciate your conviction. In spite of your concerns, in spite of what your data might or might not reveal, what you and the families must understand and accept is that we are doing everything we can to protect you.

CS – Mr. President , I realize were very short on time, so please allow me to run down a list of bullet points that might illuminate some reasons why we don’t embrace the warm hug of Federal protection.

PBO – We’ve come this far. Fire away.

CS – Please keep in mind Mr. President everything I’m about to say is documented as fact and part of the public record. The information you are holding in your hands chronicles and verifies each and every point.

PBO – You have five minutes left. The floor is yours. Brief me.

CS – Thank you Mr. President. Okay, first; On the FBI’s most wanted list Osama Bin Laden is not charged with the crimes of 911. When I called the FBI to ask them why this was the case, they replied: “There’s not enough evidence to link Bin Laden to the crime scene,” I later discovered he had never even been indicted by the D.O.J.

CS – Number 2; FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, was dismissed and gagged by the D.O.J. after she revealed that the government had foreknowledge of plans to attack American cities using planes as bombs as early as April 2001. In July of ‘09, Mrs. Edmonds broke the Federal gag order and went public to reveal that Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were all working for and with the C.I.A. up until the day of 9/11.

CS – Number 3;  The following is a quote from Mayor Giuliani during an interview on 9/11 with Peter Jennings for ABC News. “I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”

WHO TOLD HIM THIS??? To this day, the answer to this question remains unanswered, completely ignored and emphatically DENIED by Mayor Giuliani on several public occasions.

CS – Number 4; In April 2004, USA Today reported, “In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.” One of the targets was the World Trade Center.

CS – Number 5; On September 12th 2007, CNN’s ‘Anderson Cooper 360’, reported that the mysterious “white plane” spotted and videotaped by multiple media outlets, flying in restricted airspace over the White House shortly before 10am on the morning of 9/11, was in fact the Air Force’s E-4B, a specially modified Boeing 747 with a communications pod behind the cockpit; otherwise known as “The Doomsday Plane”.

Though fully aware of the event, the 9/11 Commission did not deem the appearance of the military plane to be of any interest and did not include it in the final 9/11 Commission report.

CS – Number 6; Three F-16s assigned to Andrews Air Force Base, ten miles from Washington, DC, are conducting training exercises in North Carolina 207 miles away as the first plane crashes into the WTC. Even at significantly less than their top speed of 1500 mph, they could still have defended the skies over Washington well before 9am, more than 37 minutes before Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, however, they did not return until after 9:55am.

Andrews AFB had no armed fighters on alert and ready to take off on the morning of 9/11.

CS – Number 7; WTC Building 7. Watch the video of its collapse.

CS – Number 8; Flight 93 is fourth plane to crash on 9/11 at 10:03am. V.P. Cheney only gives shoot down order at 10:10-10:20am and this is not communicated to NORAD until 28 minutes after Flight 93 has crashed.

Fueling further suspicion on this front is the fact that three months before the attacks of 9/11, Dick Cheney usurped control of NORAD, and therefore he, and no one else on planet Earth, had the power to call for military sorties on the hijacked airliners on 9/11. He did not exercise that power. Three months after 9/11, he relinquished command of NORAD and returned it to military operation.

CS – Number 9; Scores of main stream news outlets reported that the F.B.I. conducted an investigation of at least FIVE of the 9/11 hijackers being trained at U.S. military flight schools. Those investigations are now sealed and need to be declassified.

CS – Number 10; In 2004, New York firefighters Mike Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi went public to say they had found the black boxes at the World Trade Center, but were told to keep their mouths shut by FBI agents. Nicholas DeMasi said that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate the devices, a story backed up by rescue volunteer Mike Bellone.

As the Philadelphia Daily News reported at the time, “Their story raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at Ground Zero.”

CS – Number 11 – Hundreds of eye witnesses including first responders, fire captains, news reporters, and police, all described multiple explosions in both towers before and during the collapse.

CS – Number 12; An astounding video uncovered from the archives shows BBC News correspondent Jane Standley reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. Tapes from earlier BBC broadcasts show news anchors discussing the collapse of WTC 7 a full 26 minutes in advance. The BBC at first claimed that their tapes from 9/11 had been “lost” before admitting that they made the “error” of reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened without adequately explaining how they could have obtained advance knowledge of the event.

In addition, over an hour before the collapse of WTC 7, at 4:10pm, CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that the building “has either collapsed, or is collapsing.”

CS – Number 13; Solicitor General Ted Olson’s claim that his wife Barbara Olsen called him twice from Flight 77, describing hijackers with box cutters, was a central plank of the official 9/11 story.

However, the credibility of the story was completely undermined after Olsen kept changing his story about whether his wife used her cell phone or the airplane phone. The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004. American Airlines confirmed that Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 and that this plane did not have airplane phones on board.

According to the FBI, Barbara Olsen attempted to call her husband only once and the call failed to connect, therefore Olsen must have been lying when he claimed he had spoken to his wife from Flight 77.

CS – Number 14; The size of a Boeing 757 is approximately 125ft in width and yet images of the impact zone at the Pentagon supposedly caused by the crash merely show a hole no more than 16ft in diameter. The engines of the 757 would have punctured a hole bigger than this, never mind the whole plane. Images before the partial collapse of the impact zone show little real impact damage and a sparse debris field completely inconsistent with the crash of a large jetliner, especially when contrasted with other images showing airplane crashes into buildings.

CS – Number 15; What is the meaning behind the following quote attributed to Dick Cheney which came to light during the 9/11 Commission hearings? The passage is taken from testimony given by then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

As the plane was not shot down, in addition to the fact that armed fighter jets were nowhere near the plane and the Pentagon defensive system was not activated, are we to take it that the orders were to let the plane find its target?

CS – Number 16; In May 2003, the Miami Herald reported how the Bush administration was refusing to release a 900-page congressional report on 9/11 because it wanted to “avoid enshrining embarrassing details in the report,” particularly regarding pre-9/11 warnings as well as the fact that the hijackers were trained at U.S. flight schools.

CS – Number 17; Top Pentagon officials cancelled their scheduled flights for September 11^th on September 10^th. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, following a security warning, cancelled a flight into New York that was scheduled for the morning of 9/11.

CS – Number 18; The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004, and even by that point it was only in the trial phase. Calls from cell phones which formed an integral part of the official government version of events were technologically impossible at the time.

CS – Number 19: On April 29, 2004, President Bush and V.P. Cheney would only meet with the commission under specific clandestine conditions. They insisted on testifying together and not under oath. They also demanded that their testimony be treated as a matter of “state secret.” To date, nothing they spoke of that day exists in the public domain.

CS – And finally Mr. President – Number 20; A few days after the attack, several newspapers as well as the FBI reported that a paper passport had been found in the ruins of the WTC. In August 2004, CNN reported that 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah’s visa was found in the remains of Flight 93 which went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

At least a third of the WTC victim’s bodies were vaporized and many of the victims of the Pentagon incident were burned beyond recognition. And yet visas and paper passports which identify the perpetrators and back up the official version of events miraculously survive explosions and fires that we are told melted steel buildings.

(The Senior aide appears again beside the President whispering in his ear. He then quickly moves off).

PBO – Well Charlie I can’t say this hasn’t been interesting. As I said earlier you’ve showed up today focused and organized.  Regardless how I feel about the material you’ve presented, I must commend your dedication and zeal. However, our time here is up.

(the President rises from his chair , I do the same).

CS – Mr. President! One more second!

(The President starts towards the door – I follow him quickly step for step).

CS – Mr. President, I implore you based on the evidence you now possess, to use your Executive Power. Prove to us all Sir, that you do, in fact, care. Create a truly comprehensive and open Congressional investigation of 9/11 and its aftermath. The families deserve the truth, the American people and the rest of the free world deserve the truth. Mr. President -

(He pauses. We shake hands).

CS – Make sure you’re on the right side of history.

(The President breaks the handshake).

PBO – I am on the right side of history. Thank you Charlie, my staff and I will be in touch.

(I watch as he strides gracefully out of the room, the truth I provided him held firmly by his side; in the hand of providence.)

Author’s Note:  What you have just read didn’t actually happen… yet.

This is an open letter to the President requesting a new investigation.

Charlie Sheen.

Charlie Sheen is going to be on Alex Jones’ syndicated radio show live twice this week. This letter to the President is only the opening salvo in a chain of key events. Read more details here and tune in at 11am CST when Alex will lay out this exciting new development. Sheen first appeared on The Alex Jones Show in March 2006 to air his doubts about the official 9/11 story, an interview that garnered national attention and put the issue of 9/11 truth at the forefront of public debate.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/twenty-minutes-with-the-president.html

Reply

onebornfree replied on Mon, Mar 15 2010 8:51 AM

rated by 0 users

Two questions for you, Viresh:

1] What do you think of Mr Sheen's general views about the events of 9/11?

2] Would you be interested in what I think [some good, some bad] of Mr Sheens views on 9/11?

Regards, onebornfree.

Reply

anarchojoseph replied on Mon, Mar 15 2010 8:56 AM

rated by 0 users

I don't care about 9/11.

Reply

viresh amin replied on Thu, Mar 18 2010 10:18 PM

rated by 0 users

1] Shows that he doesn't believe in the "official story". As far as the points he makes, it's up in the air.

2] go for it,  I'm open to anything. (sorry it took so long to respond)

Reply

corleonebrother replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 1:38 PM

rated by 0 users

onebornfree:

Become An Outsider!

So this is what it's all about for you... being an outsider, a contrarian, a rebel?  You are not interested in truth, justice for the families, or preventing possible future false-flag attacks?

Reply

Sam Armstrong replied on Wed, Mar 31 2010 6:48 PM

rated by 0 users

Have you seen "September Clues Debunked". And it's Debunked by a fellow 9/11 Truther who doesn't want somebody debasing his arguments. As for WTC 7 being a controlled demo, yeah... no.

Oh, and did you know that the movie the Matrix predicted 9/11. Yeah, Neo's passport expires on 9/11/01.

Neo's not getting on a plane after that.

To quote somebody's signature.

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.

- Friedrich Nietzsche

Reply

onebornfree replied on Thu, Apr 1 2010 7:36 AM

rated by 0 users

Sam Armstrong:

Have you seen "September Clues Debunked". And it's Debunked by a fellow 9/11 Truther who doesn't want somebody debasing his arguments. As for WTC 7 being a controlled demo, yeah... no.

Oh, and did you know that the movie the Matrix predicted 9/11. Yeah, Neo's passport expires on 9/11/01.

Neo's not getting on a plane after that.

To quote somebody's signature.

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.

- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

Assuming you are addressing me [if not, my apologies] ,  yes, I was already aware of the "Neo's passport expiration date"  angle. Fascinating stuff.

Here's another, perhaps  even more interesting/ strange/amazing coincidence that you may not be aware of :

A card game called "ILLUMINATI: NEW WORLD ORDER " was issued in 1995 that appears to accurately depict the events of 9/11, complete with graphic depictions of the WTC attacks, the Pentagon attack, and even the Anthrax attack(s)!

The original cards from the game can be seen here[scroll down page slightly]

"Debunking" September Clues?

I had already seen the September Clues "Debunking" and others like it. I for one, am not impressed.

For one thing, they all [deliberately or otherwise]  miss the main claim of "September Clues" , which is :

ALL of the network broadcast imagery of the "live" events on the morning of 9/11, [i.e. sky, plane image, WTC buildings, smoke, explosion, surrounding NY scenery such as trees, bridges etc. etc., including , by the way, ALL of  the subsequent building collapse sequences-including Building 7], was faked on computers, and not just  the few plane image(s), such as the "nose out" sequence that the debunking video conveniently focuses in on [thereby handily avoiding the main point of  ["September Clues"].  

As  a software engineer yourself, I would have thought that you might at least have been already somewhat familiar the with the knowledge of just how easy it was/is to fake entire scenes on computer- but maybe i am making assumptions I should not make here.

Or maybe you just innocently missed that main point of September Clues, I really don't know.

 Another Thing - "Fake, Fake, Fake"

For another thing , the talk-show host in the "debunking" movie, also appears to be entirely unaware that all of the so-called "amateur" videos that showed, regardless of camera angle,  AA flight 175  somehow gliding effortlessly into/through WTC2, and that he mentions and  employs  to back up his main  assertion that "September Clues" is just a "disinfo" movie,  are all very obvious fakes themselves, simply because they portray scientifically [ie physically] impossible events [i.e. hollow, aluminum body planes flying through steel and concrete buildings], that could never occur in the real physical world.

Hard as it might appear to at first believe, and just as with the main network [i.e Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC etc.] purported "live"  footage examined in "September Clues",  absolutely  everything in those 30+ alleged "amateur" videos is likewise fake, including camera angle/perspective, the sky, WTC building and surround, the  plane image, plus the event of said plane image sliding effortlessly through  WTC 2. 

As Elaine said to Jerry: "Fake,fake fake" 

Newtons's 3rd Law of Motion Reality Versus Hollywood "Reality"

Having said all that,  as very few persons in the world of 9/11 "truth" "movements" appear to have any understanding of principles of  basic, high-school level physics, [ particularly Newton's 3rd Law of motion and its relevance to the myth of completely hollow, aluminum body, plastic-nosed planes being able to pierce/slice completely through solid steel girders, as many of the 911 "amateur" ,"plane into building" videos  depict], nor of the level of sophistication of computer generated imagery for Hollywood etc. available "even" as far back as  2001 - I fully recognize and understand your choice to  disagree with all of the above, and it does not bother me in the slightest that you would do so - which is more than can be said for at least one prior poster in this thread.   . Oh well!

Regards, onebornfree

Reply

Sam Armstrong replied on Sat, Apr 3 2010 5:26 PM

rated by 0 users

The evidence he points to in "September Clues" isn't convincing. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the entire video was a complete fake, e.g. the explosion, falling buildings. September Clues only suggests that the planes were faked. If you'd like

As for the physics part, did you see a pumpkin smashing a hole into a van. Or how about through a house. If you think that 40,000 kg traveling at 300 mph can't bust into a tower made of steel, I just don't know what to say to you. And as for the frame by frame, you have to be kidding me. As if counting pixels and frames from 600 ft away could honestly tell you whether or not the plane slowed down is ridiculous on the face of it. Especially at speeds of 300 mph plus.

And yes, I know how easy it is to fake something. Just because it's easy, doesn't mean that they did it though. Somebody, somewhere, would have caught an explosion happening without a plane hitting the building in what is one of the most population dense cities on the entire planet. You'd have to be retarded to try and get away with something like that. Just stage a revolt on a base that we have somewhere, and kill 5000 troops. Like Pearl Harbor or something. Or I know, actually get some terrorists who work for you to fly planes into some skyscrapers, and then declare a war on terrorism. I have no idea if the government let it happen on purpose, made it happen on purpose, or were just egregiously incompetent.

But I have absolutely no reason to believe that they would pretend that some planes which didn't exist, with some passengers who didn't exist, fly from some airport which does exist, fake those records, shoot some missiles in front of millions of people able to watch live and in person, and fake the videos of it for millions of people to watch at home. I have every reason to believe that someone actually flew a plane into the building, and it collapsed because of it.

Reply

onebornfree replied on Sat, Apr 3 2010 6:14 PM

rated by 0 users

Sam Armstrong:

The evidence he points to in "September Clues" isn't convincing. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the entire video was a complete fake, e.g. the explosion, falling buildings. September Clues only suggests that the planes were faked. If you'd like

As for the physics part, did you see a pumpkin smashing a hole into a van. Or how about through a house. If you think that 40,000 kg traveling at 300 mph can't bust into a tower made of steel, I just don't know what to say to you. And as for the frame by frame, you have to be kidding me. As if counting pixels and frames from 600 ft away could honestly tell you whether or not the plane slowed down is ridiculous on the face of it. Especially at speeds of 300 mph plus.

And yes, I know how easy it is to fake something. Just because it's easy, doesn't mean that they did it though. Somebody, somewhere, would have caught an explosion happening without a plane hitting the building in what is one of the most population dense cities on the entire planet. You'd have to be retarded to try and get away with something like that. Just stage a revolt on a base that we have somewhere, and kill 5000 troops. Like Pearl Harbor or something. Or I know, actually get some terrorists who work for you to fly planes into some skyscrapers, and then declare a war on terrorism. I have no idea if the government let it happen on purpose, made it happen on purpose, or were just egregiously incompetent.

But I have absolutely no reason to believe that they would pretend that some planes which didn't exist, with some passengers who didn't exist, fly from some airport which does exist, fake those records, shoot some missiles in front of millions of people able to watch live and in person, and fake the videos of it for millions of people to watch at home. I have every reason to believe that someone actually flew a plane into the building, and it collapsed because of it.

"September Clues only suggests that the planes were faked."

Sir, you are very much mistaken.

You need to watch the entire movie again - it appears that you have not watched much, if any, of it .

The most recent online version of "September Clues"   can be viewed here.

The maker of "September Clues" [Simon Shack aka "Social Services"] is on record as saying the following [also reiterated in my sig line below]:

"The 9/11 TV imagery (of the crucial morning events) was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie. "   [his words, not mine]

He is not just talking about the plane images, rest assured,  as a completely unbiased , attentive review of his movie would surely reveal.

As to the rest of your points, the fact that you have completely misconstrued the obvious primary point of  the movie "September Clues" [i.e total fakery], which is made  " clear as day" in it , does not bode well for those points- to my mind at least.

However,  you are obviously perfectly  free to believe that  hollow, thin-skinned aluminum  planes with plastic noses can cut  entirely through solid steel girders, despite the fact that  solid, pointy nosed armor piercing bullets ,travelling at a speed far exceeding 300mph., and fired from a rifle just  50 ft away,  cannot put a a significant dent in similar girders , let alone travel completely through them. 

If you wish to believe in "Roadrunner cartoon physics", as most appear to these days, out of  psychological convenience[i.e.the truth is just too much to deal with] ,that is your prerogative.

I understand and respect that choice.

Regards, onebornfree.

Reply

Sam Armstrong replied on Sat, Apr 3 2010 6:44 PM

rated by 0 users

You clearly do not understand physics at all. The build of the plane is completely irrelevant. It could be a ball of spaghetti, but as long as it had MASS x VELOCITY equal to that of a 747 flying at 300 mph (and roughly the same area of impact), it would have demolished any one of those steel girders. A 5 oz bullet traveling at 1,000,000 mph Still wouldn't have reached the amount of force that the 747 exerted on those girders.

And when I was talking about what "September clues suggests" I was talking about what the "evidence" provided suggests, not what the creator suggests.

Edit: Ah shit, forgot about the black lines in one of the videos that "suggest" that the Tower was imposed on the picture.

Reply

onebornfree replied on Sat, Apr 3 2010 10:47 PM

rated by 0 users

Sam Armstrong:

You clearly do not understand physics at all. The build of the plane is completely irrelevant. It could be a ball of spaghetti, but as long as it had MASS x VELOCITY equal to that of a 747 flying at 300 mph (and roughly the same area of impact), it would have demolished any one of those steel girders. A 5 oz bullet traveling at 1,000,000 mph Still wouldn't have reached the amount of force that the 747 exerted on those girders.

And when I was talking about what "September clues suggests" I was talking about what the "evidence" provided suggests, not what the creator suggests.

Edit: Ah shit, forgot about the black lines in one of the videos that "suggest" that the Tower was imposed on the picture.

Okay, I think I get it.

You are saying that 140 tons [i.e. the approximate weight of  one fully loaded 757], of spaghetti, somehow flying at 300+mph, and  in the shape of an aircraft, will almost instantaneously  cut completely through 20 to 30, 1 ft. thick steel girders,[+ concrete], plus 2 x similarly [ steel] reinforced concrete  floor levels, all anchored within a 500,000 ton building, and leave a hole/outline in the almost exact shape of an aircraft. Yes?  

Have you informed the military of this ?

I mean, here they are spending a ton of moolah on "armor piercing bullets", guided missiles with explosive warheads etc. etc., to blast through solid steel, yet all they really need is a few million tons of  spaghetti. 

This is exciting news indeed on the military/armaments front .

P.S. As for misunderstanding what you said to be the intentions of the film creator , all I can say is that I was responding to your actual words.

You had said:

" The evidence he points to in "September Clues" isn't convincing. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the entire video was a complete fake, e.g. the explosion, falling buildings. September Clues only suggests that the planes were faked."

I took you at your word. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Regards, onebornfree

Reply

Sam Armstrong replied on Sun, Apr 4 2010 9:33 AM

rated by 0 users

This isn't news. It could be 2 tons of spaghetti traveling at 21,000 mph and it would have the same effect. I realize you are saying it sarcastically, but sarcasm doesn't prove what I said wrong. Simply because you find it ridiculous doesn't counteract the laws of physics. What matters is the amount of force that is exerted. It doesn't matter if it's exerted by bullet or a bunny. And as mentioned, area of impact is taken into account, so obviously that has something to do with whether an armor piercing bullet actually does pierce armor. And you speak as if shooting a few million tons of spaghetti is as easy, accurate or efficient as missiles or bullets. The spaghetti thing was to prove a point, which is that it doesn't matter what the materials are made of as long as the impact area is the same.

Reply

onebornfree replied on Sun, Apr 4 2010 10:20 AM

rated by 0 users

Sam Armstrong:

This isn't news. It could be 2 tons of spaghetti traveling at 21,000 mph and it would have the same effect. I realize you are saying it sarcastically, but sarcasm doesn't prove what I said wrong. Simply because you find it ridiculous doesn't counteract the laws of physics. What matters is the amount of force that is exerted. It doesn't matter if it's exerted by bullet or a bunny. And as mentioned, area of impact is taken into account, so obviously that has something to do with whether an armor piercing bullet actually does pierce armor. And you speak as if shooting a few million tons of spaghetti is as easy, accurate or efficient as missiles or bullets. The spaghetti thing was to prove a point, which is that it doesn't matter what the materials are made of as long as the impact area is the same.

"What matters is the amount of force that is exerted. It doesn't matter if it's exerted by bullet or a bunny. "

"The spaghetti thing was to prove a point, which is that it doesn't matter what the materials are made of as long as the impact area is the same."

This is "cartoon physics", pure and simple.

[e.g. See cartoon physics law 3 :"Any body passing through solid matter will leave a perforation conforming to its perimeter. Also called the silhouette of passage..." ]

Regardless of speed [although perhaps in particle physics?],but certainly within the 300-500 mph aircraft velocity it is usual to use in theoretical comparisons of the event, aluminum[in aircraft]  does not/cannot cut  through 1ft. thick steel, spaghetti does not cut steel, and 140 ton bunnies do not cut steel. 

However, you wish to be on record as claiming they do,[despite Newton's 3rd Law of Motion ], and that is your choice.

We obviously inhabit different universes where different physical laws apply

Regards, onebornfree

Reply

Sam Armstrong replied on Sun, Apr 4 2010 11:55 AM

rated by 0 users

Throw a pumpkin at a house, and watch the pumpkin explode. Shoot a pumpkin out of a cannon, and watch the pumpkin GO THROUGH THE HOUSE. OR A VAN. OR A BOAT. At high enough speeds, ANYTHING will penetrate anything else. 

And as for newton's third law, watch this video.

Reply

Fox McCloud replied on Sun, Apr 4 2010 8:20 PM

rated by 0 users

I'm not fully convinced that 9/11 was an "inside job", but I'm also a bit skeptical that it was a complete surprise to all of us, at the same time. I can't help wonder if it was a Pearl Harbor 2.0; that is to say, we were almsot 100% certain that an attack was coming and the relative time-frame, but inaction was chosen intentionally as to justify war or political action.

Reply

Sam Armstrong replied on Sun, Apr 4 2010 8:57 PM

rated by 0 users

Is it really all too much to accept incompetence? We anarchists do it in EVERY OTHER ASPECT of our arguments against the state. They suck at protecting us, and they suck at getting and discerning the information to protect us. States are helpless in the face of bottom up aggression. Terrorism is generally bottom up aggression.

Reply

Fox McCloud replied on Sun, Apr 4 2010 9:52 PM

rated by 0 users

Oh, I think that's an entirely plausible theory and I'll likely never rule that, but, at the same time, given other actions which do not seem to be incompetence at all (ie: Pearl Harbor), I don't think it's much of a stretch to guess that the government could have done the same thing regarding 9/11.

Reply

LvMIenthusiast replied on Sun, Apr 4 2010 10:42 PM

rated by 0 users

To be honest with you all, I've done a decent amount of "research", if you would call it that and I think the discussions here are largely a waste of valuable time. This particular subject matter always happens to pop up at family gatherings (we're not "kooks" believe me) and we always get nowhere. I suspect there was a degree of foul play on 9/11, but anything after that, is well pure conjecture. Because the bottom line is that we will probably never find out all the details on that day and like I said before, it is pointless to waste precious time debating this on the Mises forum. Instead, we should concentrate our scholarly endeavors with advancing sound economics and libertarian thought.

While I don't seek to control or push the great people here on the forums away from topic matters like these, I find this utterly useless in progressing AE or helping newcomers with AE.

We should really focus our efforts elsewhere and let topics like these die out, not because I wish to stifle freedom of speech, I just think these redundant topics just get silly after awhile, especially when the original posters are more or less preaching to the choir in various aspects.

Reply

onebornfree replied on Sat, Apr 10 2010 9:46 AM

rated by 0 users

Sam Armstrong:

Throw a pumpkin at a house, and watch the pumpkin explode. Shoot a pumpkin out of a cannon, and watch the pumpkin GO THROUGH THE HOUSE. OR A VAN. OR A BOAT. At high enough speeds, ANYTHING will penetrate anything else. 

And as for newton's third law, watch this video.

This is the second time that you have mentioned youtube videos showing pumpkins penetrating wood frame houses, and the sides of a van, so I will try and address your point (s). 

As far as I can see, launching pumpkins at wood-frame houses built with 2 x 4'r's and 1/2 in. thick wooden siding,  is  valid proof of  nothing other than the fact that pumpkins  propelled in that way at that speed can penetrate a wood frame house - the sides of a wood frame house  bear no actual close resemblance  [ in both molecular density and tensile strength], to a 15 ft long, 10 ton, 1ft square solid steel  girder  anchored in concrete [ let alone 20 of them in a row , each mounted/bolted themselves in steel and concrete] .

The same applies to the "pumpkin/boat" video [i.e. pumpkin vs fiberglass?].

However,  in my own warped little mind, the "pumpkin through the side of a van" video is a better comparison- it seems a little  closer to giving us a clue as to what would really happen when a thin-skinned 140 ton aluminum, hollow plane with a plastic nose-cone simultaneously hits 15-20 solid steel girders at 3-500mph , simply because the sides of van in the video , like the alleged 9/11  planes, is also made of a thin metal sheeting. 

Which begs the question: 

1] what do you think would really happen when a similar pumpkin at similar speed is launched at the nose and/or sides of a stationary[ie grounded], securely anchored, Boeing 757 - would it just  bounce off/be repelled by the aircraft - or would it penetrate just as completely as it  does in the pumpkin through the side of the van video? 

I say the pumpkin will penetrate the sides or nose of the aircraft when launched at either [ plastic nose-cone or aluminum side] at the same speed depicted in the pumpkin/van video you linked to. 

Which, by logical extension  should mean that there is no way that the stationary plane could repel or cut through even a hollow thin-skinned , steel "pumpkin" similarly launched at it at  the same speed , nor cut through even one, 10 ton, 1ft. thick solid steel  "I"-beam launched at it at the same speed as the pumpkin, let alone 15-20 such "I"- beams simultaneously launched at it - obviously,  the plane would be  obliterated , not the 10 ton I -beams. 

Regards, onebornfree.

P.S. reversing the process for demonstration - that is, me proposing " moving girders into a stationary plane", as opposed to the alleged "real" 9/11 event ["moving plane into stationary girders"] , is fully consistent with a demonstration of Newton's 3rd law of motion.

According to that law,it does not matter which object strikes which in real life, in either case, the force exerted on each object at impact is always equal- therefor it does not matter if the plane hit stationary, anchored girders [as supposedly happened in "real life"], or if, for the purposes of hypothetical demonstration the girders [traveling at the required speed], instead hit a stationary, anchored plane; regardless of what hits what , and what is moving and what is stationary,the outcome [damage caused] in either  event is always  identical according to that 3rd law of Newtonian physics. 

The fact that 15-20 steel girders, or worse yet, an entire 500,000 ton building [hypothetically] launched at a stationary, locked in place 757 would obviously decimate the aircraft, [or even one such girder!] ,gives the obvious lie to the idea that the reverse [i.e  plane(s) able to travel  into/through  15-20 solid steel 10 ton  girders in  a 500,000 ton building] was ever a real-world  event  in any way, shape, or form.

Reply

Sam Armstrong replied on Sat, Apr 10 2010 10:11 PM

rated by 0 users

You act as if the plane had no damage done to it when it hit the building. That's not the case. You also act as if the pumpkin had no damage done to it. That is also not the case. That pumpkin was damaged by that impact. The plane was demolished by the impact. That doesn't all of a sudden make those steel beams impervious to breaking at those speeds. You have nothing to base your idea of indestructibility of steel in the face of a a 500 mph 140 ton plane on. Please, do the math, figure out the tensile strength, figure out the impact force. Show me that twenty 1 ft thick steel beams can withstand even the wings of the plane at 500 mph. Please. You've shown NOTHING but conjecture and your preconceived notions of how strong steel I-beams are.

Here's a picture of a B25 bomber which ran into the empire state building. 

B52 bombers travel at 145 mph and are much smaller than the airliners which ran into the twin towers. And yet you see that it's left wing went through one of the steel beams.

Reply

tfr000 replied on Thu, Apr 15 2010 1:18 PM

rated by 0 users

Hey, think we should ask them how soft lead/copper bullets easily penetrate steel cars and kill the people inside?

How about how a tornado destroys things? It's made of nothing but AIR.

Reply

Sam Armstrong replied on Thu, Apr 15 2010 5:00 PM

rated by 0 users

Dude, I don't know how to say this. I love you SO much right now. "AIR". Brilliant, why didn't I think of that.

Reply

Caley McKibbin replied on Thu, Apr 15 2010 5:21 PM

rated by 0 users

A 120mm sabot shell, weighing 0.0229 tonnes can easily penetrate 2 ft. of steel RHA.

Reply

MaikU replied on Thu, Apr 15 2010 6:21 PM

rated by 0 users

tfr000:

Hey, think we should ask them how soft lead/copper bullets easily penetrate steel cars and kill the people inside?

How about how a tornado destroys things? It's made of nothing but AIR.

haha  it's a tornado conspiracy.

Reply

onebornfree replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 7:41 AM

rated by 0 users

Caley McKibbin:

A 120mm sabot shell, weighing 0.0229 tonnes can easily penetrate 2 ft. of steel RHA.

Your point is not clear, at least, to me.

Regards, onebornfree

Reply

onebornfree replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 8:22 AM

rated by 0 users

tfr000:

Hey, think we should ask them how soft lead/copper bullets easily penetrate steel cars and kill the people inside?

How about how a tornado destroys things? It's made of nothing but AIR.

Your point(s?) also are not clear to me. Please expand.

Regards,onebornfree.

Reply

tfr000 replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 1:09 PM

rated by 0 users

onebornfree:

tfr000:

Hey, think we should ask them how soft lead/copper bullets easily penetrate steel cars and kill the people inside?

How about how a tornado destroys things? It's made of nothing but AIR.

Your point(s?) also are not clear to me. Please expand.

Regards,onebornfree.

Reply

E. R. Olovetto replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 1:23 PM

rated by 0 users

Caley McKibbin:

A 120mm sabot shell, weighing 0.0229 tonnes can easily penetrate 2 ft. of steel RHA.

Reply

onebornfree replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 5:39 PM

rated by 0 users

tfr000:

 The point is the hardness or lack thereof has little to do with destructive power or penetrative ability.

So you are claiming that at an assumed speed of ,say, 500 mph, virtually any object, regardless of density, will penetrate multiple,1ft. thick steel girders, [including "soft lead/copper bullets"], correct?

Regards, onebornfree

Reply

onebornfree replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 5:55 PM

rated by 0 users

E. R. Olovetto:

Caley McKibbin:

A 120mm sabot shell, weighing 0.0229 tonnes can easily penetrate 2 ft. of steel RHA.

With the form of it's tip intact? People seem to be missing that part. Also, what makes up that form is probably hardened, solid metal, while AFAIK a plane nose is an aluminum sheath under an inch thick. I haven't seen the hard proof of physics simulations, but intuitively the deniers claims seem pretty absurd. Also, I don't know that the videos I've seen are from legitimate sources, but as someone who has edited video/pictures, the effects are noticeably bad. Either way, it is documented that the US has performed false flag attacks already, not to mention large scale terror attacks (A-bomb), overthrowing governments, tested chemical and biological weapons deployment systems in all 50 states, etc.

The aluminum skin of a modern commercial aircraft is under 2mm thick. It is basically a hollow, flying aluminum tube. The nose cone is made of plastic. 

A munitions shell, on the other hand, is , as you point out, a solid object - but by definition {ie the term"shell"}, unlike [solid] bullets, it also features  an explosive tip.

From what I can gather,the erroneous comparison is between a solid shell with an exploding tip  travelling in excess of 1000 mph, and a  thin-skinned  aluminum tube with a plastic nose travelling at, at most, 250 mph.

E. R. Olovetto: "I haven't seen the hard proof of physics simulations,"

Fortunately for you such simulations are not even necessary. Simple logic will suffice.

Just as  the theories and conclusions of Austrian economics rely on simple logic for the most part, simple logic based on principles of  basic Newtonian  physics is all that is needed to understand that no planes hit the towers. 

If you are interested in this, I'd be happy to try to demonstrate for you, just let me know.

Regards, onebornfree

Reply

E. R. Olovetto replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 6:40 PM

rated by 0 users

onebornfree:

If you are interested in this, I'd be happy to try to demonstrate for you, just let me know.

Reply

onebornfree replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 7:40 PM

rated by 0 users

E. R. Olovetto:

onebornfree:

If you are interested in this, I'd be happy to try to demonstrate for you, just let me know.

No offense, but I am not really, besides maybe 20 minutes comparing original (? I haven't investigated) footage from archive.org with what was supposedly later modified. SA's last video is pretty weak IMO and got me even less interested. I don't know what your demonstration is, but I would think that someone would be able to simulate the event, like with a car-crash reenactment used in court. There are certain obvious levels of certainty we could get from certain types of analysis and given data.

In my opinion, the appeal to rednecks shooting pumpkins through junk is irrelevant. Obviously, a feather will pass through a block of lead given enough velocity. What's important is relative structural integrity. Another thing being ignored is (according to September Clues anyhow) two separate feeds cutting to black several frames after the nose through event. A camera, miles away doing that randomly also seems highly unlikely.

I'm taking a 3rd position, similar to how global warming alarmists are ruled out of court on the basic epistemic grounds of their models lacking both consensus and predictive power. Whether planes really were hijacked or missles and CG were used, the American government holds the blame. Haliburton is on the verge of reopening wells in Iraq (todays WSJ), and terrorists were targeting iconic American buildings, rather than Swiss or Namibian for a reason.

"No offense, but I am not really"

All- righty then. [Actually , it was nothing that I have not  already said here - it would have been just a tad re-worded/ edited for clarity, that 's all.]

"besides maybe 20 minutes comparing original (? I haven't investigated) footage from archive.org with what was supposedly later modified. "

This has in fact  been done by the maker of " September Clues" in "Foxed Out" part 1 and  part 2. . The new modifications that change the archives from the original archives [ that is, after "September Clues" was released and began to make an "impression"], are very apparent [ visions of "the Memory Hole" from Orwell's 1984 ]

"In my opinion, the appeal to rednecks shooting pumpkins through junk is irrelevant."  

 .  It is always interesting/entertaining to me to see what people will drag up as being relevant for comparison in order to "prove" [to themselves- not me], that aircraft "really" can fly through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings without even slowing down and without any parts flying off on initial impact.

In that particular instance, the "pumpkin through van video" argument actually worked against their case, as I tried to [politely] show  in my reply. 

"Obviously, a feather will pass through a block of lead given enough velocity. ..."  

I understand your point, but  outside of Quantum mechanics [Schrodingers Cat and all that], and episodes of "Star Trek", no . 

"What's important is relative structural integrity."   

Yes, exactly. I assume you mean molecular density and material strength -which is why feathers will not pass through lead regardless of speed, as far as I'm aware - at least outside of theoretical physics and perhaps Quantum theory- and why aluminum will not pass/cut through 1ft thick steel girders. [although maybe a plane that weighed 2000 tons might do some serious damage ]

But speed is still important in this matter - remember, the [supposed] aircraft had to fly  within clearly defined  speed parameters  which it cannot  physically exceed in real life.

Comparing hollow 140 ton aluminum tubes only capable of around 250 mph at 700 feet above sea level [ a 757's cruising speed of 500+mph is only reached at 35,000 feet, where the air is 4X thinner], with a solid lead bullet flying well in excess of 500 mph, is wrong on 2 counts: [1] it is solid metal, whereas an airliner is thin-skinned and hollow, and [2] its speed is nowhere near the same.

Besides which, a solid lead bullet will not pass through a 1ft thick steel girder regardless of what type of gun fires it- heck even armor piercing bullets fired from rifles fail to do so. This is related to relative mass of the two objects, as well as speed.

Object mass is also very important in trying to determine what happens, as Newtons 3rd law makes clear. In this case you have 140 tons hitting 500,000 tons, at around 250 mph, with exactly equal force being exerted on both objects at impact.

Now which object do you really think is going to "win" in that situation, a hollow 140 ton aluminum tube with a plastic nose , or a 500,000 ton steel and concrete structure?

"Whether planes really were hijacked or missles and CG were used, the American government holds the blame. "

I agree 100%.

However, it might still be important to some, in the grand scheme of things, to understand just how deeply involved the US TV media was, and is, in producing government propaganda.

It seems more and more obvious that they are actively involved in faking events on TV on a weekly, if not a daily basis. 

The realization of this [what I would call] "fact" can have a powerful effect on a persons worldview.

For example, post "September Clues" I now believe nothing I see/ hear reported as news on TV or radio.

Thank you for your comments.

regards, onebornfree

Reply

onebornfree replied on Sun, Apr 18 2010 10:23 AM

rated by 0 users

Sam Armstrong:

So I take it that I'm not going to get a response from you on this?

 

 The incident is no more relevant than the "pumpkins through houses" video you posted, or the other posts using lead bullets, or explosive shells, or tornados for "comparison" .

You are comparing "apples and oranges" .... yet again.  Hence the reluctant, delayed response.

Besides which, I have clients who pay me to do their critical thinking for them- so your needs are mostly ignored unless I have the time and inclination.

The Empire State building was completed in the 1930's and used an entirely different construction methodology from that of the WTC buildings, which were completed in the 1970's.

And of course, the planes construction was also entirely different.

Even if I overlook the irrelevance of the Empire State incident comparison for the moment , and just look at the photo closely, there is nothing in that photo that irrefutably shows that an aircraft wing passed intact through any steel girder{s}. 

In fact, it is impossible to tell one way or another from the angle used. 

Sorry, but just because some halfwit with an agenda on the internet photoshops a label on to the photo reading "wing penetration" in bright yellow on a photo where it is impossible to actually see anything of the sort does not prove that the hoped for event  actually occurred. 

And in fact, there is nothing in the original news reports that even mentions any wing penetration whatsoever.

 Engine blocks? yes, bits of front end landing gear? yes - wings no.  

The news reports only describe a 20ft. by 18 ft. hole in the side of the building [ caused by one, or both engine blocks , I would guess], not wing penetration .

And even if there had been proven wing penetration that day, it would still be entirely entirely irrelevant- different aircraft construction,  entirely different building construction. 

No offense intended,  and not that it is really anything out of the ordinary on these boards [despite a economic philosophy supposedly mostly grounded in rules of simple, applied,  logic], but you really need to develop your critical thinking faculties a little more - at the present time you seem far too willing to accept irrelevant "evidence" and "arguments" in order to prove to yourself what you "already know" happened [because you saw it "live" on the TV], while at the same time choosing to entirely ignore previously demonstrated , unassailable [what Von Mises called "immutable"], simple principles of  hard physics, simply because those principles [inconveniently] do not support what you have convinced yourself that you already know. 

In Real Life [not made for TV movies]

Despite yours and others  wishful thinking, in real life, 2mm thick or less aluminum "skins" on aircraft, traveling at 250 mph [or even at the N.IS.T.'s mythical 500mph], cannot simultaneously pass through multiple, 1ft thick solid steel girders embedded in 500,000 ton buildings, as Newton's ["immutable"] 3rd law clearly demonstrates. 

Forget Physics?

Even if principles of simple physics are put to one side for the moment, there are many, many visual impossibilities/contradictions/anomalies in all claimed "live" 911 videos - far too many to ignore or overlook.[e.g. shadows vs. known sunlight angle, smoke direction, multiple flight paths etc. etc.]

Although it is at first hard to comprehend, all supposed "live" network TV broadcast that day, as well as all purported "amateur" videos of the "2nd strike" [ i.e.Flight 175 into WTC2],  as well as the famous Naudet Brothers purported movie of the 1st strike on the North tower, are nothing more than computer generated animations, as  detailed , exhaustive research and examination  over the last 9 years conclusively shows [in my opinion].

Time to face it- we bin "had", big time.

Regards, onebornfree.

Reply

Caley McKibbin replied on Tue, Apr 20 2010 6:15 PM

rated by 0 users

Onebornfree is good for some comic relief on occasion.

Reply

onebornfree replied on Wed, Apr 21 2010 12:39 AM

rated by 0 users

Likewise!

Regards, onebornfree