May I ask for just a few seconds of your time, please? I will not offer my own opinion initially, I just want you to tell me what you're seeing here. I'd like you to look at two things.
The first is 3 or 4 seconds in, when you see a wide angle shot of the towers, - I'd like you to look particularly to the right of the towers just prior to when the camera zooms in on the plane hitting the tower. Personally I can't see a plane in the sky anywhere just a couple of seconds before the plane impacts.
And the second is a further 2 or 3 seconds in, when you see what looks like the nose part of the plane actually exiting the tower on the left.
There's a plane above the right tower at 8 seconds in. 2nd impact is at 12 seconds. There's no way the plane at 8 seconds could have circled and hit the right tower at 12 seconds. Maybe the plane above the tower was a regular flight that just coincidentally went by during it's scheduled flight?
Personally, i dont see anything untoward about the footage but thats probably because i am prepared to accept the logic surrounding the attacks rather than seeking to find reasons to believe that anything untoward took place.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this Ghostie.
I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!
phild05 wrote:There's a plane above the right tower at 8 seconds in. 2nd impact is at 12 seconds. There's no way the plane at 8 seconds could have circled and hit the right tower at 12 seconds. Maybe the plane above the tower was a regular flight that just coincidentally went by during it's scheduled flight?
Are you sure that's not a second helicopter? I've tried blowing up the right hand zoomed out bit of the picture, you can't see anything, but there is a pall of smoke in the general direction.
Another question, is that the original unadulterated footage?
paint your wagons and burn your banker, coz the twisted circus is coming to town and there ain't no safety net under the high wire.
ghostgirl wrote:May I ask for just a few seconds of your time, please? I will not offer my own opinion initially, I just want you to tell me what you're seeing here. I'd like you to look at two things.
The first is 3 or 4 seconds in, when you see a wide angle shot of the towers, - I'd like you to look particularly to the right of the towers just prior to when the camera zooms in on the plane hitting the tower. Personally I can't see a plane in the sky anywhere just a couple of seconds before the plane impacts.
And the second is a further 2 or 3 seconds in, when you see what looks like the nose part of the plane actually exiting the tower on the left.
Mr Squirrel wrote:Personally, i dont see anything untoward about the footage but thats probably because i am prepared to accept the logic surrounding the attacks rather than seeking to find reasons to believe that anything untoward took place.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this Ghostie.
My thoughts, Mr Squirrel, I can give you concisely in two words... COMPLETE BOLLOX!
However, if I may explain my reasons for asking for a few opinions...
I was having a somewhat heated discussion with someone on another forum regarding the video above, and failing to convince him that the video, - which he was using as part of his attempt to put forward a 'No Plane' theory of 9/11 - was in fact a faux controversy, - disinfo if you will. He argued that anyone watching the clip would realise immediately that the video was proof positive of some sort of media manipulation. In other words that the media created the images of planes hitting the towers, using CGI, to cover up the demolition detonations, and that the video showed evidence of such.
The question I posed in my OP was not entirely mine... from the following bit on...
I'd like you to look at two things.
The first is 3 or 4 seconds in, when you see a wide angle shot of the towers, - I'd like you to look particularly to the right of the towers just prior to when the camera zooms in on the plane hitting the tower. Personally I can't see a plane in the sky anywhere just a couple of seconds before the plane impacts.
And the second is a further 2 or 3 seconds in, when you see what looks like the nose part of the plane actually exiting the tower on the left.
...I simply put the question to Smeggy's in words very similar to the ones I was responding to in my other debate, so as not to unduly influence the veracity of any responses I subsequently received with opinions of my own.
There are many cointelpro dissenters, usually termed 'disinfo agents', around the web - although personally I prefer to call them slime-balls - attempting to lead all genuine investigations astray. IMO the 'no planes' theory is one that I find particularly annoying, not to mention insulting to anyone with a degree of intelligence above that of a pickled onion.
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"
Rocky wrote:So we can safely conclude that two Boeings hit the Twin Towers causing them both to eventually collapse., as seen on TV on the day it happened.
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"
Rocky wrote:So we can now safely conclude that two Boeings hit the Twin Towers causing them both to eventually collapse, as seen on TV on the day it happened.
Alternatively, David Copperfield was up to one of his tricks.
I have no problem with the reality of 2 planes hitting the towers. Whether they were responsible for the collapse of the towers is another matter given the temperature at which jet fuel burns at..
-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----
"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."
The towers collapsed because their structural integrity had been compromised by the fact that they had been near sliced in two by Boeings traveling at 400mph.
Simple really.
I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!
Mr Squirrel wrote:The towers collapsed because their structural integrity had been compromised by the fact that they had been near sliced in two by Boeings traveling at 400mph.
Simple really.
I'll second that, Mr S.
Only fantasists could arrive at any other conclusion.
Mr Squirrel wrote:The towers collapsed because their structural integrity had been compromised by the fact that they had been near sliced in two by Boeings traveling at 400mph.
Simple really.
Now come on, Mr S, isn't that just about as fantastical as the 'No Planes' rubbish? You really think that two Boeings travelling at 400mph sliced through this, subsequently pulverising them both to DUST?..
...Are you thinking of the so-called 'pancake' theory? Surely then, the central column structure should have remained standing after the pancake collapse of the concrete floors? Something like this...
And speaking of the central collumn structure, here's what was left of THAT post-collapse...
...And what do you make of these? Can you see the precision cut steel covered in ex-molten metal?
Fires have never before nor since collapsed skyscrapers, just those 3 on 9/11, and remember ONE of them (the 47 story Salomon Bros. Building, otherwise known as Building 7, only had a few minor fires on a couple of floors. It too, nevertheless, collapsed completely into dust. Here's Building 7 - in most cities it would be the tallest skyscraper in the sky line, though it's dwarfed next to the Twins...
1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia. Raged for 18 hours. Gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building. Remained standing.
LOS ANGELES
988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles. Burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours. Gutted 4 floors of the 64-floor tower. Burned low in building.
Both of the above fires exhibited: * large emergent flames * extensive ongoing window breakage * blazes filling entire floors
Neither fire damaged the support columns of these buildings.
Report by Iklim Ltd. describes damage in the Los Angeles fire:
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor 'pans'.
Both of the above fires were much worse than those in the Twin Towers or Building 7, and there are many more worldwide, check this out anywhere on the web if you have trouble believing me.
Watch Building 7 collapse (collapsed at around 5pm on 9/11 having never been hit by a plane), and remember, the owner of this building, Larry Silvrstein, was caught on camera admitting that "We took the decision to 'pull' it.", but then he subsequently denied that by that he'd meant 'demolish the building'. He HAD to retract the statement of course, because it would have taken far longer than a couple of hours to rig a building that size to do this...
WHY was Building 7 demolished? Here's Building 7's short list of tenants, you can see that it consisted entirely of government and financial institutions:
Financial institutions Salomon Smith Barney (SSB) Standard Chartered Bank Federal Home Loan Bank of New York First State Management Group TT Hartford Insurance Group American Express Bank International National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Government agencies Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Department of Defense (DOD) Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Office of Emergency Management (OEM) (OEM by the way is the state-of-the-art tech centre that exists SOLELY to deal with 'Terrorist', and other Emergency events such as earthquakes, etc.) US Secret Service Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (The collapse of Building 7 destroyed thousands of SEC casefiles of ongoing investigations into companies such as WorldCom.)
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"
Mr Squirrel wrote:The towers collapsed because their structural integrity had been compromised by the fact that they had been near sliced in two by Boeings traveling at 400mph.
Simple really.
It's simple to make such a statement, but in reality it's not that simple at all.
the towers were locked down a few weeks before 911 for a few days and were powered down, meaning that even the CCTV security systems weren't working,
-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----
"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."
.... and as you can see this, WTC7, building collapsed straight down ...
ALSO, which even NIST have admitted, that fro part of it's journey it fell at free fall speed. that means there was NO RESISTANCE to it's fall. the only way you could have no resistance AND a straight down collapse is if EVERY supporting member had failed at exactly the same time.
Any structural damage and fire that WTC7 had suffered as a result of damage from falling pieces of the towers was ASYMMETRICAL and thus no way could have caused the collapse in the manner in which it happened. And that's additional to, as Ghostie says, the fact that a steel framed building has NEVER Collapsed due to fire before. Ever!!
The phrase "it's too big to be a lie" springs to mind. Crikey WW1 was a far bigger lie than 911 and they got away with that.
-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----
"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."
WTC 1&2 didnt collapse due to fire... they collapsed because their structural integrity had been compromised. As for no other steel framed building collapsing due to fire.. i would suggest that the 'catalyst' to that collapse was the big assed 757's smashing through them beforehand. I have seen the CT films that project the theory that the buildings were 'detonated' and admit... Compelling viewing that raises many questions about the 'official' story but equally raise just as many questions about the CT itself. These buildings were incredibly heavy (200000 tonnes each) and we all saw the planes slice their way through virtually the entire width and almost exit the other side... thats alot of support bearings destroyed by impact alone. Bearings that still tried to support a further 1/3rd of each tower (1/3rd=66000 tonnes) Now, what happens when you try to take a load bearing wall down in your average semi without sufficient supports until an equally sufficient RSJ has been fitted in place? Correct.. the whole thing falls down. So what do you expect a skyscraper to do when it has its major load bearing structure removed? Float on a bed of air? The columns seen 'cut' at a jaunty angle is also explainable. These pictures were taken well after the clear up had taken place hence the lack of debris above the columns. Most of the steel removed from the site was cut with plasma cutters to enable shipping. It didnt collapse in convenient 'ready cut to size' sections, most of it was mangled and twisted. Angled cuts are the industry standard not only in controlled demolition but also in any type of cutting where the item cut needs a controlled drop. Anybody ever watched a tree being chopped down? The clear up team still needed to cut those beams with safety in mind and that means cuting the beams with a clear intention of where they would fall.
Posted once before but here it is again.
Watch the tower closely before it collapses. Note that there are no visible explosions, no 'squibs' and that the tower neither collapses from below or above the damaged section. It simply 'buckles' under the weight its supporting above and gives up the ghost.
Out of all the people that had to be involved in such a massive conspiracy not one person has yet blown the whistle on the plotters and planners. Knowing human nature I find this most amazing.
There's an old saying: ''Seeing is believing', and the whole world saw the Boeings hit the towers..and then they watched both towers collapse like a pack of cards from the point of impact where the structural damage that led to the collapse was caused.
As Mr S. pointed out, the reason that no other towers that have been the subject of raging infernos has ever collapsed before is because those other towers were not hit by two massive airliners travelling at 400 MPH.
Out of all the people that had to be involved in such a massive conspiracy not one person has yet blown the whistle on the plotters and planners. Knowing human nature I find this most amazing.
Why do you find it so unbelievable? Their are plenty of security services around the world where secrets never come out. If your logic was correct then the secrets of the CIA/MI5/Mossad, etc would come out all the time. Yet they don't. People don't blow the whistle because they know what would happen to them if they did.
-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----
"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."
Rocky wrote:Out of all the people that had to be involved in such a massive conspiracy not one person has yet blown the whistle on the plotters and planners. Knowing human nature I find this most amazing.
There's an old saying: ''Seeing is believing', and the whole world saw the Boeings hit the towers..and then they watched both towers collapse like a pack of cards from the point of impact where the structural damage that led to the collapse was caused.
As Mr S. pointed out, the reason that no other towers that have been the subject of raging infernos has ever collapsed before is because those other towers were not hit by two massive airliners travelling at 400 MPH.
Now come on, Mr S, isn't that just about as fantastical as the 'No Planes' rubbish? You really think that two Boeings travelling at 400mph sliced through this, subsequently pulverising them both to DUST?..
