@spcacebandit.
I've just copied your last post to me, as the whole post between us was getting awfully long'
''If a plane is able to penetrate the building anyway there is no reason why some of it couldn't come out of the other side.... especially given the speed & large mass involved..... plus, whatever is ejected from the building is propelled by an explosive force.
So if this was a cartoon error, you'd expect the nose of the plane to remain a constant shape and at a constant trajectory, yet it doesn't, and you can see this in the final frames here as its trajectory is altered by the blast from inside the building. I know there's more stuff in the September Clues vid which I must say is quite convincing, but it's been shredded to bits & everything in it has been explained away logically & rationally.''
Bold added to ''you'd expect the nose of the plane to remain a constant shape and at a constant trajectory''
I'm saying that there was no plane, it's CGI, it's an error by the technicians, they mistimed their footage on the original broadcasts, so they needed to try and cover this up by creating aeroplane shaped debris as a graphic patch/smear.
How does flaming debris or bits of debris create a singular shadow?
If the plane is CGI then why is it changing shape & trajectory is the point.
It should surely remain constant.
I've no idea what the shadow thing is about.... but I've also seen it postulated that images of Bin Laden have been inserted into the flames.
I do hope we're not going down that path!
I meant on the side of the building there is a shadow on the building caused by the 'popping out' how would debris cause a singular shadow?
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
You must register to post here.
i do believe the icke mods are getting worried by the dr judy wood supporters re 911
11 Feb 2014 16:47 #482
John Kerry admits WTC7 was demolished in a controlled fashion.
But a different method was used for the twin towers, why?
A demolition in the traditional way to the twin towers would have likely damaged the man made basin wall of the Hudson river, causing a huge flood in NY.
Where is the man made basin wall of the hudson river?
EDIT: And/or any specs on it and how it was built etc? Don't want this to come across as anything but being curious at the mo
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
Then why not use the same method as the twin towers for wtc7?
I don't have all the answers, I guess it causes confusion and distraction from whatever is to be concealed, this is why the engineers for 9/11 truth campaign. Mr gage etc.. Have been sold a red herring, they focus on WTC7 mainly.
And then use that to predict the same method for the twin towers.
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
John Kerry admits WTC7 was demolished in a controlled fashion.
But a different method was used for the twin towers, why?
A demolition in the traditional way to the twin towers would have likely damaged the man made basin wall of the Hudson river, causing a huge flood in NY.
Where is the man made basin wall of the hudson river?
EDIT: And/or any specs on it and how it was built etc? Don't want this to come across as anything but being curious at the mo
I'm not sure about the building specs.
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
I've cropped this image of the 'plane front entering the WTC' as per the official story.
And 'leaving'
I don't see any uplift, to me it's meant to be a plane, the debris would have been smashed up if the plane was smashing steel and reinforced concrete, I doubt the debris would have popped out of a forced hole in the construction in a plane shaped form, it would be likely if the towers were made or a soft material such as marshmallow for the debris to pop out in the shape of the form that hit it, but in a brisk hard building the debris would have surely scattered in the building and not collect together to form a steel busting plane shaped kinetic energy enhanced projectile.
It's the last pic in post451. I'm not sure if it's coming up or not as it keeps disappearing on my computer but it's from this link www.911myths.com/index.php/Nose_out
it clearly shows in the last picture that whatever it is moves upwards, probably due to the compressed blast from inside the building. Not only that but it changes shape and by the 3rd or 4th frame is more ball like.
I imagine that a plane traveling at that speed into a building would cause at least some of it to come out of the other side, (which it did, bits of the landing gear and an engine were found a couple of blocks away - if that was planted there surely somebody would've noticed a bit of mangled plane lying around in the street!) but it's not necessarily the nose of a plane it just looks that way. Also remember that although a plane's nose is made of fairly lightweight material it contains inside it some very heavy equipment such as the ralome/radar. A massive force has just hit the inside of a building exploding and that pressure needs to go somewhere and like water it will find the path of least resistance first. It's only the central core of the building that is dominated by steel, the outer columns are spread out and therefore it would be easy for such a force to find a way through.
This is NISTs trajectory of the right engine which was found a couple of blocks away and it matches where that particular expulsion was:
Further parts of the fuselage were found on WTC5 roof...
So it's clearly not impossible that it is part of the plane.
@spcacebandit.
I've just copied your last post to me, as the whole post between us was getting awfully long'
''If a plane is able to penetrate the building anyway there is no reason why some of it couldn't come out of the other side.... especially given the speed & large mass involved..... plus, whatever is ejected from the building is propelled by an explosive force.
So if this was a cartoon error, you'd expect the nose of the plane to remain a constant shape and at a constant trajectory, yet it doesn't, and you can see this in the final frames here as its trajectory is altered by the blast from inside the building. I know there's more stuff in the September Clues vid which I must say is quite convincing, but it's been shredded to bits & everything in it has been explained away logically & rationally.''
Bold added to ''you'd expect the nose of the plane to remain a constant shape and at a constant trajectory''
I'm saying that there was no plane, it's CGI, it's an error by the technicians, they mistimed their footage on the original broadcasts, so they needed to try and cover this up by creating aeroplane shaped debris as a graphic patch/smear.
How does flaming debris or bits of debris create a singular shadow?
If the plane is CGI then why is it changing shape & trajectory is the point.
It should surely remain constant.
I've no idea what the shadow thing is about.... but I've also seen it postulated that images of Bin Laden have been inserted into the flames.
I do hope we're not going down that path!
I meant on the side of the building there is a shadow on the building caused by the 'popping out' how would debris cause a singular shadow?
The angle of the sun?
How would a cgi plane create a shadow? Especially if it wasn't meant to be there.... they've quickly managed to dub a shadow into the mistake as well.
None of it makes sense tbh & it's just too far fetched & flawed in too many respects. Nowt wrong with actually flying a plane into a building to cause the damage!
@spcacebandit.
I've just copied your last post to me, as the whole post between us was getting awfully long'
''If a plane is able to penetrate the building anyway there is no reason why some of it couldn't come out of the other side.... especially given the speed & large mass involved..... plus, whatever is ejected from the building is propelled by an explosive force.
So if this was a cartoon error, you'd expect the nose of the plane to remain a constant shape and at a constant trajectory, yet it doesn't, and you can see this in the final frames here as its trajectory is altered by the blast from inside the building. I know there's more stuff in the September Clues vid which I must say is quite convincing, but it's been shredded to bits & everything in it has been explained away logically & rationally.''
Bold added to ''you'd expect the nose of the plane to remain a constant shape and at a constant trajectory''
I'm saying that there was no plane, it's CGI, it's an error by the technicians, they mistimed their footage on the original broadcasts, so they needed to try and cover this up by creating aeroplane shaped debris as a graphic patch/smear.
How does flaming debris or bits of debris create a singular shadow?
If the plane is CGI then why is it changing shape & trajectory is the point.
It should surely remain constant.
I've no idea what the shadow thing is about.... but I've also seen it postulated that images of Bin Laden have been inserted into the flames.
I do hope we're not going down that path!
I meant on the side of the building there is a shadow on the building caused by the 'popping out' how would debris cause a singular shadow?
The angle of the sun?
How would a cgi plane create a shadow? Especially if it wasn't meant to be there.... they've quickly managed to dub a shadow into the mistake as well.
None of it makes sense tbh & it's just too far fetched & flawed in too many respects. Nowt wrong with actually flying a plane into a building to cause the damage!
Yes the shadow is put on, now let's get this straight spacebandit, who are 'we' to decide where the lies start and end, an awful lot of people suspect the official story not to be the truth.
Of course if they're going to have CGI aircraft they need to put on shadows, what I'm saying is after an error was made by technicians they had to smear the error to try and make it look like debris.
Now this might not make sense to you, to me it makes sense, debris in a building would not collect into an isolated group and use kinetic energy, yes the very same kinetic energy that would have expired as 'it was used to permit an aircraft' to glide through steel and reinforced concrete, the debris from such an impact would not then regroup to form a projectile type shape and reuse the kinetic energy 'once again' to penetrate the reinforced concrete/steel frame again!
Unless you are willing to believe what's in bold font in the above paragraph then the continuation of this discussion between us is pointless.
So once this technical error had been made with the CGI, it was then given a shadow for the sun 'otherwise' it would stand out as CGI.
The problem that is still unsolved is now that the 'plane' is now 'debris' how would the sun cast a singular shadow of debris across the front of the building if it's meant to be bits of debris 'popping through'.
Edit. drones full of explosives were flown in, hence easy penetration, the rest is CGI.
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
You take a cloned "drone" aircraft, have it hologram itself just incase nobody believes its real, and then just for shits and giggles do some cgi on the collision footage because it won't do as it is?
I reckon it'd also be uneconomical to destroy 4 top-secret drones (or any drones for that matter) and their cloning devices when you can take 4 out of service ex-passenger airliners and destroy them instead.
So it's clearly not impossible that it is part of the a plane.
Possibly but we don't know
A) What plane?
B) How it got there?
You do know that a false flag event is.... ''blaming others'' ... So evidence would likely be planted as well as narrative created.
Otherwise you'd be as well believing that wild tale of 'a man who lives is a cave, whose religious beliefs opposes the attack to innocent women and children, got some men to hijack (by use of box cutters) & fly planes at nearly uncontrollable speeds, with the autopilot and computer navigation systems turned off, into buildings, only for us then to gain knowledge that some of them 'hijackers' are still alive.
What you've shown in that picture is the evidence of why you're meant to believe that narrative.
''September 28, 2001: Bin Laden Again Denies Involvement in 9/11 Attacks
Osama bin Laden denies his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. In an interview with the Daily Ummat, a Pakistani newspaper, he says: “I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States (see September 16, 2001). As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle.… The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system but are dissenting against it'' www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a092801osamadenial
You see spacebandit, if you're going to believe the false flag evidence you're as well simply believing the official narrative, even though most people who use their own brains see through it.
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
Last Edit: 12 Feb 2014 10:26 by Blue_Tackler. Reason: spellings
You must register to post here.
i do believe the icke mods are getting worried by the dr judy wood supporters re 911
12 Feb 2014 10:09 #499
You take a cloned "drone" aircraft, have it hologram itself just incase nobody believes its real, and then just for shits and giggles do some cgi on the collision footage because it won't do as it is?
1) you want oil, war, control, wealth.
2) 4 drone craft are worth this
3) it's not really a hologram that I'm proposing, I showed you a clip of the material that even Mercedes are using.(can disguise clone as other aircraft to a degree)
4) The CGI is their to fool the public perception afterwards, the drones disguise it tidied up on the news reels
5) If what you're suggesting is too unreal to bother with, why would the US even bother making up a false flag, you'd be as well saying that the whole 9/11 is as the official narrative.
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
You must register to post here.
i do believe the icke mods are getting worried by the dr judy wood supporters re 911
12 Feb 2014 10:14 #500
You take a cloned "drone" aircraft, have it hologram itself just incase nobody believes its real, and then just for shits and giggles do some cgi on the collision footage because it won't do as it is?
1) you want oil, war, control, wealth.
2) 4 drone craft are worth this
3) it's not really a hologram that I'm proposing, I showed you a clip of the material that even Mercedes are using.(can disguise clone as other aircraft to a degree)
4) The CGI is their to fool the public perception afterwards, the drones disguise it tidied up on the news reels
5) If what you're suggesting is too unreal to bother with, why would the US even bother making up a false flag, you'd be as well saying that the whole 9/11 is as the official narrative.
owned? Hardly
What I'm saying is that what you're suggesting is proposterous. The scope for fuck-up (and hence disclosure) is monumental. What if the cloaking device failed? Why go to all this trouble when there's a cheaper, safer, perfectly doable alternative?
The EPA (environmental protection agency) and OSHA took air samples in the days following September 11th, they reported that they found no excessive levels of asbestos contrary to other findings....
With the anniversary of September 11th literally just around the corner, unanswered questions still remain for families who lost loved ones during the tragic event, as well as from families...
In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a series of lower court rulings that restrict the United States Navy's use of sonar in submarine detection training exercises off...
Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021,
in USD.
No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.
