September Clues Addendum Chapter 1

[JFK]

Your key statement :

Quote:depending on fast it was going

Compare the above scenerio with the 767's which impacted the towers...

Be sure to factor in the wall thicknesses of the towers at the point of impact.

Look closely at the outer edges if the impact area ( using good resolution pics ) and you will find that the wall columns were "pinched" rather than severed. ( Steel Slat actuators wrapping themselves around the columns with the weight and velocity of the fuel behind them )

The hole is not in fact a "Wile E. Cyote" type hole as you and your colleagues proclaim.

[kevlar]

The problem with the 9/11 footage is that the plane goes right through the steel and concrete with no deceleration and still has the tail and back part of the fuselage intact and without deceleration or impact related movement, it is like the building was not even there, when the nose and wings have gone through the steel and concrete.


That is like a corvette hitting a wall of a house and then the front part goes through the wall but the back part still looks like nothing has happened, no movement up or down, no deceleration. This goes against convention common sense of impact science.

First thing that you should notice is deceleration, a lot of it, enough to notice it. Then you should notice the tail acting as if it the front part just rammed into a steel and concrete building at 500mph, but we don't see that.

The wings as well, looking at historical air plane crashes the wings snap off and would have not cut through the concrete and steel so easily. The videos show the wings slice through and go inside.

When planes crash into buildings they usually spew fuel all over the side of the building, they leave plane parts in the hole and at the bottom extensively. The explosion caused by the impact would not disintegrate all the parts of the plane and because of the nature of a plane it usually breaks up in to 1000s of pieces on impact so the chances are that there should have been seats and loads of bodies and such that should have fallen to the ground. The tail would have not made it into the building, no ways! You know what i am saying ? The tail never would have made it into the building, the wings would have exploded on impact and then tail would not have just gone inside.

That is why most if not all the of the footage on the day never actually showed the plane going in to the buildings face, those tapes came out later. This way they did not have to account for the deceleration. Remember the cnn shot which showed the plane just vanish behind the other building, enough to convince the world.

if you could download this: https://undoctrination.info/False Flags and Media Psyops/911/footage from across the river.avi

high quality version of the footage shown on tv, this was taken from bbc, a collection of footage of the impacts that they had on the day.

[JFK]

Quote:the wings would have exploded on impact

Why do you say this ? Were you not the advocate of all aluminum planes just a short while ago ?

Aluminum is a non sparking metal.

Why would the wings have exploded on impact in your opinion ?

As far as deceleration, there are only 3 or 4 frames to work with to attempt to calculate that... Simply not enough to draw any accurate conclusion.

Regarding "crumpling" or the so called lack thereof... There were no cameras which survived from inside the towers so how could you know what happened after penetration with any certainty ?

[kevlar]

No we can determine an accurate conclusion of the lack of deceleration by analysing 52 videos of the impact. To add the real deceleration and crash physics to a fake video would have taken a hell of a lot more work than just having the plane vanish into the building and explode. They would have had to have the plane break a part outside and their crappy 3d and 2d images of planes did not have the animation available to show a real plane impact.

I only assume that the plane would explode (remember i don't even think there was a plane), i am not an expert on air plane crashes nor do i claim to be an expert in anything. I am just looking at the crash videos and the hole and saying that it is not a plane. This is due to reasons that i have already claimed, now please consider all the reasons that i have put down and then draw your own conclusions.

here is some for consideration:



Most of the videos the impact itself is obscured from view by buildings or the angle.



This is on top of all the other reasons that show the videos to be fraudulent. That simon shack has pointed out in his videos as well as others in their videos.
on 9/11 movement.org they used to try and match the angle of the videos and then try and find out if the angle was real and/or if the buildings that were in the way, if they were realy in the way or if they were added. Others have phoned up the people that took the videos and if you have not heard them you should listen to the phone calls, revealing to the say the least.

This is the cnn one i was referring to:



MAGIC where is Copperfield when you need him, why do they bother reinforcing buildings when planes can just slip right through ?

[JFK]

Look closer at the hole... Especially the high resolution one which shows Edna Cintron waving.

Look specificly at the left wingtip impact area.

Compare that with the rest progressing toward the fuselage while keeping in mind the column thicknesses, weight of the fuel impacting that specific area, and velocity of the fuel. ( and other structural elements of the 767 such as engines and landing gear framework )

At least you have finally acknowledged that steel and titanium were structural elements of that 767, and that IMO is progress.

[kevlar]

are you fucking serious ?

do you see these gifs of the plane vanishing in to the building ? if you still fail to accept no planes than you never will.

edit: I notice that imageshack killed two of the gifs. haha, so i changed the links. just make sure you accept the security certificate, not sure how that will work in firefox, but i forced encryption on my website. Does not work well for hot linking.

[JFK]

So that's why it took forever to reload this page.... Low rez .gifs which prove nothing.

Oh well... I'm out for now. Perhaps my wifi signal strength will improve later and I'll try again.

Have a great labor day weekend, or what is left of it.

[kevlar]

How can they prove nothing, it is not about video quality. You fail to understand crash physics, even after i have explained myself.

If the footage was real you would see the plane impact the steel and concrete and explode outside and fall to the ground, it would not slip into the building. one of the videos shows the plane enter the building, the wings enter the building with a bit of the wing still perfectly uniform in shape. It is just not possible.

It does not matter how poor quality the images are the footage is false and there was no planes!

Have i convinced anyone or i have just wasted my time ?

[JFK]

Just turned off image downloading in my browser... it is a little better now.

If the perimeter of the towers was made of 6 foot thick re-enforced concrete with a 1/2 in steel shell then things would have happened as you say they should have.

But they weren't. Jazzrock posted cross sections of the perimeter columns, and as much as I disagree with him, that portion of what he posted is correct.

And I still feel that I have not wasted my time because you did finally admit that there was structural steel and titanium within those planes.

[kevlar]

Explain to me then how a plane can slip (1) through steel and concrete, it is on you to prove planes. it is not on me to prove no planes. You are the ones making the claim that there was planes.

So far I have seen videos show that some how a plane managed to slip through concrete and steel without even showing any defamation of structure or deceleration. I have been shown some pictures of debris under scaffolding and on top of a roof. There is radar apparently showing a plane going in the apparent path of the object that hit the wtc towers. THAT IS IT. That is all your evidence, now compare that to everything i have put across. Couple that with the problems that i point out in your evidence and you realy are full of shit. If you still think the videos are real and that there was planes then you are fucking stupid.

edit: i don't think defamation of structure is the correct terminology. what is the correct word for dents or marks or destruction of structure?

(1) i originally put break instead of slip, but then i realized that the plane did not break through, it just slipped through. magic.

[JFK]

Quote:If you still think the videos are real and that there was planes then you are fucking stupid.

My what an open mind you no brainers have. [ rolls eyes ]

I am done trying to explain anything to you because it is obvious that you have absolutely no capability of rational thought.

Although you may wish to look up twister damage aftermath and tell me how a piece of straw, or a vinyl LP album prnetrated a tree... I doubt you will though because that would be challanging your ignorance and of course you absolutely can not accept the remotest possibility of that ever occuring.

And that is what you no planers have in common.

[kevlar]

oh the straw going through wood argument, to be honest i was waiting for that one. One of my favourites.

What do you do for a living JFK ?

[JFK]

I am done "doing for a living" and am patiently and eagerly awaiting death.

Perhaps your question should have been what have you done for a living... That answer would have been enough to write a book... The majority ( after the Marine Corps. ) being hands on mechanical repair and metal fabrication related... nothing smaller than a pickup truck and nothing larger than a 260 ton "over the road" crane with LOTS in between.

I enjoyed the repairing/rebuilding firetrucks and ambulances the most as they gave me a true sense of purpose and accomplishment in this fucked up life.

What do you do for a living ? ( my guess is accountant or salesman )

[kevlar]

I work in IT for a law firm doing support.

So you are like jazzroc, in that you are an ex government employee now retired. Well no wonder you too are stubborn too accept the truth when it is shown to you. That would mean your whole life is a based on a lie and you will go to any lengths not to accept that, even talk shit. To prevent that from being accepted by yourself. The government does not have you best interest in mind, get over it, fuck sakes.

How can you possibly continue to believe that there was planes when you know for a fact that the planes can not slip through steel and concrete.

[JFK]

So the only crashes you have experience with in real life are software crashes... Explains a lot.

Jazzrock sounds happier, and "the government" as you aptly put it has not helped me one iota regarding my retirement... and do you realize that it was 1979 when the first draft of the wargame scenerio regarding the WTC and jumbo jets was drafted ?
( had a friend whose job it was to write wargame scenerios and he had me proof read that for him one night )

Those planes did not "slip" through steel and concrete. They were shredded in the process and there is plenty of video and still documentation of that regarding the second impact.

But unlike Jazzrock, I do not believe that is what caused the towers demise.