September Clues Addendum Chapter 1

[JazzRoc]

(08-25-2010 08:19 AM)drew hempel Wrote:  the North Tower of the World Trade Center was not a natural, gravity-driven collapse."

This is a vertical version of Zeno's Paradox. How are YOU with THAT?
Floors don't "collapse" in this instant - they merely ACCUMULATE. The "head of the hammer" is gathering mass as it falls.
There is NOT A SIGN of ANY floor collapsing PRIOR to the arrival of the accumulating material above it.
Such a graph (of the vertical acceleration of the top of the tower) would begin with a column-buckling phase (lesser slope) then a crush/fall phase (steeper slope) at an acceleration LESS than gravity (free-falling material overtakes it) which would have gradually APPROACHED gravitational acceleration (ie., a progressively-steepening slope!) as the accumulated mass increased, and with the increasing speed, the impact forces were increasing exponentially, making their task (crushing) a lighter one over time.
Isn't that how it is?
Who inputted the plot points off the video? Was that person impartial?

[rsol]

no time accounted for in your accumulation theory jazz. plus heres a paradox for you.

If it was so simple for those buildings to collapse on their own, how much explosive would you need to bring it down?

[JazzRoc]

(08-25-2010 07:05 PM)rsol Wrote:  no time accounted for in your accumulation theory jazz. plus heres a paradox for you.

More than TWICE the free fall time. Enough.

Quote:If it was so simple for those buildings to collapse on their own, how much explosive would you need to bring it down?

It WAS simple. Thirty-five tons of kerosine (plus you have to blow away 150 ft of wall and a dozen core columns - best use a 767 at 565 mph).
Other than that, I wouldn't know. I spent some of my childhood blowing things up, but my working life I spent designing and building things.
No paradox was used in the making of this comment. You need to learn what a paradox is.

[nik]

the mentally-ill underminers of '911 truth' Wrote:

Quote:
**********Win a free ride on the next NASA mission to planet Mars**********



"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE !"


Allright folks - shall we take it to bridge?


Today's clue for allcomers to debunk is... :


THE OLD, TRUSTY VERRAZANO BRIDGE user posted image

This used to be a favorite of the hard-workin' debunkers, back in the old days...
They just loved to talk about "parallax" and "lens distortion" and fancy terms that made them sound like smart & knowledgeable professional photo pros...
They sure made me work hard for my "money"...heheh! The early September Clues already featured comparisons such as these:

Quote:This split-screen shot was actually aired on the BBC just as you see it! :

Quote:One fine day, I found a chopper view from a REAL (pre-2001) camera:

The bridge as seen on the History Channel*********The bridge (7.5 miles away) as seen by a REAL camera

[icosaface]

Fakery! Thanks nik. A year or 2 ago I posted a video on conspiracy central that showed shots of the towers from the same spot at the same time, in one video the background was grayed out and you could see the plane and in the other video the background was visible but the plane wasn't. I guess we lost a lot of archives because I can't find this in my list of posts. I haven't been able to find it on the net but I will keep looking.

[nik]

np, icosa.
I predict a science based "solution" about "cold and warm air with the Antarctic as an example" may be presented on the board but then maybe not now.. let's see lol

---

(08-26-2010 02:13 PM)icosaface Wrote:  Fakery! Thanks nik. A year or 2 ago I posted a video on conspiracy central that showed shots of the towers from the same spot at the same time, in one video the background was grayed out and you could see the plane and in the other video the background was visible but the plane wasn't. I guess we lost a lot of archives because I can't find this in my list of posts. I haven't been able to find it on the net but I will keep looking.

Excellent! Great stuff, icosa

[JazzRoc]

(08-26-2010 01:26 PM)nik Wrote:  "the mentally-ill underminers of '911 truth'

Projection of your thought processes upon others isn't creative.

Quote:"parallax"

Yes, indeed. Those damn helicopters just get EVERYWHERE.

Quote:This split-screen shot was actually aired on the BBC just as you see it! :

Yes, and entirely unobjectionable.

Quote:One fine day, I found a chopper view from a REAL (pre-2001) camera

My wife has a fine collection from her helicopter flight the year previously.

Quote:The bridge as seen on the History Channel. The bridge (7.5 miles away) as seen by a REAL camera

[/quote]
So what?
Video enterprises are ALWAYS messing with images. It's their BUSINESS.
Digital technology itself ALWAYS MESSES with the images. It's how it works...
The common factor of "truthers over the edge" (and that is certainly what YOU are) is the failure to appreciate the ROUGHNESS of percieved reality, AND YOUR WILLINGNESS TO IGNORE DIRECT VISUAL EVIDENCE.
You don't know WHERE the copters were, and you cannot estimate the parallax involved as a consequence.
If you weren't so fixated you would notice that (cloning software or not) the explosions and smoke rising from the towers exhibit EXACTLY the SAME morphological features at the SAME moment in time NO MATTER WHAT THE SOURCE of the images. That smacks profoundly of TRUTH.
And now for the DIRECT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
Considering that in a law court a forensic case might be that a small circular hole evidenced the passage of a bullet, and that a thin but deep cut evidenced the use of a knife, what forensic case might be made for this hole?



Note that snapped column-ends face inward - which rules out ANY internally-placed explosion.
I repeat, what forensic case might be made for this hole?
What shape is it?

It's a pity I have to repeat myself. But you DO HAVE TO, of course, when you're talking to someone in DEEP trouble.

[icosaface]

Yea, that is one of the telltale signs of insanity, repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Get some help eh!

[nik]

nice one, Icosa

[icosaface]

Thanks nik.

[h3rm35]

(08-26-2010 02:13 PM)icosaface Wrote:  Fakery! Thanks nik. A year or 2 ago I posted a video on conspiracy central that showed shots of the towers from the same spot at the same time, in one video the background was grayed out and you could see the plane and in the other video the background was visible but the plane wasn't. I guess we lost a lot of archives because I can't find this in my list of posts. I haven't been able to find it on the net but I will keep looking.

Do you have the source video? Did you see the source video? Does anyone other than those with footage of planes going into the towers have any footage without the planes at those times on that day? Did every cctv camera go offline? Every single possibility of a publicity leak was sealed in Lower Manhattan?" If that's possible than anything is. Why research anything anymore?

...or, in order to give this some validity, are there videos that dispute the outright propaganda campaign perpetrated by the press that was "the 9/11 spectacle?" Are there videos anywhere that easily verify a lack of planes? There were thousands of tourists with their cameras out, focused on the tops of the buildings... back then, there always were. Even now, (just in case you don't believe I was there then and that I'm snorkeling clues about my supposed "whereabouts" during peephole breaks on my submarine and need verification that this is the way its been for decades in south Manhattan,) if you walk around nearby, tourists are everywhere with cameras pointed skywards.

If you take the MSM's videos to heart, you let them lie to you. They were fabricated by the people you're against... and intentionally infected with drastic factual errors.

The interesting question is where all the rest of the photos and videos are? The lenses were there by the thousands, and we've only seen a few shots of the various impact angles.

Tourists by the hundreds, guaranteed to have cameras all over Manhattan, and none of them left with any video whatsoever of the event even after the first impact - planeful or planeless? Anyone with a camera, video or otherwise, certainly would have used it.

Resolve that question, and I think this issue will become less prickly.

[nik]

I don't know whether to admire the simplicity of the "thousand of people" canard or not, icosa.

Quote:. F.A.Q. 4: The Eye-Witnesses

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION N°4:

Q: “What about the thousands of eye-witnesses in Manhattan ?”

A: There is no denying the existence of a large amount of eye-witness testimonies reported by the mainstream media - and even by more credible, independent sources. The vast majority refer to the sightings of the 2nd event at WTC2 - while strikingly few refer to the 1st event at WTC1. With this in mind - and permitting that witness reports might be a reliable source of information - we should concentrate on the available witness reports.


Of course, eye-witness testimonies are notoriously unreliable, particularly in the case of brief, rapidly unfolding events. In spite of this commonly-accepted fact, many people seem to be strongly attached to what (they perceive) was reported by "thousands" of eye-witnesses in Manhattan. A key question should be raised: Did most people report a “large passenger airliner?” The firm answer to this is: No.

Of those people who provided details of the object they saw, the majority reported anything but a large airliner. I submit below a cross-section of such testimonies: Of course, this selective list is only meant to get an idea of the variety of the 9/11 eye-witness reports – and is not intended to establish any conclusive proof. However, it goes to show that there was no general consensus on what precisely hit WTC2 :

SELECTED EYEWITNESS REPORTS DESCRIBING OBJECT STRIKING WTC2:

A SMALL PLANE
1. "At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane."- Credited to: Roy Chelson

A CESSNA OR LEAR JET TYPE OR...
2. “Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Lear jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building”. - Credited to: Anthony Bartolomey

A SMALL (TRAINING) PLANE
3. “I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot a plane, a small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane…, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they worked with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!”- Credited to: Karim Arraki

A CESSNA
4. “I was on my way to work…traffic was excellent…I received a call saying a small Cessna had hit the World trade Center…I was asked to go and man the Office of Emergency Management at the World Trade Center 7 on its 23d floor…” – Credited to: Barry Jennings

LIKE A SMALLER PLANE
5. “I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like it ‘bounced’ off the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down…it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it was anything commercial.”- Stuart Nurick, LIVE on CBS NEWS

A SMALL, SMALL JET PLANE
6. “…We saw a plane flying low overhead which caught all of our attention. We looked up. It was making a b-line for the World Trade Centre. It was very low, extremely low, not a big plane like an airliner …uh… but not a tiny propeller plane, a small, small jet plane.”- Credited to: Mary Cozza

A LIGHT COMMUTER PLANE
7. "I mean, I hate to admit this, but I'm sitting there hoping that someone has made a mistake; there has been an accident; that this isn't the hijacked airplane, because there is confusion. We were told it was a light commuter airplane." Credited to: (news report)

THOUGHT PLANE WAS MUCH SMALLER
8. "I thought it could have been an accident...I thought the plane was much smaller..."- Credited to: Sid Bedingfield

A PROP JET
9. "I was told by somebody that we had an eyewitness who happened to be an off-duty firefighter who told me that he saw the first building get hit and it was hit by a prop jet, which I think turned out to be the wrong information, but everybody sees things differently."- Credited to: Steven Mosiello

A SMALLER TYPE PLANE
10. "And we went to a high point in our building, which is on the 25th floor, and you had a clear view of both World Trade Centers and the one that was smoking hard, and there was another plane that was flying low, and we just looked at it, and before we know it, it was just kamikaze, boom, right into the other tower... but it didn't seem like a big passenger jet. It was a smaller type plane, because it made some pretty radical turn, and flying low..." - Credited to: Mr. Tractsonburg

A SMALL JET
11. “We’re walking the dogs and we saw a plane flying really low, a jet, a small jet, and it flew directly into the World Trade Center..”- Credited to: (news report)

SMALL CARGO MILITARY
12. I got out of the car, and I told Larry I saw an FBI agent and I was going to start talking to him. I gave him my card, and he gave me a card. I said I thought that that second plane that went into the south tower was a military plane, like a transport or small cargo military. - Credited to: Battalion Chief Brian O’Flaherty

A BOMB....A MISSILE
13. "Hey Grandpa, I'll tell you what woke me up. They bombed the World Trade Centre. I'm looking at it and Mi-Kyung's video taping it. Terrible. I heard, Grandpa, I saw it. It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb...a missile...er...this could be world war three."- Credited to: Mi Kyung Heller

LIKE A MISSILE
14. “…I can only describe as, it sounded like a missile, not an airplane….it was definitely not the sound of a prop plane or anything like that….I grew up on military bases and I know the sound of jets and I’ve been in war zones and heard those kinds of different sounds….the sound itself was not of a prop plane , it was perhaps a jet, but it could have been a missile as well….it was high pitched, but it had a…er…a…whooshing sound, not, not like a prop plane…”- Don Dahler, LIVE on ABC TV

A ROCKET
15. “It was a big fireball or something from the plane I guess, came from across the street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the rig, there's a cop, city police officer, in the street. He's telling us, "I'm getting out of here. I just saw a rocket." He said he saw it come off the Woolworth Building and hit the tower”. - Credited to: Peter Fallucca

SOMETHING - PLANE OR MISSILE
16. “At that point I assumed you can't have two -- it can't be an accident to have two planes. So, I don't know if there's planes or missiles or what but something was hitting this thing. You saw debris was falling down.“ - Credited to: Brian Dixon

NOT A BIG PLANE
17. ”I was saying to him, "That plane is closer to us. It's really not a big plane going towards the building." Two seconds later it rammed into the building. "- Credited to: James Murphy

THOUGHT THEY SAW A MISSILE
18. " Some people thought they saw a missile, now I don't know how they could differentiate, but we might leave open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings ..." Dick Oliver, LIVE on FOX News

LIKE THE SIZE OF A GOLF BALL
19. “I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fireball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions.” - Credited to: Patricia Ondrovic

See: Report on NYC First Responder 9-11 Accounts (PDF 4,79 MB)


Note that 'missile' is mentioned in no uncertain terms even by a few newsmedia people: What to do with those? Did they simply tell the truth? Or were they actually instructed to do so? The latter option is theorized by some and may well be contemplated: If a "Joe Public" had very clearly seen a missile, he would undoubtedly find comfort in the fact that even war-zone experts like ABC's Don Dahler had been initially 'mistaken' as to what he saw. The endless TV replays of the BOEING 767 animation would have eventually put Joe's torments to rest. The TV images would have "cleansed" his recollections.

Generally speaking, the eye-witnesses on record reported a smaller airborne object than a wide-body passenger airliner. This fact alone is, to say the least, rather puzzling : how can a large, low-flying and very loud BOEING 767 be mistaken for a “small aircraft” by so many people? Try to picture yourself in New York that day: would you possibly have mistaken a 767 passing 700ft above you for a "small plane"?

Take “Flight 11”, for instance (the first alleged "hijacked plane"): It would have roared across the full length of Manhattan – from tip to toe, at full thrust and extremely low altitude: tens of thousands should recall that deafening event - yet hardly any witnesses on record (but a handful of newsmedia people) ever mention it. Here's just to get an idea of what it should have sounded (and approximately looked) like:

FACT: The only documented reports of a “Large Passenger Airplane” came from newsmedia employees.
(See: September Clues part D).

THE MISSILE HYPOTHESIS Arguably, what witnesses saw was a winged, plane-shaped missile. Interestingly, one such missile existed in 2001: Lockheed Martin’s flagship at the time was the JASSM AGM158, a precision-guided cruise missile with a titanium penetrator warhead. Its speed was 550mph and its CEP (Center Error Probable) as little as 8ft; of course, a pre-placed homing device in the WTC would have reduced that margin of error to zero. The point is, the AGM 158 could have undoubtedly by relied upon to hit a target as wide as the WTC (208ft) with utmost precision. Of course, such a winged missile - though considerably smaller than a Boeing 767 - would have effectively generated real eyewitnesses reporting “some sort of airplane" striking the tower. The JASSM AGM 158

We may only wonder why we have so many witness reports of a small aircraft. Since there is no photographic record of it, determining just what hit the WTC2 (if anything at all) will remain in the domain of speculation. In any event, anyone lending relevance to the available witnesses must do the effort to read their statements: Out of those who specify anything about the size of the object seen impacting the WTC2, most describe some sort of small aircraft. Consequently, at this stage and with the elements at hand, the missile hypothesis cannot be discounted. Ultimately, determining the precise object that flew into the WTC is a secondary issue: the bottom line is that the bulk of witness reports provide no support to the official 'BOEING 767' story.

[JazzRoc]

(08-29-2010 04:42 PM)nik Wrote:  ................... the bulk of witness reports provide no support to the official 'BOEING 767' story.

Nice divert.





Note that snapped column-ends face inward - which rules out ANY internally-placed explosion.

I repeat, what forensic case might be made for this hole?
What shape is it?

The above is a simple question. What stops you from answering it?

If your mind is BLANK, you may refer to THIS.

[nik]

diverting is your role

[icosaface]

Good one nik!