100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes

[p4r4]

The embedded wheel looks very suspicious as it's not clear how would it survive the impact. It was not extended at the time of the impact, and the steel beams don't seem that damage, after assuming that the whole airplane got through but not the wheel...

First portion of the "rare video" shows no delay in explosion sound reaching the camera despite the considerable distance.

[JazzRoc]

(08-14-2011 07:12 AM)p4r4 Wrote:  The embedded wheel looks very suspicious as it's not clear how would it survive the impact.

I don't see why not.

Quote:It was not extended at the time of the impact, and the steel beams don't seem that damage, after assuming that the whole airplane got through but not the wheel...

I'm pretty sure the wheel went out in a piece of the FAR side. EVERYTHING penetrated the NEAR side!
The easy penetration of hard metals by soft metals at high speeds was sussed brilliantly by the Soviets in WW2 when they had to deal with Hitler's tanks: Panzerfaust. Surely, everyone's heard of bazookas. Even I have fired copper/lead rifle rounds through mild steel angle iron, fifty years ago.
These arguments that go "aluminum beercans cannot penetrate solid steel" have no legs whatsoever in the real world, where the specific strength of airframe-grade dural is GREATER than steel, and the impact speed is 800+ feet per second, and the "solid" steel is actually a fourteen-inch AIR SPACE wrapped in a 5/16 inch thickness of steel sheet.

Quote:First portion of the "rare video"

"Rare" it may be, but it is FULLY COMPATIBLE with all the other videos of that event wrt the progression of impact and explosion. The same pieces of shattered tower and wreckage follow the same trajectories in the same time period. They're pukka, and it is pukka too.

Quote:shows no delay in explosion sound reaching the camera despite the considerable distance.

That's WIND NOISE.

The collision sound may be the plunky musical note you hear towards the end. My theory (but only mine) is that's the exact sound made by a swept-back wing when it cleaves fifty yards of box columns, one after another, at 560 mph. The time delay seems about right - slowed down by the slow motion, of course...

Pukka wake vortices for fakery, innit? So where's this "100% Conclusive Proof"? SNAFU...

[p4r4]

Quote: p4r4 Wrote: The embedded wheel looks very suspicious as it's not clear how would it survive the impact.

I don't see why not.

It looks like the nose wheel of plane. That means, the whole plane
would have to go through that wheel stuck in the building. even if it's the main gear it still has a lot of plane to go through it...
In the photo the wheel does not look like it had that experience.

Ok, assuming it's the wind noise. Then why it's not heard in the slow motion part of the video while the "sound note" is heard in both cases?

[JazzRoc]

(08-14-2011 08:34 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  It looks like the nose wheel of plane. That means, the whole plane would have to go through that wheel stuck in the building. even if it's the main gear it still has a lot of plane to go through it... In the photo the wheel does not look like it had that experience.

You aren't expressing yourself very clearly. "To go through it"? Let's run through the process together, then.
At 800 feet per second, the airframe passes through the tower box columns as if they were curtains, tearing itself apart in the process.
A quarter of a second later, the "ribbons" of torn aircraft, office contents, and fireball arrive at the far side of the tower. The motor shafts and undercarriage are too hard strong and heavy to disintegrate, easily penetrate the far wall, and they and detached tower fragments fall into the WTC complex in wide flat parabolic arcs, still traveling at hundreds of miles per hour.
That wheel became detached when the airframe was destroyed on the first impact. As a free item it embedded itself in the far wall, detaching it and causing it to fall free.

Quote:Ok, assuming it's the wind noise. Then why it's not heard in the slow motion part of the video while the "sound note" is heard in both cases?

The wind noise has predominantly low frequency tones. Slowing the recording takes many of those frequencies below the threshold of the human ear. The noise is still THERE, but its volume is greatly reduced. You should be aware of such phenomena.

[p4r4]

(08-15-2011 10:41 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:  

(08-14-2011 08:34 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  It looks like the nose wheel of plane. That means, the whole plane would have to go through that wheel stuck in the building. even if it's the main gear it still has a lot of plane to go through it... In the photo the wheel does not look like it had that experience.

You aren't expressing yourself very clearly. "To go through it"? Let's run through the process together, then.
At 800 feet per second, the airframe passes through the tower box columns as if they were curtains, tearing itself apart in the process.
A quarter of a second later, the "ribbons" of torn aircraft, office contents, and fireball arrive at the far side of the tower. The motor shafts and undercarriage are too hard strong and heavy to disintegrate, easily penetrate the far wall, and they and detached tower fragments fall into the WTC complex in wide flat parabolic arcs, still traveling at hundreds of miles per hour.
That wheel became detached when the airframe was destroyed on the first impact. As a free item it embedded itself in the far wall, detaching it and causing it to fall free.

Quote:Ok, assuming it's the wind noise. Then why it's not heard in the slow motion part of the video while the "sound note" is heard in both cases?

The wind noise has predominantly low frequency tones. Slowing the recording takes many of those frequencies below the threshold of the human ear. The noise is still THERE, but its volume is greatly reduced. You should be aware of such phenomena.

how many impacts and steel beams inside the building would it have to survive as a "free item"? it has just a cut and some dust on it, looks planted to me...
The photo is not proof of it being embedded, let alone being from the actual airplane.

The wind sound may be just that, the wind , i give you that. Still there is no evidence of vortexes, it looks like an updraft effect to me.

If you believe it to be an inside job? why would you believe all the photos and videos to be genuine. Personally i am not convinced of any theory, planes or no planes. I am skeptical of any evidence and keep an open mind, there is no conclusive proof for either theory in my opinion.

By the way, can you explain how steel beams turn to dust?







FF to 3.15

[p4r4]

[JazzRoc]

(08-15-2011 12:16 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  how many impacts and steel beams inside the building would it have to survive as a "free item"?

There were NO beams for it to meet, and it passed to the right of the centre columns.

Quote:it has just a cut and some dust on it, looks planted to me...

It had to have been planted BEFORE the incident, because the dust from the building is OVER it. How did they manage to do that without anyone observing them?
It couldn't have been planted AFTER, because the "planters" would have had to leave their tracks as they ducked to avoid falling windows and bodies.
Be reasonable. That evidence couldn't have been planted without either being seen by members of the public or firemen.

Quote:The photo is not proof of it being embedded, let alone being from the actual airplane.

I wasn't claiming "proof" that it was embedded. That was one of MANY pictures of plane parts claimed to not exist for which I supplied a link. If you were to be a moron, you'd fixate on that and ignore all the other pictures.

Quote:The wind sound may be just that, the wind, i give you that.

Good Lord! A concession...

Quote:Still there is no evidence of vortexes, it looks like an updraft effect to me.

An "updraft effect" with interlinked rings, the rightmost of which rotates ANTICLOCKWISE and the leftmost of which rotates CLOCKWISE is EVIDENCE of a wake vortex. Deny away...

Quote:If you believe it to be an inside job why would you believe all the photos and videos to be genuine?

I DON'T believe it to be an "inside job", any more or less than PEARL HARBOR was. In BOTH cases the US knew something was going to happen. They just didn't know precisely what or precisely when.
Photos by the public I take to be genuine. Fake photos by the govt wouldn't be too difficult to spot either.
"Truther" photos I would take to be the opposite of whatever they claim, because truthers are 100% consistently WRONG ALL OF THE TIME. They are mislead, confused, deceived, or LYING. 100% on the button, dead wrong, always. I think it's to do with leading every thought they have with "Bush did it!" It just doesn't help one arrive at the truth by so consistently presupposing that.

Quote:Personally i am not convinced of any theory, planes or no planes. I am skeptical of any evidence and keep an open mind, there is no conclusive proof for either theory in my opinion.

Oh, there's conclusive proof, all right. Your problem is you can't manage the comprehension part.

Quote:By the way, can you explain how steel beams turn to dust?

Easily. They didn't.
They manage to stay erect as they had their floor fixings sheared off and all the floors scraped down them. This left them slagged with molten iron on their outsides, and standing in pools of molten iron at their bases, which had just received more than a hundred heavy hammer-blows in around twenty seconds. They then slowly fell over...
What you see is just more video compression crap, which loses ALL fine detail on telephoto low-contrast shots.
An analogy would be your comprehension skills...

[icosaface]

What were the serial numbers of the parts they found in the street?

[JazzRoc]

(08-17-2011 12:03 AM)icosaface Wrote:  What were the serial numbers of the parts they found in the street?

I don't know. Do you?

Is that "100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11"? IS there any?

[p4r4]

Quote: how many impacts and steel beams inside the building would it have to survive as a "free item"?
-----
There were NO beams for it to meet, and it passed to the right of the centre columns.

How do you know it passed to the right of the center steel columns ? It's not like the floor was empty of walls, offices and all kind of appliances. it's also improbable that the wheel would survive the impact itself. If it came out as a twisted wheel rim, hard to recognize, than it would be more convincing. By the way, i found another couple of wheels.




note the difference in wheels but the location seems to be the same ...

source: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/why_indeed.html

Quote: it has just a cut and some dust on it, looks planted to me...
-----
It had to have been planted BEFORE the incident, because the dust from the building is OVER it. How did they manage to do that without anyone observing them?
It couldn't have been planted AFTER, because the "planters" would have had to leave their tracks as they ducked to avoid falling windows and bodies.
Be reasonable. That evidence couldn't have been planted without either being seen by members of the public or firemen.

It could have been planted anytime, even a month after, somewhere in California. Faking photos is too easy to be viable proof or evidence. With current technology even videos in real time loose credibility...

Quote: The wind sound may be just that, the wind, i give you that.
-----
Good Lord! A concession...

Something you would never do ...

Quote: Still there is no evidence of vortexes, it looks like an updraft effect to me.
-----
An "updraft effect" with interlinked rings, the rightmost of which rotates ANTICLOCKWISE and the leftmost of which rotates CLOCKWISE is EVIDENCE of a wake vortex. Deny away...

Some people see even the devil or jesus in images that are easy to misinterpret, i see bunnies all the time i look at clouds. Seriously, there is no vortexes that interlock clockwise or counterclockwise. i see wind blowing smoke up. here is an example of an explosion creating rotating masses of air that could be interpreted as vortexes:





The vortex would have to occur much lower than explosion smoke.The vortex is directed down as a result of the lift created by the wing. Even if an airplane hit the tower, the explosion smoke would not be affected by the vortex turbulence.

Quote: If you believe it to be an inside job why would you believe all the photos and videos to be genuine?
-----
I DON'T believe it to be an "inside job", any more or less than PEARL HARBOR was. In BOTH cases the US knew something was going to happen. They just didn't know precisely what or precisely when.
Photos by the public I take to be genuine. Fake photos by the govt wouldn't be too difficult to spot either.
"Truther" photos I would take to be the opposite of whatever they claim, because truthers are 100% consistently WRONG ALL OF THE TIME. They are mislead, confused, deceived, or LYING. 100% on the button, dead wrong, always. I think it's to do with leading every thought they have with "Bush did it!" It just doesn't help one arrive at the truth by so consistently presupposing that.

I know it's hard to admit that wtc7 was demolished in a controlled manner or that the pentagon was not hit by an airplane. The terrorist planted explosive in wtc7 and got hold of cruise missile to blow the pentagon.

Quote: Personally i am not convinced of any theory, planes or no planes. I am skeptical of any evidence and keep an open mind, there is no conclusive proof for either theory in my opinion.
-----
Oh, there's conclusive proof, all right. Your problem is you can't manage the comprehension part.

Conclusive proof is relative to the individual. You are convinced, i can see that. I am not, i keep an open mind about everything and put everything to doubt, no matter how convincing it is. You seem disturbed that not everyone is as convinced as you are ...

Quote: By the way, can you explain how steel beams turn to dust?
-----
Easily. They didn't.
They manage to stay erect as they had their floor fixings sheared off and all the floors scraped down them. This left them slagged with molten iron on their outsides, and standing in pools of molten iron at their bases, which had just received more than a hundred heavy hammer-blows in around twenty seconds. They then slowly fell over...
What you see is just more video compression crap, which loses ALL fine detail on telephoto low-contrast shots.
An analogy would be your comprehension skills...

Slagged with molten iron? They did not glow. Why would there be a pool of molten iron on the base(for months)? I asked about the dust that suddenly formed when they suddenly collapsed/disintegrated...

About video compression, your video of vortexes, it's full of compression crap.

Yes i am stupid, you are smart. Did i comprehend that correctly ?


You seem to be able to comprehend everything so well. Can you enlighten me on why the cars found 1.5 miles from the ground zero got inconsistent damage to what a dust storm would do?

this is where the pics of the cars was
taken:


source: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/S...ml#toasted

---

witch one of the video is "conclusively" genuine and why ?

[JazzRoc]

(08-17-2011 02:50 AM)p4r4 Wrote:  How do you know it passed to the right of the center steel columns?

Because of the location and angle of the impact hole. It shows a bank, meaning the pilot was trying to change his trajectory to center his plane when too far over to the right. He didn't succeed.

Quote:It's not like the floor was empty of walls, offices and all kind of appliances.

Drywalls and office furniture versus sixty tons doing 800 ft/sec? No contest. Not in the same league, old boy.

Quote:it's also improbable that the wheel would survive the impact itself.

Wheels survive almost everything. Get about much?

Quote:If it came out as a twisted wheel rim, hard to recognize, than it would be more convincing. By the way, i found another couple of wheels. Note the difference in wheels but the location seems to be the same. It has just a cut and some dust on it, looks planted to me...

Well, I suppose it would, to an "unbiased" "truther". What an oxymoron.

Quote:It could have been planted anytime, even a month after, somewhere in California. Faking photos is too easy to be viable proof or evidence. With current technology even videos in real time lose credibility...

You just haven't read ANY eyewitness accounts, have you?

Quote:Still there is no evidence of vortexes, it looks like an updraft effect to me.

An "updraft effect" with interlinked rings, the rightmost of which rotates ANTICLOCKWISE and the leftmost of which rotates CLOCKWISE is EVIDENCE of a wake vortex. The plural of "vortex" is "vortices".

Quote:Seriously, there is no vortexes that interlock clockwise or counterclockwise. i see wind blowing smoke up.

Deny away... I said you would...

Quote:here is an example of an explosion creating rotating masses of air that could be interpreted as vortexes.

ALL hot explosions form a vertical axis RING VORTEX. ALWAYS. Lift the scales from thine eyes... But they don't form interlinked rings on a horizontal axis They don't show Crow Instabilities, because there's ONLY ONE VORTEX in an explosion, but TWO are generated (which can interfere with one another) by a LIFTING WING.

Quote:The vortex would have to occur much lower than explosion smoke.The vortex is directed down as a result of the lift created by the wing. Even if an airplane hit the tower, the explosion smoke would not be affected by the vortex turbulence.

The wake vortex pair existed as two long columns of rotating air stretching miles behind the aircraft. Its energy was DOUBLED in the 2G bank maneuver.
When the plane disappeared into the tower, the vortex pair would still be there afterward, and just like a tornado "sticks" to the ground, this pair of horizontal tornadoes "stuck" to the tower, picked out by the falling dust and the rising smoke.

Quote:I know it's hard to admit that wtc7 was demolished in a controlled manner or that the pentagon was not hit by an airplane.

WTC fell silently when a column over its bridge beam buckled due to losing its lateral stabilization when the (very) long-span flooring expanded past the limits of its fixings.
It's technical, I know, but that's the way it is. You cannot let sustained fires burn, even with protected steel, without shit happening. The insulation merely provides the time for the occupants to escape.

Quote:The terrorist planted explosive in wtc7 and got hold of cruise missile to blow the pentagon.

This "cruise missile" carried TEN TONS of kerosine? Wow, that's special... the lengths these "terrorists" will get to, eh? ROFL...

Quote:Conclusive proof is relative to the individual. You are convinced, i can see that. I am not, i keep an open mind

ROFL once more...

Quote:about everything and put everything to doubt, no matter how convincing it is. You seem disturbed that not everyone is as convinced as you are

What disturbs me is that the world tolerates you. An argument from ignorance weakens "eternal vigilance". You're too dumb to know you're a despicable fifth column. One that forms a body of disbelief obscuring REAL preventative inquiry. We're ALL tarred by the brush that tars YOU.

Quote:Slagged with molten iron? They did not glow.

DAYLIGHT. Heat conduction. When you rub or hammer steel, it HEATS UP, albeit temporarily.

Quote:Why would there be a pool of molten iron on the base (for months)?

I have just explained why. Try reading what I write.

Quote:I asked about the dust that suddenly formed when they suddenly collapsed/disintegrated...

Oh, Judy Wood garbage. The "dust" that "suddenly" formed was DUST. (EDIT) - or maybe the columns were smoking hot...

Quote:Yes i am stupid, you are smart. Did i comprehend that correctly?

Small beginnings. Make haste slowly.

Quote:You seem to be able to comprehend everything so well. Can you enlighten me on why the cars found 1.5 miles from the ground zero got inconsistent damage to what a dust storm would do?

Whatever THAT means... No.
Perhaps the local authorities dragged them there to get them out of the way? I don't believe they're relevant in any way.

Quote:witch one of the video is "conclusively" genuine and why?

Surely the one with the spelling mistakes.

A fuel/air explosion (very difficult to set up TEN TONS of kerosine in an office, vaporize it, mix with air and ignite it, without actually flying a fueled-up airliner into the building, by the way) would have blown out ALL the windows on that floor equally, in every direction. You can see the explosion moving rightward at speed.
The ejection of the motor shafts, body parts on rooftops, that piece of tower column with a wheel in it. That too must have been difficult to arrange, eh?
Oh, and there's the molten aluminum falling out of the impact area, the media to fix, the radar people, the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

[rsol]

im looking at both pictures of that wheel. I must say on initial inspection it would seem as tho they are different. however with a closer inspection, you will find that after suffering some major damage and the fact that the tire has been almost taken off after having forces from a falling building on them, you will find that is in fact the same wheel. the location is different. it has rolled. I think you will find that cut in the wheel was keeping it set in the first picture and rolled to the left (ed)about 180 degrees.

---

Quote:You seem to be able to comprehend everything so well. Can you enlighten me on why the cars found 1.5 miles from the ground zero got inconsistent damage to what a dust storm would do?

those cars in that picture? they didnt start off there. there were somewhere else. its called moving crap out of the way to get your vehicles in...

[icosaface]

jazzroc said:

Quote: icosaface Wrote: What were the serial numbers of the parts they found in the street?

I don't know. Do you?

Is that "100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11"? IS there any?

No but you used the parts as proof that there were planes and there were no serial numbers ever reported for the parts. Another telltale sign of jiggery pokery. Whether there were or were not planes is not the issue, imo, rather it is a distraction to deflect the discussion away from the myriad of evidence which shows that it was an inside job, a black flag op.

[p4r4]

Quote: How do you know it passed to the right of the center steel columns?
-----
Because of the location and angle of the impact hole. It shows a bank, meaning the pilot was trying to change his trajectory to center his plane when too far over to the right. He didn't succeed.

Quote: It's not like the floor was empty of walls, offices and all kind of appliances.
-----
Drywalls and office furniture versus sixty tons doing 800 ft/sec? No contest. Not in the same league, old boy.

I doubt the wheel weights 60 tons... and the airplane did hit the center steel columns.

Quote: If it came out as a twisted wheel rim, hard to recognize, than it would be more convincing. By the way, i found another couple of wheels. Note the difference in wheels but the location seems to be the same. It has just a cut and some dust on it, looks planted to me...
-----
Well, I suppose it would, to an "unbiased" "truther". What an oxymoron.

You seem to be the most biased.

Quote: You seem to be able to comprehend everything so well. Can you enlighten me on why the cars found 1.5 miles from the ground zero got inconsistent damage to what a dust storm would do?
-----
those cars in that picture? they didnt start off there. there were somewhere else. its called moving crap out of the way to get your vehicles in...

So the wheels can't be planted but the cars are?. There is a lot more evidence of cars being affected in similar way all over Manhattan. check out the website: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/S...ml#toasted

Quote: It could have been planted anytime, even a month after, somewhere in California. Faking photos is too easy to be viable proof or evidence. With current technology even videos in real time lose credibility...
-----
You just haven't read ANY eyewitness accounts, have you?

what eyewitness? got references ?

some eyewitnesses in this trailer:

Quote: Why would there be a pool of molten iron on the base (for months)?
-----
I have just explained why. Try reading what I write.

what is it that you write? make me comprehend you better!

Quote: here is an example of an explosion creating rotating masses of air that could be interpreted as vortexes.
----
ALL hot explosions form a vertical axis RING VORTEX. ALWAYS. Lift the scales from thine eyes... But they don't form interlinked rings on a horizontal axis They don't show Crow Instabilities, because there's ONLY ONE VORTEX in an explosion, but TWO are generated (which can interfere with one another) by a LIFTING WING.

Yet to see the elusive vortex you are talking about, or the crow instability. the explosion in the this video clearly shows interlinked ring on a horizontal axis.

Quote: Still there is no evidence of vortexes, it looks like an updraft effect to me.
-----
An "updraft effect" with interlinked rings, the rightmost of which rotates ANTICLOCKWISE and the leftmost of which rotates CLOCKWISE is EVIDENCE of a wake vortex. The plural of "vortex" is "vortices".

Where do you see an interlinked ring ?

Quote: Seriously, there is no vortexes that interlock clockwise or counterclockwise. i see wind blowing smoke up.
-----
Deny away... I said you would...

Dream on ...

Quote: The vortex would have to occur much lower than explosion smoke.The vortex is directed down as a result of the lift created by the wing. Even if an airplane hit the tower, the explosion smoke would not be affected by the vortex turbulence.
------
The wake vortex pair existed as two long columns of rotating air stretching miles behind the aircraft. Its energy was DOUBLED in the 2G bank maneuver.
When the plane disappeared into the tower, the vortex pair would still be there afterward, and just like a tornado "sticks" to the ground, this pair of horizontal tornadoes "stuck" to the tower, picked out by the falling dust and the rising smoke.

this is how the vortex is generated:

source: http://www.bayareapilot.com/waketurbulence.htm

And at high speeds generally there is less wake turbulence.

Quote: I know it's hard to admit that wtc7 was demolished in a controlled manner or that the pentagon was not hit by an airplane.
-----
WTC fell silently when a column over its bridge beam buckled due to losing its lateral stabilization when the (very) long-span flooring expanded past the limits of its fixings.
It's technical, I know, but that's the way it is. You cannot let sustained fires burn, even with protected steel, without shit happening. The insulation merely provides the time for the occupants to escape.

"shit happening", very technical for me to comprehend

Quote: The terrorist planted explosive in wtc7 and got hold of cruise missile to blow the pentagon.
----
This "cruise missile" carried TEN TONS of kerosine? Wow, that's special... the lengths these "terrorists" will get to, eh? ROFL...

Kerosene is not a good explosive. A cruise missile can have 1.5 tons or more of high explosive payload, more than enough to do that kind of damage.

Compare the pentagon explosion to these:

Quote: Slagged with molten iron? They did not glow.
----
DAYLIGHT. Heat conduction. When you rub or hammer steel, it HEATS UP, albeit temporarily.

I'd like you to rub a hammer till it melts ...

Quote: I asked about the dust that suddenly formed when they suddenly collapsed/disintegrated...
-----
Oh, Judy Wood garbage. The "dust" that "suddenly" formed was DUST.

Yes, dust. That is the point.

Quote: witch one of the video is "conclusively" genuine and why?
------
Surely the one with the spelling mistakes.

A fuel/air explosion (very difficult to set up TEN TONS of kerosine in an office, vaporize it, mix with air and ignite it, without actually flying a fueled-up airliner into the building, by the way) would have blown out ALL the windows on that floor equally, in every direction. You can see the explosion moving rightward at speed.
The ejection of the motor shafts, body parts on rooftops, that piece of tower column with a wheel in it. That too must have been difficult to arrange, eh?
Oh, and there's the molten aluminum falling out of the impact area, the media to fix, the radar people, the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

Can you point out how the video was faked then?

Media does not need to be fixed, it is the fix. Radar people see on the screen what the airplane transponder sends them, otherwise they have a vague idea on what is it, how fast is it or at what altitude. And how is this relevant to the video, other than your bias.

[rsol]

Quote:So the wheels can't be planted but the cars are?. There is a lot more evidence of cars being affected in similar way all over Manhattan. check out the website

check out the road. where is the dust?? its after a clean up cant you see that?