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

[p4r4]

(08-17-2011 03:06 PM)rsol Wrote:  

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?

Yes, indeed check out the road, there is not a spec of dust on it.


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

[rsol]

AND NOW A DIFFERENT ROAD!!!! PLEASE NOTE ALL THE LARGE TIRE TRACKS EVERYWHERE!! if those steel parts to the cars were effected why is the bridge totally unaffected? go back to the original picture and ask that question too...

also not the 3 unaffected cars parked. 2 of those were in the area at the time. the other on the right was not. where is the dust for that car?

[JazzRoc]

(08-17-2011 12:22 PM)rsol Wrote:  Those cars in that picture? they didn't start off there. they were somewhere else. its called moving crap out of the way to get your vehicles in...

I wish I'd put it that way.

[rsol]

its my goal in life to take words out of your mouth and simplify them

[JazzRoc]

(08-17-2011 02:58 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  the airplane did hit the center steel columns.

But maybe the wheel didn't, eh?

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.

That's a lot of damaged cars cleared in various directions, then. I know that some of them had aircraft bits stuck in them. Some people were injured that way.

Quote:what eyewitness? got references?

MANY eyewitnesses. Yes. The world-wide web. Have you ever used it?

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

It's already on record here. Do you know how to step back a page?

Quote:this video clearly shows interlinked ring on a horizontal axis.

Nearly correct. The axis is VERTICAL. It climbs up it.

Quote:Dream on ...

Wake me when you have something important to say.

Quote:The vortex would have to occur much lower than explosion smoke.

The vortices would be centered around the wingtip entry points.

Quote: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.

Some of it was dragged down into the vortices. The initial smoke was vaporized aluminum formed at the entry point. It's WHITE. Explosion dust and glass fragments also were incorporated into it. There is a temporary "braid" of Crow Instability "rings" in the falling dust.

Quote:at high speeds generally there is less wake turbulence.

True. But not when the plane is pulling 2G. You aren't reading me.

Quote:"shit happening", very technical for me

Occasionally I talk down to the rabble.

Quote:Kerosene is not a good explosive.

It has more energy, weight-for-weight, than TNT. It just needs intimate mixing with air.
Fuel/air bombs were used to murder 60,000 Iraqi Imperial Guard fleeing from Kuwait: a war crime more massive than Nagasaki.

Quote:A cruise missile can have 1.5 tons or more of high explosive payload, more than enough to do that kind of damage.

That was the impact energy of the Boeing 767 alone. Shows how much YOU know, eh?

Quote:Compare the pentagon explosion

The first is KEROSINE. As are the tower explosions. Next.

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

Sure. Just get 230,000 tons of building to rub past my hammer. You can hold it...

Quote:Yes, dust. That is the point.

Want dust? Take a small block of concrete and keep hammering. Wear a mask, and don't do it near ME.

Quote:Can you point out how the video was faked then?

Sure. Someone removed the airplane.

Quote:Media does not need to be fixed, it is the fix.

Sorry, sunshine, people need to be "fixed".

Quote:how is this (radar) relevant

Radar plots of "non-existent" planes would have to be inserted into the records, and MORE people would need to be "fixed".

[p4r4]

Quote: the airplane did hit the center steel columns.

But maybe the wheel didn't, eh?

eh, what? did it hit or did it not ?

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.

That's a lot of damaged cars cleared in various directions, then. I know that some of them had aircraft bits stuck in them. Some people were injured that way.

A mile and half away no plane pieces where found.

Quote: what eyewitness? got references?

MANY eyewitnesses. Yes. The world-wide web. Have you ever used it?

A lot of them claim they did not see the airplanes.

Quote: Kerosene is not a good explosive.

It has more energy, weight-for-weight, than TNT. It just needs intimate mixing with air.
Fuel/air bombs were used to murder 60,000 Iraqi Imperial Guard fleeing from Kuwait: a war crime more massive than Nagasaki.

Quote: A cruise missile can have 1.5 tons or more of high explosive payload, more than enough to do that kind of damage.

That was the impact energy of the Boeing 767 alone. Shows how much YOU know, eh?

The point was that a 1.5T of high explosive could have done the damage. Kerosine might have done more if it was the actual explosive factor ...

Quote: 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.

Some of it was dragged down into the vortices. The initial smoke was vaporized aluminum formed at the entry point. It's WHITE. Explosion dust and glass fragments also were incorporated into it. There is a temporary "braid" of Crow Instability "rings" in the falling dust.
------
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: at high speeds generally there is less wake turbulence.

True. But not when the plane is pulling 2G. You aren't reading me.

There is no evidence of the airplane pulling 2g, and the effect you interpret as vortex appear much later and higher, can you please find a better video source to make a better argument ?

Quote:this video clearly shows interlinked ring on a horizontal axis.

Nearly correct. The axis is VERTICAL. It climbs up it.

The vortex spins on a horizontal axis, climbing up vertically.

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

Sure. Just get 230,000 tons of build to rub past my hammer. You can hold it...

230k tons did not rub on every square inch of metal surface. Most of it turned to fine dust even before reaching the ground...

Quote:Yes, dust. That is the point.

Want dust? Take a small block of concrete and keep hammering. Wear a mask, and don't do it near ME.

That was not concrete. it was the central steel columns.

Quote: Can you point out how the video was faked then?

Sure. Someone removed the airplane.

I could say just as easy that someone inserted the airplane. i am looking for technical explanation of doing that kind of trickery, without the predisposed bias.

Quote: Compare the pentagon explosion

The first is KEROSINE. As are the tower explosions. Next.

eh? what?

Quote: Media does not need to be fixed, it is the fix.

Sorry, sunshine, people need to be fixed.

Indeed, who can better fix the people than media...

Quote: how is this (radar) relevant

Radar plots of "non-existent" planes would have to be inserted into the records, and people would need to be "fixed".

Radars screens operate on a software platform that could be manipulated without fixing many people.

Here is a pilots and air traffic controllers analysis of the event:

---

(08-17-2011 04:11 PM)rsol Wrote:  AND NOW A DIFFERENT ROAD!!!! PLEASE NOTE ALL THE LARGE TIRE TRACKS EVERYWHERE!! if those steel parts to the cars were effected why is the bridge totally unaffected? go back to the original picture and ask that question too...

also not the 3 unaffected cars parked. 2 of those were in the area at the time. the other on the right was not. where is the dust for that car?

It is the same road, different part. The dust did not settle equally everywhere due to building placement. All pictures have evidence of dust on the road. some cars have no dust on them, maybe because they have been parked after the event. It's a good point to notice that the bridge was unaffected by the phenomenon that torched and twisted the cars, that is the mystery, as is why some cars are only half affected.


with apparently an intact gas tank...

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

[rsol]

Quote:that is the mystery, as is why some cars are only half affected.

Not really. as long as you consider what you are saying is incorrect. then no mystery at all. the idea of one half of a vehicle either crushed or inflamed by falling debris is even less so.

exibit a

some random car after a fire.

[/php]

notice the unburnt seats and whatnot. must be the fireproofing...

And just remember you were supposedly covering all the angles with this hypothesis. why did you miss the bridge? did you not think? decide not to? or had you not been told?

Im not trying to be facetious, just reminding you to question everything, including yourself.

[SiLVa]

Speaking of ten tons of kerosene at the pentagon...Where's the evidence for this?
There is barely any as far as I can tell. Especially when you look at the pictures of the wall before the collapse of the outer ring, not much on fire and even more so when you see the debris inside the collapsed wall thats not burned at all. Ten tons of Kerosene would have burned the hell out of everything around there.

[JazzRoc]

(08-17-2011 04:21 PM)rsol Wrote:  its my goal in life to take words out of your mouth and simplify them

It won't happen often, for it's my aim too.

---

(08-17-2011 05:49 PM)p4r4 Wrote:  eh, what? did it hit or did it not ?

You are confusing being deductive with being psychic (which means guessing or cheating).
That facts will ever remain that the point and angle of impact cannot be determined with sufficient precision to generate a course of events sufficiently detailed to follow the multiple impacts the wheel suffered within, let alone free of, the plane. There would be too many possibilities to handle that computation, I guess.

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. A mile and half away no plane pieces where found.

I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't a bit simple. The police dragged them out of the way. There are truck tyre tracks everywhere....

Quote:A lot of them claim they did not see the airplanes.

Of course. Lots of people are always to be found looking in lots of different directions. Sheesh.

Quote:The point was that a 1.5T of high explosive could have done the damage. Kerosine might have done more if it was the actual explosive factor...

That 1.5 tons of TNT kinetic energy of the plane was expended cutting into the building, scooping up its contents, and sending shafts and wheels (and tower wall sections) out into the streets.
The kerosine/air explosion killed people in the basements. That's a hefty bang. Had it been 100% combusted, the towers may have fallen then and there.

Quote:There is no evidence of the airplane pulling 2g

Wrong. The HOLE (and the known attitude of the plane on video) and the SPEED (from the radar plot) automatically give you the G the aircraft was experiencing. Go read a book on FLIGHT. Not a comic book...

Quote:the effect you interpret as vortex appear much later and higher

Each vortex has close to a VACUUM down its central axis which TERMINATES AT THE WINGTIP ENTRY POINT INTO THE BUILDING. Two terminating points.
Those points will be lifted by the explosion updraft, but they are STILL TIED BY THE VACUUM to their trails, which stretch back invisibly for miles. This tie will FORCE the wave vortices to maintain their position in spite of the updraft.
Flying aircraft pull these "rotating tubes of air" around with them all the time. They ARE lift-induced drag.

Quote:please find a better video source

It's the best available on YT.

Quote:to make a better argument ?

The argument is WON to a person who understands it.

Quote:The vortex spins on a horizontal axis, climbing up vertically.

We're both correct. The horizontal axis is circular.

Quote:230k tons did not rub on every inch square of metal surface. Most of it turned to fine dust even before reaching the ground...

There was 10,000 tons of pulverized concrete in the dust clouds. Approx.
The accreting and accelerating floor mass would have done a bit of banging and scraping, don't you think?
There was enough potential energy in each tower to melt 2,600 tons of steel, if that was the only place the energy could go. It wasn't of course. There was noise (not a lot of energy in that) and HEAT. The air got hot, the dust was hot the floors were hot, and the foundations were glowing with heat.

Quote:That was not concrete. it was the central steel columns.

Show me nothing with Judy Wood in it.

Quote:I could say just as easy that someone inserted the airplane. i am looking for technical explanation of doing that kind of trickery, without the predisposed bias.

Humor mismatch.
The reason why the whole thing couldn't have been pre-prepared beforehand is THE WEATHER.
The BACKGROUND for "trickery" would have had to precisely match in advance, for forty separate videos from forty separate viewpoints, EXCEPTIONALLY FINE WEATHER. What would have been the chances for that?

Quote:Indeed, who can better fix the people than media...

But first you have to fix the media people. How many is that, which you have to add to the people loading ten tons of kerosine into the towers to make an asymmetrical fuel/air explosion, melting aluminum, dumping parts of planes and people, etc.

Quote:Radar screens operate on a software platform that could be manipulated without fixing many people.

I believe the area has MANY radar stations. Add them all to the list...

Quote:It's a good point to notice that the bridge was unaffected by the phenomenon that torched and twisted the cars, that is the mystery, as is why some cars are only half affected.

Let me help you. There's NO mystery there at all. You have spun off the road. Your logic has failed just there.

ARGUMENT: "Only thermite could account for molten steel in the basement."
How much structural steel COULD the tower's potential energy melt?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/lette...energy.pdf
The calculated mass of one tower is 253,000 metric tons, and the total potential energy above grade is 3.98 * 10^11 Joules.
The heat required to raise a metric ton of steel to its melt temperature (temperature range 1110 deg C, specific heat of iron 500 J/kg) and then melt it (latent heat of melting of iron 98 kJ/kg) is 1000 * (1110*500 + 98000) = 1.53 * 10^8 Joules.
Therefore the maximum possible amount of structural steel that could be melted by the TOTAL CONVERSION of the tower's potential energy is 3.98 * 10^11 / 1.53 * 10^8 = 2,600 metric tons.

ARGUMENT: "There's NO WAY an aluminum aircraft could cut through a steel structure."
Kinetic energy equivalent of Boeing 767 traveling at 565 mph
(0.5*M*V^2)=0.5*1.6*10^5*253*253=6.66x10^9 Joules=1.6 tons of TNT
Imagine a nice 4" thick plate of steel with the outline of the front view of the 767 coated with 1.6 tons of TNT, held against the face of the tower and ignited.
Would the tower steel hollow columns be torn inward? You betcha.
The energy distribution would be greater or lesser than this according to the mass behind specific points, the fuel tanks, engines, and undercarriage being points of concentration.

ARGUMENT: "The building was designed to take an impact from a passenger plane and remain standing."
Comparison between the 707 and 767 impacts upon WTC2:
-----------------------------------707------------------------767
Empty Weight Kg-------------55,580---------------------86,000
Fuel Weight Kg-----------------1,000--------------------12,100
Speed m/sec---------------------111------------------------272
Kinetic Energy Joules-------3.49 x 10^8--------------3.92 x 10^9
Thermal Energy Joules-----4.28 x 10^9--------------5.18 x 10^10
Total Energy Joules---------4.63 x 10^9--------------5.57 x 10^10
So what's the difference? Just divide the total energies, and you get a difference of 11 times.
For WTC2 there was more than ELEVEN times more TOTAL energy in the actual 767 strike than there was in the 707 strike calculated by the WTC designers.
The kinetic (IMPACT) energy of the 767 was ELEVEN times greater than that calculated for the 707.
But by far the GREATEST FACTOR was the thermal energy of the 12 tonnes of kerosine in the 767!
These are REVISED with "TRUTHER" fuel amounts, but I believe the journalof911studies has broken its link.

[rsol]

personally i dont think it would matter if it were a 747, 707 or a 767. they are going to do similar damage. lots of that energy can be expended without damage. eg fuels are mainly dispersed outside of the building so no damage there. either way there was alot of energy in those hits.

As far as faking it.... well first of all thankyou for bringing us back on topic.

matchmoving, camera tracking, vector based motion detection. these are all the techniques that were before their infancy on 911. if you understand the proccess as it stands now, some have got it as a plugin on their video software for "camera shake" removal and/or adding objects to the scene then replacing the shake ect. it sort of works but there are tell tale signs.

error correction. rogue pixels. 3d misalignment. noise misalignment. interlacing issues, camera warp. these are all things that get in the way of a good render. these were done to perfection on that day. not one pixel out of place. not one. made by guys without the tools and without the knowledge. even major movie production facilities had not perfected this. these are very important issues unaddressed by ace baker et al. simon shack does NOT know what hes talking about. ace baker has poor maths skills and isnt that good with video production either, my mum could do better and she can hardly skype. imagination trumps experience in his world. not mine.

I'd leave judy woods out of this thread. not just for the fact shes swinging wild but it has little to do with video fakery.

with the use of multiproccessing in the last few years, new effects for video have finally become possible. this requires software and hardware to marry.

this would of taken about 2-3 hours to map the smoke itself and then another 2-3 hours to render. on a machine about 10 times the speed of the latest machines in 2001.

[JazzRoc]

(08-17-2011 06:55 PM)SiLVa Wrote:  Speaking of ten tons of kerosene at the pentagon...Where's the evidence for this? There is barely any as far as I can tell.

The external camera shows a low-brisance explosion typical of a fuel/air mix with insufficient air, with colors between vermilion and black.
Had there been sufficient air, the explosion would have been white/yellow, and many times greater.

Quote:Especially when you look at the pictures of the wall before the collapse of the outer ring, not much on fire and even more so when you see the debris inside the collapsed wall that's not burned at all. Ten tons of Kerosene would have burned the hell out of everything around there.

There would be a delay before the vaporizing fuel achieved anywhere near complete ignition.
The plane was doing around 640 feet every second that passed.
At the moment that the massive/hard parts that had penetrated the reinforced concrete (and the window spaces) passed through, on the outside face of the wall was an expanding semicircular disc of at first vaporized, then powdered, then shattered, then fragmented, pieces of the plane, mixed up with the part of the kerosine that didn't pass through the windows, just waiting to meet air. Pretty abrasive and extremely spectacular, I'm sure, with a huge white flash of burning aluminum as quick and bright as a camera flashgun...
THEN came the Kerosine/air explosion from inside the building - outward.
THEN along came the FIRST video frame in the sequence we know.

There's a strong likelihood of there being LITTLE sign of the kerosine explosion, low down and close to the center of impact, apart from surfaces having experienced a fairly intense FLASH BURN, with abrasion of the outside face radiating away from the contact area - essentially the FRONT ELEVATION of the plane...

Of course, the building would be sooty where the hot gases and smoke poured upwards and out of the breach afterward. That building is IMMENSELY strong.

[rsol]

well jazz there does seem to be little sign of damage from the wings. strange to say the least. seems they all just folded up and followed the plane into the building.

Also fom the black box the plane doesnt actually look like it was divebombing rather it looked like it was landing. go watch how it flew. all very odd.

This does enter the no-plane angle but i would say has very little relevence to TV-fakery

[sekular]

jazzroc still talking complete non sense, that guy does not give up.

Even when shown actual evidence he just posts more BS. I don't know why some people get knocked off this forum for some things and this guy talks such bs and is allowed to stay.

[Negentropic]

That stupid-ass inflated wheel unit

Andrew Johnson: 9/11 & Directed Energy Weaponry: The Key Evidence pt.1/2




Andrew Johnson: 9/11 & Directed Energy Weaponry: The Key Evidence pt.2/2





and the engine on Murray Street DO NOT COUNT as evidence of any plane parts that can be tied to any of the two SUPPOSED planes. Is this old rehash of bogus nonsense all the plane-huggers can come up with ?

The engine on Murray Street has been 100% CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN to be from the wrong plane and therefore PLANTED.

I've already mentioned the fraudulent nature of both many times in this thread.

Go here for the complete proof

http://ckpi.typepad.com/christopher_king...-time.html

Quote:Therefore, the recovered TOBI was not part of a JT9D-7R4D compressor.

Therefore, the recovered compressor did not come from a JT9D-7R4D engine.

Therefore, the engine on the vehicle which struck the South Tower was not a JT9D-7R4D.

Since Flight 175 was a 767 with JT9D-7R4D engines, the vehicle which struck the South Tower was not Flight 175.

Exactly. In fact it was NO PLANE at all.

Only recourse with Plane-Huggers now is to change the entire official fable of 9/11 to fit their fantasies.

Anthony Lawson actually had the gall to tell me on You Tube 'Is it my fault that Giuliani shipped all the plane parts and steel to China?"

When I threw this back at him I got no reply:

This photo was taken before noon on 9/11


Figure 10. WTC6, an 8-story building, towers over the "rubble pile" remaining from WTC1 and 2. We know this photo was taken before noon on 9/11/01. WTC7 can be seen in the distance. The Verizon Building is at a distance on the left.


showing barely any rubble, much less anything consistent with at least 20 to 30 stories that would have be left for a 100 story standard demolition and therefore this proves that the that-douchebag-Giuliani-shipped-the-nano-thermated-Steel-to-China loose-shills-Alex-Jones standard constipatorial explanation (and let's add to to that the absurd Anthony Lawson Giuliani-shipped-all-the-plane-parts-to-China statement too) is BOGUS, for the very simple reason that there is no way they could have done that quick a job. Absolutely friggin no way !

[rsol]

Quote:Since Flight 175 was a 767 with JT9D-7R4D engines, the vehicle which struck the South Tower was not Flight 175.

interesting point. id does conclude that a vehicle struck the building though. its shame he didnt conclude WHAT vehicle struck the building. you have not looked at what you are asserting....AGAIN.

Quote:The engine on Murray Street has been 100% CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN to be from the wrong plane and therefore PLANTED.

You cannot assert that. its just proves the engine in that plane did not belong to a 767. did you ever consider engines need repair and/or changes?

Quote:Only recourse with Plane-Huggers now is to change the entire official fable of 9/11 to fit their fantasies.

dear oh dear. You have had this explained to you over and over. your denial of evidence when it suits you relays a sense of consistant agenda driven research. Your attitude towards other researchers shows your contempt for proper evidence gathering. you seem to think if no one agreed with you, you must be on the right track. either that or your aim is to undermine others.

We were JUST getting back on topic and you are flying off the handle again. did you not start this thread based on TV fakery?