| Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| 911taboo.net | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 14 2009, 04:57 AM (558 Views) | |
| broken sticks | Sep 14 2009, 04:57 AM Post #1 |
|
as i am now banned on 91taboo, i guess genghis knows i can't reply to his comments on there. lucky for his reputation i spose. here's what he said today:
well, i'm glad you're not wasting your life either - trying to prove that a 500mph plane crash would look like a couple of trucks would indeed be a waste of time. but lets get to the crux of the issue. "planes aren't going to be seen to crumple in a 500mph+ collision" maybe this is a fake video too g: so where's the crumpling? of course, this concrete facade is different to the twin towers. my point about sections of plane passing between the towers' columns is demonstrated by looking at the wing-tips of the F4. my point about no crumpling being visible is even proven on this super-high frame-rate/shutter speed recording. maybe hez's camera would have caught MORE detail than this video g? i reckon you've stopped making comparisons between 911 and car/truck crashes because you know that neither a car, nor a truck, are built like either the WTC, or a plane. yes, speed is important: plane hits building at ONE mph = high chance of zero visible damage to either object plane hits building at FIFTY mph = high chance of visible damage to both objects plane hits building at TWO THOUSAND mph = i think we can guess what would happen PLANE HITS BUILDING AT 500+mph = high chance of disintegration of contact areas, and complete disassociation of previously-connected plane parts that do NOT make contact with the surface of the building or maybe i'm wrong? what would happen in a 1mph plane crash? what would happen in a 50mph plane crash? what would happen in a 300000000000mph plane crash? is speed important? is it really that hard to understand? oh well. i'll wait til the next insult comes at me i spose. NPT grew from low-quality video copies, frame-blended slow-mos, and lack of evidence at shanksville and the pentagon. yes, its hard to drop it. no, genghis has not yet swallowed his pride over all his "crash physics" videos. please get over it already - you seem like an alright guy genghis, and have certainly shown yourself to be a very good researcher. doesn't mean you can't be wrong, and doesn't mean 911 wasn't an inside job, and doesn't mean you can't help. genghis' debunkings: very good videos. they show he has logic. genghis' "crash physics" videos: terrible comparisons to a 500+mph plane crashing into the lattice steel frame-work of the twin-towers. Edited by broken sticks, Sep 14 2009, 05:04 AM.
|
 |
 
|
| broken sticks | Sep 14 2009, 05:20 AM Post #2 |
|
speaking of which, remember 911 videos that would freeze the impacts at moments like this: and then say things like "what is now supporting this tail and wings, relieved of the burden of having an engine and being disconnected from the rest of the plane" i guess people forget these parts are still traveling at 500mph. should they just drop suddenly? i'm sure you'll agree with me on this, because its not really a theory of mine. its the law of conservation of momentum, and was first written about in detail by isaac newton (in his teens or early twenties, i believe). some people say newton's laws were broken on 911. freezing and slowing down a video will obviously give this impression. newton's laws are NOT optional in an atmosphere like ours here on earth. that doesn't mean they were broken. and they are obviously open to misinterpretation. Edited by broken sticks, Sep 14 2009, 05:21 AM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Sep 14 2009, 05:31 AM Post #3 |
|
of course, the videos could still all be fake (in theory). my point is this: if they're fake, they were faked correctly. if they're fake, they were also faked to match all witness testimony perfectly. if they're fake, they were also faked to match the live coverage of the WTC perfectly. (edit.) of course i don't believe that they were all faked. just being rational. as i said to ace baker, its not because perps couldn't fake a video. its not because perps couldn't fake TEN videos. its not because perps couldn't fake A HUNDRED videos. its because its irrational to believe that perps could have faked EVERY video, however many they were. its important not to judge these things post-facto, as it were. on the day of 911, how were perps to know who and where was recording every single last video and photo of the day? lets not forget, you can see the WTC from a very long way away. and you could easily record it from the comfort of your own home if you were in the vicinity. so its the fact that perps could not guarantee that every single video (however many there were going to end up being taken taken that day) that tells me its irrational to think they could possibly control every single one. now, i'm thinking it was probably in the best interests of the perps to get as much video evidence of the 2nd impact as possible. this was the poster-child for 911. i personally think the naudets were just too lucky that day for them being at every single event at the WTC to be a coincidence. a perfect shot of the first impact (from a tactical point of view), a great shot confirming the second impact (from a tactical point of view), and THE most dramatic footage of the whole event. Edited by broken sticks, Sep 14 2009, 05:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Sep 14 2009, 06:15 AM Post #4 |
|
in general, it is made out as if i am regressing no-plane theory. how many of you now have WORSE quality videos of 911 than 5 years ago? anyone? how many of you now have LESS knowledge of the events of 911 than 5 years ago? how many of you have LESS knowledge of the construction and characteristics of the WTC and commercial jets? how many of you have LESS knowledge of misinformation and disinformation campaigns? i for one have learned a lot. i'm sure you all have as well. how many people think learning these new things is some form of regression? anyone? |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Sep 14 2009, 06:20 AM Post #5 |
|
genghis: "the fact that they can't troll me into proving it for the fiftieth time is the sweet part ;)..." sounds very sweet. doesn't sound bitter, not at all! "older is wiser ;)" no, older is in fact older. unless you learn as you go (see next point). "it is an irritating merry go round at best...." if you revolve instead of evolve, i guess it would be. |
|
|
|
| steelers43 | Sep 14 2009, 04:44 PM Post #6 |
|
I too have learned much... but still don't "know" much!!! I have watched video I taped from that day and other shows in the immediate aftermath... watched video of the second hit on my LED 40" Samsung and they still look "fake"... "unreal"... and not what I would expect to see. (The Reigel shot looks ridiculously "fake"... plane just glides right through) What caused the damage to the east wall... the wing tip as it glides through??? The engine as it glides through??? But then again I remember thinking that a bowling ball would hit the floor before the tennis ball when dropped from the same height... things aren't always what they appear. Just wish there was a way to figure this all out without alienating one another. It doesn't help when there are those who intentionally push nonsense to muddy the waters... whomever that may be. |
|
|
|
| steelers43 | Sep 14 2009, 04:51 PM Post #7 |
|
The video of the jet plowing through the concrete doesn't represent what happened at the towers though... I don't recall the same type of explosion at the towers. The 2nd hit looks more like a diver diving into water... the rocket/jet looks like an explosion... immediately. It was difficult to switch into thinking video fakery was real... now its difficult to go back. Actually the actions of many of the researchers has made it easier... but I am not the expert... |
|
|
|
| elephant room | Sep 14 2009, 05:18 PM Post #8 |
|
The contents of the sandia test have nowhere to go, so the explosion and mass of the plane stop because it is solid concrete ... "flight 175" is impacting a non solid wall (steel frame and windows) ... so I am inclined to say these difference keep us from calling it a good comparison as far as what we should see coming off the impact wall. right? so true, but we must not take "old facts" for granted ... for example - recent chopper 7 / 880 revelations. Edited by elephant room, Sep 14 2009, 05:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
| beatprophet | Sep 14 2009, 05:32 PM Post #9 |
|
In talking to someone who has a 1st in physics from the University of Oxford, England I have come to understand that what we see in the flight 175 videos regarding the plane impacts is in fact possible .. I have always doubted the possibility of an airliner being able to slide into the wtc towers without any visible crash physics .. We can go back to the statement by Frank Demartini '' It would be like a pencil piercing the screen netting'' He was talking about an airliner hitting one of the trade centre towers. The aircraft which his statement was based upon is smaller, lighter and was not travelling as fast as United 175. |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Sep 15 2009, 01:34 AM Post #10 |
|
genghis on me: "and even makes the well worn mistake of accusing me of banning him!" yes, you banned me genghis. for disagreeing with you. its called gatekeeping. |
|
|
|
| steelers43 | Sep 15 2009, 02:50 PM Post #11 |
|
I believe there was concrete in the towers... like a city blocks worth... per floor. Maybe the nose of the plane went in between the floors... I guess the Purdue simulation shows the nose skimming across the top of a floor even though there is not enough height between the floors to allow this. I would agree that the sandia video isn't a good comparison... but then again I have yet to see any footage of a "real" plane crash (whether hitting the ground, pavement, or building) that resembled what happened to flight 175 as it impacted the tower. I admit that I foolishly followed Sept. Clues and accepted it as truth (I'm not a video expert). But I soon caught on to the mistakes pointed out and realized that it (Sept. Clues) is wrong on too many points to be taken seriously. The lack of rectifying these mistakes put Simon in a proper light... The actions and antics of all of the major "NP" theorists had me questioning the whole thing and as moving bridges and Edna were being pushed I could see something that I didn't like. All of the "NP" theorists were discrediting themselves by their own actions... fake suicides, pedophile talk, Howard Stern shows, etc. It's as if they were all ordered to act like a raging lunitic... suck people in then... sike!!! The moving bridge issue was the biggest joke. It took me all of five minutes to find a gif that shows the various views as a telescopic lens zoomed in on a truck with a barn in the background... of course another individual got the credit for the find but all of this led me to believe that this whole opposing factions nonsense was nothing more than a show. Divide and conquer... and mislead... and confuse... chasing tails is for dogs!!! But there is no new evidence... NONE. Everything we have today was there on 9/11. So... before people spoke with certainty about no plane or tv fakery but now speak with certainty about the polar opposite. So... were you all lying then or all of you lying now??? Or was it a simple mistake like myself failing to search the evidence??? (Rhetorical question) Please just drop the attitude that "you" (not "you" Elephant Room) knew all along and aid those coming to terms with a new reality. I have no problem with a remote controlled plane slamming into the towers but it doesn't change the fact that on television the "crash" still doesn't look realistic. IT DOESN'T. Steel is solid. Concrete is solid. The plane hit a solid object... regardless of windows/columns. Even glass is solid... (I'm not suggesting anything other than glass is solid). So... please help in finding out what type of a controlled plane hit the towers and what happened to the real flights. Who was controlling these planes??? Please help get back to finding out what happened that day and who is responsible for the attacks and hold these individuals accountable... please!!! |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Sep 15 2009, 03:31 PM Post #12 |
|
before i say anything else, i had to quote this bit - right on steelers, you're spot on i hope people read that and take it properly now, some of your questions:
personally, the actual nose-cone (the composite dome-shaped bit) i think would have been crushed on impact. its not very strong and would have caused maybe a tiny bit of damage to any wall it hit, and probably smashed in any glass it hit. in trying to explain what i think would happen in a plane crash like that, i think it will help you if i ask you questions, so can you ask me about a specific piece of the plane and i'll try my best to say what i think happened to it? i hope that doesn't sound condescending, i've struggled for weeks and weeks to explain to some of my friends what i think would have happened - its not an easy thing to explain! as for the sandia test: i actually think that's a good example of what happens to aluminium in a 500mph collision with reinforced concrete. the aluminium turns to dust. the concrete turns to dust, and we see dust in both the WTC and sandia videos. the other thing i always think will make it clearer is establishing that just because the plane caused that shape of damage to the facade, it doesn't mean that the plane-ish hole continues thru the building like a tunnel. i think the floors were not tunneled-in more than about 15 feet. but then, even in the FULL sandia video, you see debris begin to come out of the back of the reinforced wall. so an F4 can get thru 5 feet of concrete, i reckon a 757 could get thru 15 feet at the same speed. (when i say "get through", i dont' mean a 757 would pass thru this amount undamaged, i mean it would erode this amount of concrete away as it smashed against it).
i don't really think its lying, so much as we were used to seeing frame-blended slo-mos, and regardless of what people say now, we DIDN'T know things like the shadow-angle. the shadow on the face of WTC2 really makes it look like its gliding in undamaged! but we know its a shadow now. even that FBI guy thought it miraculous. its not simple physics. its a complicated interaction, and combined with the lack of plane-wreckage from flights 77 & 93, and various other issues like the precision at that speed, i thought it best to consider that the possibility of no planes. i still do tbh. i'm glad i looked into it, even if i didn't conclude that there were no planes. other reasons we looked into it: those first amateur videos we all saw of the plane entering the building were terrible quality. some people made some pretty convincing NPT videos (how did you feel first time you saw september clues? i was well excited! i don't mind admitting it) out of all this, we still get valuable evidence! those planes were much too precise!! and its not like you'd get a professional pilot to be a suicide bomber! and that flash on impact, surely that's some kind of radio-control device getting smashed? not just that, the naudets! that naudet first-strike STILL seems like a total setup to me! all the arguments for it being a setup are still totally valid. military black operations require someone to film the event (a shooter?) to confirm the kill, as it were. one other thing i forgot to mention earlier on. did you notice after studying the 175 videos in such agonising detail that OTHER, non-911 videos started seeming fake?! i did! its a natural reaction to studying these videos for so long i reckon. i definitely didn't know anything all along. thats why i was looking into it. and now i've pretty much decided that NPT is wrong, i'd really like to be able to explain it succinctly. but its a complex physical interaction. it needs an open ear to be able to try and understand, and i haven't been getting that from some folks. one of the key things for me was realising that, at 500 mph, nothings going to bounce off. and nothings going to survive really. and the towers aren't going to be undamaged. after that it started coming together for me. plus of course its easy to fall into the trap of "oh if it wasn't tv fakery then it must have been 19 arabs". but that is definitely not the case!!! see the CIT pentagon videos if you're losing faith! in fact, see them anyway - they're actual evidence of a cover-up at the pentagon! hope at least some of that made sense Edited by broken sticks, Sep 15 2009, 03:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
| steelers43 | Sep 15 2009, 04:55 PM Post #13 |
|
Broken Sticks... Thanks for taking the time to respond. I do agree with many if not all of your points. It takes more time but I have been trying to investigate on my own and not take what I see from others as absolute truth... I have always thought the "bumblebee" story was the most accurate but due to the damage to the towers and the sound of the explosion it always felt like it was a missile. The "nothing hit" crowd is obviously mistaken or disinfo. It is literally absurb to think that nothing hit the towers. A hologram or projected image is "nothing"... so I have to rule that out. I struggle with the impact because if the wall was thrust at a stationary plane my brain says that it would be like a cheese shredder... something was "cutting" through the east wall passing through which is noticeable on the videos... and the delay in the ejection of the engine is troubling... but just because there was a plane I don't automatically go to 19 arabs... I don't believe any pilot is that good or that lucky to strike in the manner in which the plane did. I guess I'll have to begin to research into remote controlled planes. Just have to go where the evidence leads... thanks. |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Sep 15 2009, 06:22 PM Post #14 |
|
i was thinking the same. i'm not sure if much has been done in this field, and who knows where it might lead! and no worries, its all good. |
|
|
|
| waypastvne | Sep 22 2009, 11:26 PM Post #15 |
|
For me the most obvious cause of the flash is the CREW OXYGEN BOTTLE IN RIGHT SIDE, E & E COMPARTMENT for Ua175 and the OPTIONAL PORTABLE OXYGEN BOTTLES ON FORWARD SIDE OF BULKHEAD for AA11. 
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Disinfo / Manipulation / Propaganda · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
11:39 PM Dec 5
