| 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
| SaiGirl appreciates Scott Loughrey | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 22 2010, 07:37 PM (1,213 Views) | |
| SaiGirl | Jul 22 2010, 07:37 PM Post #1 |
|
By the way: Since I live in the Baltimore/Washington area,I wanted to express my appreciation to local Baltimore activist Scott Loughrey, who was one of the first to note the obvious absurdity of CNN's (Hezarkhani "ghost plane") rendition of mythic "Flight 175" impossibly slicing through the steel-reinforced concrete of the South Tower "like a hot knife through soft butter". http://www.911hoax.com/default_Main_page.asp Scott put up his 911hoax WEB site way, way back in 2005. It was the first time I had actually seen this stuff, and I'm really grateful to him for his early WEB activism It certainly opened my eyes. I already knew that 9/11 was a total MIHOP, merely from observing the way the Towers were dissolved, and WTC7 taken down in classic "Las Vegas hotel" fashion. The obvious necessity of a NORAD stand-down at the Pentagon was my first reaction on the morning of 9/11 itself. Plus the failure of the media to produce security video camera footage of the "hijackers" actually boarding the planes that they were alleged to have hijacked (Logan, Newark, Dulles are were honey-combed with cameras). But I initially speculated that something like the "Lone Gunman" pilot episode (electronically hijacked aircraft) was a plausible scenario for a false-flag operation. Until I looked at slowed-down versions of Hezarkhani and Fairbanks. With respect to the central role of the "mainstream" mass media in the crimes of 9/11, Scott truly was a "first responder". I just wanted to thank him again for his dedication and great work. |
 |
 
|
| broken sticks | Jul 22 2010, 07:56 PM Post #2 |
|
this might be where you're going wrong. on most occasions, slowing down the few frames of interaction between the building and the plane can give the impression it slices through like a hot knife through butter. its caused by an effect called frame-blending, where a video editor/player blends adjacent frames when played at slow speeds. how do you account for the many witnesses to the planes? and what do you think the videos SHOULD have looked like, if you think they are inaccurate? |
|
|
|
| SaiGirl | Oct 2 2010, 02:21 PM Post #3 |
|
Do you consider this series of frames to be an "artifact" of the media itself ? http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/2357/1113357475496390/1600/z/32095/gse_multipart43096.jpg Those frames are physically impossible images. Unless the object being smoothly swallowed by all that steel-reinforced concrete is some kind of DU-hardened missile. You can actually hear Evan Fairbanks telling Peter Jennings "It looked like a bad special effect" .... "a BAD SPECIAL EFFECT". Not "frame blending". Its intuitively obvious what a fiberglass and aluminum Boeing commercial jet plane would look like if it crashed into a building like that. The wings would break off immediately. The pilot cabin in the nosecone would be shoved all the way back to third-class and the aluminum body would crumple and disintegrate. It wouldn't be seamlessly swallowed by the target. No rocket science required to grasp that. The only substantial STEEL in the plane would be the engines. THEY might travel a bit through the target. But commercial planes are hollow baskets. If they could smoothly penetrate steel-reinforced concrete like they do in the CNN-Hezarkhani "ghostplane" cartoon or the ABC-Fairbanks "hot knife through butter", they would be too dense to fill with passengers and lift up in the air. Only a missile could conceivably look like that. Edited by SaiGirl, Oct 2 2010, 02:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Oct 3 2010, 10:34 AM Post #4 |
|
The wings would "break off"? These 600mph wings would just break off? Have a little think about that please saigirl. What should happen to the wings if the videos were real? Do you think they would remain intact and bounce off the wall? Did you know that water-jets cut through steel at 600mph? That's not rocket science either. |
|
|
|
| elephant room | Oct 3 2010, 03:09 PM Post #5 |
|
ya, that website (911hoax) is ridiculous ... here is his 78 claims I see a link to marcus icke, and he is full of it! the last one of his 78 claims says the smoke is blowing in different directions based on which video you look at ...  ...thats not true at all! |
|
|
|
| YougeneDebs | Oct 4 2010, 08:22 AM Post #6 |
|
Sometimes the smoke blows to the left, and sometimes it blows to the right! OMFG |
|
|
|
| kognitive | Oct 8 2010, 06:54 PM Post #7 |
|
Every forum that there some guy pointing out that a plane can not vanish in to a buliding without deceleration there is some nut job trying to argue the case against it. I have seen people struggle to accept new ideas, but this is something else.   the above is what happens to a plane when it crashes, it is made out of light weight aluminium and carbon composites. A plane would not be able to enter the building without visible defamation of structure of the plane.  bird impacts       Edited by kognitive, Oct 8 2010, 07:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
| kognitive | Oct 8 2010, 07:03 PM Post #8 |
|
  In all cases the plane enters the building intact, without actually hitting the outside first and shows no visible deceleration. The tail acts as if the front of the plane has never even hit anything. Edited by kognitive, Oct 8 2010, 07:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
| kognitive | Oct 8 2010, 07:08 PM Post #9 |
|
  You can see the building is still in tact. Other problems with air craft as well, that they could not travel at the speed they said they were at that altitude without breaking up. That there was no one at the air ports to pick the people up. As if the planes did not even exist. 1) from ground level you can not see a far distance in new york city as the buildings prevent you from doing so. 2) if a a boeing 767 was travelling low over new york city, the noise would be so different that everyone would notice, but if they were on the street and a plane passed over head at 500mph, it would go from one side of the street to the other in a 10th of a second, a missile going faster than the speed of sound would be even faster, it would go over your head before you even heard it... 3) cameras were not that widespread in 2001 as they are now, phone cameras were still in a basic stage and not widespread, digital cameras were not so wide spread as they are now. This means that some professionals would have had digital cameras and rich people as well. But most of the people would have had film cameras, which they would have had to had with them. There was a video report that i do not have at hand, but it shows a nypd guy admitting that he was told to go to the camera shops and confiscated the films that were being developed for terrorist reasons. 4) Most of the footage would have been irrelevant, all they were interested in hiding was the approach of the missiles and the impact as well as the controlled demolition. random pictures of wreckage was not something to be concerned about, so they narrowed it down even further. 5) the amount of people in the right place with digital camera (no camera shops->being monitored) at the right time, to catch the impacts or the controlled demolitions had to have been small. 6) people were advised to clear the area by authorities after the first impact. 7) the first thing that a naive person would do if they had a shot of missile that hitting the towers when the TV is saying a plane would be to contact the authorities, how many people contacted the authorities with footage that we have never heard of we will never know... 7) cell phone and landline networks could have been monitored for key words, missile, impact, controlled demolition, footage of 9/11 etc. This would allow the culprits that extra edge and could have been ongoing for years afterwards in order to catch anyone that knew what they had but was holding on to it. 8) tourists would have been something to watch out for because they could leave with their footage. considering that a portion of the shots of the impact are from tourists, apparently. 9) there was some good footage that came out over the years, bob and bri, being one of them, that footage is absolutely provable to have been edited maliciously. As well as some more that have found its way on to the internet. All they realy had to do was prevent any from getting on to the TV and any from getting on to the internet. 10) some of the photographers of the footage when phoned sound scared about talking with anyone interested in finding information about the footage, some of them seem like people who took a bribe and others seem like people who are shills. Which means they didn't even take the footage or do the fakery they just pretend to have taken the photo. 11) we have not seen any footage over years of just 2 hours with a tripod from a roof just looking at the towers. IF there was 1000s of people with cameras why have we got most of our footage from mainstream documentaries and the mainstream media footage from the day and the dribs and drabs over the years that have come out in pathetic quality and highly suspect. 12) they had to create an organisation that held all the confiscated footage that is called camera planet, this only should make you question why the hell were they confiscating footage. But camera planet came out with the angle that they were making a documentary or something like that. the sad truth is that there is no one out there with 10 hours of footage from the day, there is no lone photographer that has kept silent and is suddenly going to release 2-10 hours of high quality un edited footage from the day. Edited by kognitive, Oct 8 2010, 07:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Oct 8 2010, 11:58 PM Post #10 |
|
...and yet all the videos and photos of the 2nd plane crashing into the S tower match perfectly from every angle except for the obvious fakes promoted by disinfo trolls who are also trying to make people believe the real videos are somehow fake with lies piled on lies piled on lies I see there are a few in this thread There oughta be a law against all these unfounded, unproven claims and the perps should be locked up for 5 - 10 years or shot on sight It is a hindrance to ANY real investigation and an obstruction of justice at the very least It also makes people want to bash their face in with a bat so it must also be inciting violence You all do realize of course that angering the public at large and the victims of 911 into acts of violence against you is YOUR fault and not theirs, right? If not, then only years of psychiatric lockdown may help you ....or possibly a baseball bat  Edited by A Storm is Coming, Oct 8 2010, 11:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
| kognitive | Oct 9 2010, 04:25 AM Post #11 |
|
you don't even need to compare the amateurs you can just compare the impacts that were on the tv, you can just look at the impacts that were on the tv on the day and prove that it is fake. the first witness to abc don dahler, the first thing he said was that it sounded like a missile. An early witness on cnn she said she heard a sonic boom, if you analyze the audio of the media footage you will see that they tried to say it was planes with no evidence. they still have no verifiable evidence that there was planes. the debris is incorrect for a plane crash in all four locations. come on now we can both admit that there was no planes at the pentagon or at shankesville a five year old can tell you that. i knew on the day that there was no plane crash at the pentagon, i remember saying it at the time, "that does not look like a plane crash". so you admit then that people have made fake impact shots ? why the hell would people need to make fake impact shots ? oh look what we have here, the usual anti-no plane rhetoric, it is only a matter time before he calls me a shill and says i am obstructing the 9/11 investigation. stopping at controlled demolition is doing half an investigation. I have heard it many times before on different forums when i bring up the no planes argument. just waiting till he starts comparing the apparent plane impacts to an egg and a egg slicer. that is always funny. you should know that although the impact holes look some what like air planes they are not even consistent with an air plane impact. Edited by kognitive, Oct 9 2010, 04:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
| kognitive | Oct 9 2010, 04:46 AM Post #12 |
|
I would like to thank scott loughrey and simon shack and morgan reynolds and killtown for showing me the truth. |
|
|
|
| shure | Oct 9 2010, 08:18 AM Post #13 |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
|
| elephant room | Oct 9 2010, 06:36 PM Post #14 |
|
you forgot fetzer, he is the champion of that bullcrap! |
|
|
|
| beatprophet | Oct 15 2010, 09:59 AM Post #15 |
|
SaiGirl, Very sorry to hear that the idea of no planes at the WTC site is your idea of the truth! Have a think about the plane and the building. Which one is stronger? The building is a whole lot stronger as we know ... so much so that the plane has nothing to prevent itself breaking up. Having no structual strength left it finds it's way through the large open gaps between the exterior columns. Also read my thread on the video quality of the videos http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3642483/1/#new In researching further I have come to the understanding that the interaction between flight 175's wings and the south tower may not have even been captured. The reason behind this is the technical properties of the video footage. In the park foreman footage flight 175 takes 5 frames to fly it's own length. With a boeing 767-200 being 159 ft in length, flight 175 is moving at a rate of app. 32 ft per frame. So that means Hezakhani's footage is leaving large amounts of the planes flight uncaptured. This is the same of all the videos of flight 175. What if the wings interaction with the south tower happened in one of those 32ft gaps. It would not have been captured by Hezakhani's or anyone els's camera. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Drama Club · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
12:39 PM Jul 13