Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do not presume to know what other people have or have not heard, and more importantly what other people have or have not seen. First off, many of the posters in this thread have personal connections to that day: they lost loved ones or have personally spoken to witnesses of the events. None of the Truthers hear appear able to make that same claim. To this point, I am unaware that any have.
Simply searching the web you can find thousands of personal memoirs of that day, the vast majority of which never were reported by the media. Simply searching "9/11 memoirs" will return 6.3 million results.
Oh yeah, that's solid evidence. Type into Google "Big Foot" .. or "Chupacabra" and you get a lot of results too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
It is literally insane to believe that the real time experiences in person and via television of multiple millions of people that day are media fakery. And it is an obscene insult to the dead and their families.
Aside the "real time experiences" for which I've already pointed out is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether the video is legitimate .... how on earth does the number of viewers of that video affect it's legitimacy? It doesn't! Surely you aren't this dense, therefore you must be just blowing hot air.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Nobody dismisses anything except when it is an obvious piece of Truther fan fiction. But here in the real world where we understand the nature of eye witness expereince, you depend upon all the testimony and other evidence to assemble truth from the diversity of experience.
And it is, again, insane to discount the vast corpus of personal and physical evidence in favor of easily disproved anomalies.
No, truth is not "assembled". Cockamamie stories are "assembled". Truth is ascertained by carefully examining ALL evidence, and verifying ALL of the claims. If just ONE claim is false, or one piece of evidence is fabricated, the entire story disintegrates. Put simply, the evidence and the claims have to match. In the case of the official story of 911, it's not a question of finding a disparity between the claims and the evidence ... it's the difficulty in finding ONE set that doesn't have a glaring inconsistency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
As an aerospace engineer I call complete bullsh*t on these claims. These are not the maximum speeds attainable by these aircraft at sea level, but instead the maximum operating speed suggested for safe and comfortable flying. It should go without saying that the "pilots" that day had little interest in safe and comfortable flying. But as we are dealing with Truthers, what should go without saying often needs to be said anyway.
An aerospace engineer MY ARSE !! I doubt you could design a freaking kite without the assistance of a knowledgeable 10 year old skilled in the crafting of one. What you just said is so patently untrue, idiotic, and nonsensical, you have irreparably exposed yourself as someone not even remotely familiar with aeronautics, let alone an aerospace engineer.
The prohibitive issue with a 757/767 class aircraft achieving 540 MPH at sea level has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with safety or comfort ... the engines simply cannot produce anywhere close to the amount of thrust that would be required to propel the aircraft at that velocity. It's an engine design limitation. The estimated thrust required to do so is in the range between 3 and 6 times the amount of thrust those engines are capable of producing. And that comes from REAL aerospace engineers who build those engines! This is an indisputable fact. Those turbofan engines cannot move that amount of dense air through them to achieve anything close to the claimed speeds.
Now, the average person wouldn't be expected to know these things. One look at the specs of the plane, and it seems reasonable to the lay person that the aircraft with a recommended max cruising speed of 530 seems to make such a claim believable. But that's only because they have no understanding of aeronautics and the effects of air density at altitude and near sea level. That cruising speed is at altitudes above 22,000 ft. where the air is much thinner. At sea level the air is much more dense, and those velocities are IMPOSSIBLE except in the case of a freaking lateral nose down dive posture, where gravity is assisting in the creation of that speed. And that's the only way that aircraft could strike that building at 540 mph, if it struck it nose to roof in a lateral dive ... not a descending path ... nose first, straight down.
So we have a couple of problems here ...one is your total loss of credibility, since a legitimate aerospace engineer would know these things straight away, and would not make such stupid comments like "maximum operating speeds suggested for safe and comfortable flying".
The second problem we have is that the tricksters apparently didn't feel the need to consult a real aerospace engineer or even a commercial pilot to sanity check this lame arse fabricated nonsense before offering up such a mathematically provable impossibility. And, since we have a video showing a plane traversing the sky in a relatively level flight path, at a claimed speed that is impossible for this aircraft to achieve at level flight, this alone is ABSOLUTE PROOF that story is false. The only real mystery here is why would such a provably false claim be made, when it would be so much easier to claim a physically achievable speed of say 300 mph? Or just say oops ... we made an error in the speed? I suppose it was felt that such exaggerated velocity was deemed necessary to support the idea that an aluminum plane can slice through a steel and concrete building like it was made of paper mache.
Maybe they just figured that anyone buying any of this trainload of steaming manure would likely miss this little detail too. Or maybe they were relying on people like you to shill their stories to the masses of imbeciles who keep believing every story they are fed. Or maybe they just don't care ... maybe they do this kind of stuff purposely, just to justify their own beliefs that people stupid enough to believe such crap deserve what they get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
The burst of debris seen emerging from the opposite side of the building was not the intact nose of anything. Only an idiot would believe that.
A freeze frame before the fireball and smoke obscures the view. The image indeed depicts a solid mass, in the exact shape and physical dimensions of the nose of the aircraft which has a very clear demarcation line separating the upper portion in light and the lower portion in shadow. And only an idiot would argue that this is shreds of exit debris that magically took on the exact shape and dimension of the plane's fuselage after it crashed through one side of the structural steel and concrete ... and back out the windows on the opposite end .... keeping in mind that there is no exit hole in the steel wall at the point of this alleged ejection of magical debris. So it would have had to exit around these steel wall columns, out the small window openings while maintaining this perfect form of the plane's nose? From start to finish, this video depicts several physical impossibilities occurring in sequence. And that is preposterous nonsense in the extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
No, but their debris does pass through air "at the same velocity as they move through air." The WTC towers were mostly air. If they were not people could not work in them.
Insert "Duh" here.
Insert "duh" indeed. Human beings are mostly water, but some are full of something else
The structural steel wall forms a barrier between the plane and that "air", and it would be reasonable to conclude that it might offer slightly more resistance than mere air .... read: slow the rate of passage ever so slightly. But since you believe that a 107 story building can "pancake" collapse at virtual free fall in a vacuum, without so much as a fraction of a second of resistance as each successive floor gives way, and the concrete and steel buckle and crumble, crushing and compacting all of the building contents, including 47 core columns of reinforced steel jacketed in concrete ... I don't suppose this is a big stretch for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Only idiots expect a camera to be able to resolve features below the resolution of the film/digital media... especially when in motion and pixels cover a larger field than when the camera is completely stationary. There is no repair, there is simply the limitation of the camera and the even greater conceptual limitations of Truthers.
What a silly argument. The camera's imaging capability and resolution doesn't change frame to frame ... so if there are 20 frames that show no hole from which the plane passes through up to and after the fraking wings and engines disappear into it, then there should be no magical appearance of the hole in the last 10 frames. We can see the building and we can see the plane including enough detail that would also show some damage or deformation of either the building surface or the plane's structure. It's not there .... and that is not possible. It's phony, and a duplicated sequence exactly as we see in this video has since been recreated in detail to show just how it was done using a composite image and a mask, which is quite convincing as far as duplicating the original "real" event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Such a comment betrays a fundamental ignorance of physics that is so transcendent as to be breathtaking. Anybody who even vaguely understands Newton's First Law of Motion should scoff out loud, and that would include most smart people for the last 300+ years since Newton first published it. The tail would necessarily continue to travel in the same direction it was traveling at impact; i.e. into the building. There is no force at impact that would stop it, break it off in one piece, and change its direction 90 degrees... all in less that a second.
I would say nice try, but I'd be lying. It's not even close. The issue is not the momentum and direction of travel of the tail .... it's the lack of mass and energy which would allow this vertical tail that extends to a height of 63.5 feet, to cut a vertical slice into 3-4 stories with the structural steel walls and steel floor plate with 4" layers of concrete flooring, like butter, without so much as even a hint of resistance or deformation of the this huge hunk of aluminum that has no structural reinforcement to counter such opposing force offered by the building. That tail section would strip off the top of the airframe like a ball cap blowing of your head in a heavy wind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
How does anybody even pretend to be able to discern whether or not there are vortices in an explosion? This is simply a straw man, demanding somthing that should never be expected in the first place.
Very simple ... OBSERVATION. In clear air, one has to guess where such wake turbulence might be ... but explosions and fire and smoke will REACT to the wake slamming into it, giving a clear visual image resulting in very definitive swirling and rotating action that is unmistakable. This phenomenon is rudimentary knowledge, and has been STUDIED AND TESTED EXTENSIVELY for safety reasons, and would have been taught to you in school, if you had ever actually attended aeronautical engineering classes, which clearly you have not.
This wake of turbulent air is a physical phenomenon that is always generated behind aircraft from the wings, as the pressure differential of the low flow pressure on the top of the wing surface mixes with the higher pressure flow of air under the wing just behind the aircraft (this is the byproduct of the actual mechanism that allows airplanes to fly, called lift) and in the case of large commercial jets, generates a lot of force, and poses an extreme hazard to other aircraft if they get to close, or follow behind too soon after one has passed through the same airspace. The force of this turbulent air can damage other aircraft passing through it, or can cause roll exceeding the roll recovery of the affected craft, literally knocking it out of the air, resulting in a catastrophe. This mass of turbulent air travels behind the aircraft, and flows in the direction of travel, at speeds of up to several knots, depending on wind conditions ... slower in a headwind, faster with a tailwind. Crosswinds have little impact.
As you can see in the following video, the wake turbulence can be clearly seen in fire and smoke, creating a strong and clearly identifiable pattern shortly after the plane passes through. This can persist for minutes, and is not just a split second gust of breeze.
This is ANOTHER missing element in the video of the plane striking the WTC ... after the initial explosion there is a fire ball and a lot of smoke that shows no sign of the wake turbulence that would follow that plane. From a casual viewer's perspective, such a detail would be unlikely to be noticed or even anticipated ... but from a careful forensic analysis, it's inexplicably absent, and is not just a red flag, but ANOTHER red flag.
And I can without the slightest hesitation or equivocation say that they are not.
I am an aerospace engineer by training, you are a jeweler.
Who's got more credibility here?
Not you, Mr. Aerospace ....I've found one of your designs and I'm not impressed in the least : (sorry, but you've earned this)
I've listened to dozens of conversations with REAL aeronautical engineers who have been asked that specific question ... can a commercial jet such as a 767 travel at 540 mph at sea level ... the most common initial response was "LAUGH", followed by NO, not a chance. And they explain in detail, just as I have done here, why this is physically impossible. There is no speculation ... no subjective opinions involved ... the answer is a resounding, unequivocal NO WAY JOSE' ... can't happen.
By the way ... I'm a jeweler for a hobby ... a musician at heart, and an engineer by profession. And a drinker and a smoker by necessity.
As I'm sure you know, some people are just never satisfied. If you tell them that Americans walked on the moon, they insist it was faked. If you tell them that Lee Harvey Oswald was only the patsy in the JFK assassination, they don't want to hear it. And if you tell them that the attack on the World Trade Center was carried out by Islamic terrorists, they believe they can "prove" otherwise. It's a repeating pattern (and not a very pretty one, at that).
You're absolutely right Fred ... some people just won't be satisfied with "trust me". Magic bullets, magic planes ... some people just don't believe in magic.
But the ones that really crack me up are the ones that always scoff at the lone gunman. Whaz up with that? One gun, one gunman, simple, huh? You'd think. But no, not these conspiracy whackos ... always some sinister plot directing the lone gunman from behind the scenes. You'd think by now, after John Wilks Booth ... Lee Harvey Oswald ... James Earl Ray ... Mark David Chapman ..... John Hinckley Jr. .... Sirhan Sirhan, that would be enough examples for them to realize lone gunmen do exist.
Sure, it's a little odd that Oswald would kill Kenedy and Ruby would kill Oswald before he even made it to trial .... but stuff happens. And I tell ya, if I hear the words "grassy knoll" one more time, I think I might just scream.
And many of us have pointed out that you are wrong.
Again
How were CGI images inserted into witnesses' eyes?
Asked and answered, Counselor. But I realize that nobody (including me) is reading or remembers every single post in a long thread.
CGIs = Computer Graphic Images and they are inserted into photos and videos, obviously not into eyes. As you highlighted in red in a post of mine above, I was not in NYC that day so I must rely on media reports, official "live" videos and eye witness reports. These eye witness reports may or may not be staged. I did see one report that seemed very sincere to reports all the way down the line to one that was so scripted and so poorly acted that I dismiss it entirely. One has to trust one's own intuition and common sense and not rely on everything that is spoonfed by others.
The eyewitness reports vary and how many times must I post what they describe? I guess I need to start copying and pasting from my previous posts. MOST (other than the same MSM reporters who brought us the CGIs) did NOT describe a passenger plane, but rather smaller planes of various descriptions, bombs, windowless plane, and missiles..........etc
Since the MSM is all I have to rely on for base material, I have to start there and try to find out what occurred. I have not believed the "official" tale since about day 3 due to some things I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears on the media reports. I cannot rely on anonymous internet posters' anecdotal reports, no personal offense to you or anyone here, although I do take them under consideration more than you may think.
It is obvious that what was seen locally and what was seen on fake TV video would be different- since, as you sarcastically, but rightfully point out, CGIs cannot be inserted in peoples eyes.
Note, again, that most of the reports of passenger planes hitting were from members and affiliates of the media.
Regardless of the opinion regarding faked video, the official story is bogus for literally hundreds of reasons. The question is: Who is responsible? And how may they be brought to justice?
Soo.....if the SSD did not record the deaths....for what reason?
Soo...if they don't have a record of their deaths after 10 years, why?
If they didn't really "die" and it was an illusion, then why did my friends wife call us and say her husband was on 95 floor of tower#1 and (at the time) wondered if he were inside there alive? That was before they realized his floor took a direct hit.
What of the PLANES millions saw (at least plane #2) crash into the tower and right before it did, a stewardess was heard calling the airline and saying,"Oh my God, we are going into the towers!"
Why would she say that and then never come home again? hrmmm....
Really? 79 pages of catering to mouthbreathing morons who still don't believe 9/11 was terrorists? Why not explain quantum physics to a banyan tree instead?
The biggest reason to classify truthers as the nutjobs that they are is the KISS principle.
If our government wanted to stage a false attack to start a war or two, it would be much easier to plant a ship in the water off NYC and fire a couple of cruise missiles at the WTC than to develop, plan and execute the attacks that actually took place on 9/11. Not only would it be simpler, but they would then have a direct connection to whatever country they wanted to attack, instead of the patchwork of Saudi nationals training under a Yemeni leader in Afghanistan that we had with the actual events of 9/11.
Don't even get me started on the "no planers" and their "CGI" nonsense. Those people are off-the-scale crazy.
Actually, I don't think they're crazy so much as unable to cope with the realities of that day. They can't emotionally accept what happened, so rather than deal with it and grieve like the rest of the country did, they keep their attention focused on these wild fantasies, allowing them to simply deny reality, and subsequently, the grief.
Any way you slice it, though, there are a lot of people that need some help. From those who are just a little confused, to those who are probably better suited to an inpatient facility...
This is from a MSM site supporting the official story, so I trust the photo is original and is from the MSM sponsored group of images we were shown- "bona fide" images so to speak: https://us2.ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg...nter-tower.jpg
The plane is clearly slicing through steel like a hot knife through butter, no parts falling off, the nose went through- no problem. You, dude, being an aeronautical engineer and all, know what a plane nose is constructed of. This is not a real world picture and I don't need anybody to either tout, or to debunk it, I can see what is clearly depicted without any cheerleading from either side.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And a drinker and a smoker by necessity.
