No Proof of Video Fakery: - 9/11 Scholars Forum2024-03-28T22:43:29Zhttp://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/no-proof-of-video-fakery?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A7532&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThe definitive case for no pl…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-10-19:3488444:Comment:379452011-10-19T00:40:59.226ZPsyhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/Psy297
<p>The definitive case for no planes and video fakery are in chapters 6 and 7.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>How much is it worth to you to finally learn the truth?</p>
<p> </p>
<a href="http://psy-opera.com" target="_blank">9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera</a>
<p>The definitive case for no planes and video fakery are in chapters 6 and 7.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>How much is it worth to you to finally learn the truth?</p>
<p> </p>
<a href="http://psy-opera.com" target="_blank">9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera</a> Check the blogs. I have poste…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-09-23:3488444:Comment:76512010-09-23T19:07:48.000ZJames H. Fetzerhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JamesHFetzer
Check the blogs. I have posted studies from Pilots, where even NIST confirms that the plane was traveling at 5450 mph, which is an impossible speed. Your remarks about deceleration are off the mark. The plane's velocity should have gone to zero. We are not talking about a subtle phenomenon. The engine part at Church and Murray not only appears to have been planted--FOX News even has footage of FBI agents off-loading something heavy at that intersection before it was discovered--but it is…
Check the blogs. I have posted studies from Pilots, where even NIST confirms that the plane was traveling at 5450 mph, which is an impossible speed. Your remarks about deceleration are off the mark. The plane's velocity should have gone to zero. We are not talking about a subtle phenomenon. The engine part at Church and Murray not only appears to have been planted--FOX News even has footage of FBI agents off-loading something heavy at that intersection before it was discovered--but it is sitting on a sidewalk, which appears to be undamaged, and under a construction scaffolding with an awning. You have been taken in by not actually studying the witness reports or the videos. I featured Scott Forbes on "The Real Deal" recently, and he reported that he was astonished when the building "swallowed the plane", when what took place should have looked a lot like a car hitting a large tree at high speed or an empty beer can colliding with a brick wall. See if you can track down Stefan Grossman's study of impact physics. One of his studies may be found at this location: <a href="http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.45.html" target="_blank">http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.45.html</a> . Some of the other points you make--about parallax and nose out--might be right but do not affect the basic arguments: the impossible speed, the impossible entry, and that the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, which implies that a 500,000-ton building provided no more resistance than air! We cannot possibly be viewing a real plane, where some form of fakery has to be involved, which I think was a hologram. And I am joined in that view by John Lear, Stefan Grossman, and Stephen Brown, whom I recently interviewed, who had just completed a course of holography at Cambridge. Your intuitions, Jeff, are not good enough. There was video fakery. It's too simplistic to think…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-09-19:3488444:Comment:75392010-09-19T14:48:10.000Zbill smithhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/billsmith
It's too simplistic to think that they make a mess of everything they do. We know that the opposite is mostly true.Ask Daniel Elsberg. They WANT us to believe that they are too incompetent to do stuff like this.Its an escape route for them.<br />
<br />
Missing planes on the videos is too much to believe surely ? They would never never have used this no-planes scenario unless they were 110% certain it would work flawlessly.<br />
<br />
They brought out a movie soon after 9/11 'Why the Towers Fell' I think it was.…
It's too simplistic to think that they make a mess of everything they do. We know that the opposite is mostly true.Ask Daniel Elsberg. They WANT us to believe that they are too incompetent to do stuff like this.Its an escape route for them.<br />
<br />
Missing planes on the videos is too much to believe surely ? They would never never have used this no-planes scenario unless they were 110% certain it would work flawlessly.<br />
<br />
They brought out a movie soon after 9/11 'Why the Towers Fell' I think it was. Freeze it rthe second you get an image. Then click it through frame-by-frame till the plane magically appears from behind the building.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6402347900887643799" target="_blank">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6402347900887643799</a> Nova 4/30/2002<br />
<br />
Do you think that the directors missed that somehow- or did they put it out deliberately without comment almost like a mistake ? Do you believe it was a mistake ?<br />
<br />
My main point - a theory really- is that they were providing the evidence to indicate to us that there were no-planes. I want to find out why. Shallel Octavia said:Ahh, the…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-09-19:3488444:Comment:75362010-09-19T11:32:09.000Zbill smithhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/billsmith
<cite>Shallel Octavia said:</cite><blockquote cite="http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/no-proof-of-video-fakery?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A7532&xg_source=msg_com_forum#3488444Comment7532"><div>Ahh, the old fake planes to hide the real planes trick. Sounds like an episode of Get Smart.<br></br><br></br>Where's that damn Shoephone?<br></br><br></br>As to the videos, post away new friend of the fuck me pumps, tho they are moderated, so keep it below the ankle, lol.<br></br><br></br>Peace,…</div>
</blockquote>
<cite>Shallel Octavia said:</cite><blockquote cite="http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/no-proof-of-video-fakery?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A7532&xg_source=msg_com_forum#3488444Comment7532"><div>Ahh, the old fake planes to hide the real planes trick. Sounds like an episode of Get Smart.<br/><br/>Where's that damn Shoephone?<br/><br/>As to the videos, post away new friend of the fuck me pumps, tho they are moderated, so keep it below the ankle, lol.<br/><br/>Peace, Shallel</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
lol. That's about the strength of it actually. I guess it might be the only permutation not yet considered but that doesn't mean that it's not worth trying on for size. There are some points on it's side.<br />
I always try to maintain a reasonable level of decorum Shallel. Ahh, the old fake planes to h…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-09-19:3488444:Comment:75322010-09-19T01:16:49.000ZShallel Octaviahttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/Shallel
Ahh, the old fake planes to hide the real planes trick. Sounds like an episode of Get Smart.<br />
<br />
Where's that damn Shoephone?<br />
<br />
As to the videos, post away new friend of the fuck me pumps, tho they are moderated, so keep it below the ankle, lol.<br />
<br />
Peace, Shallel
Ahh, the old fake planes to hide the real planes trick. Sounds like an episode of Get Smart.<br />
<br />
Where's that damn Shoephone?<br />
<br />
As to the videos, post away new friend of the fuck me pumps, tho they are moderated, so keep it below the ankle, lol.<br />
<br />
Peace, Shallel sandy rose said:Bill Smith, i…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-09-18:3488444:Comment:75272010-09-18T21:10:51.000Zbill smithhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/billsmith
<cite>sandy rose said:</cite><blockquote cite="http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/no-proof-of-video-fakery#3488444Comment7522"><div>Bill Smith, if that is your real name, where's your pic? why do you<br></br>look like a pair of women's feet in red shoes? i'm really tired of<br></br>people coming to a forum about truth and being too afraid to show<br></br>their real pics.<br></br>using video fakery and the bs story about the planes did split<br></br>the 9/11 truth movement, because not everyone has the stones…</div>
</blockquote>
<cite>sandy rose said:</cite><blockquote cite="http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/no-proof-of-video-fakery#3488444Comment7522"><div>Bill Smith, if that is your real name, where's your pic? why do you<br/>look like a pair of women's feet in red shoes? i'm really tired of<br/>people coming to a forum about truth and being too afraid to show<br/>their real pics.<br/>using video fakery and the bs story about the planes did split<br/>the 9/11 truth movement, because not everyone has the stones to<br/>even think outside the box. exactly what the criminals had in mind.<br/>i'm certainly not an expert on video or physics or science, but i<br/>was sold long ago on fakery, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist<br/>to look at the videos and see that they are bs.<br/>have you seen the footage of the first hit object at wtc? alias<br/>the flying pig? are you gonna try to say that thing is an airliner?<br/>see web fairy's pic of that, from the naudet snuff film, hopefully<br/>you've already looked at that. i have it over in the photo section.<br/>does that in any way resemble an airliner to you?<br/>also, how were we led by the nose to the no planes theory?<br/>not very many people even seem to stumble upon it, and many<br/>are just plain afraid to look at the videos. i don't notice anyone<br/>leading us by the nose on this one. and your theory would mean<br/>that all our great video experts would have been in on it, and i<br/>won't buy that one even if it's free.<br/><br/>funny how you're trying to talk us into the planes being real.<br/>you may be a real truther, but i'm seeing more red flags here.<br/>we know that 9/11 was an inside job, which means their<br/>whole story was a crock of crap, including the hijackers and<br/>the boxcutters and the whole shebang.<br/>why do you look like a pair of ladies' shoes? that's disturbing.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
Hi Sandy Rose. I prefer to be anonymous, That's not a crime and my shoes are my trademark. I normally post on the jref forum and have done for about 18 months- same name,same shoes.I am one of the few real Truthers there so you can check at the flick of a switch whether I am what I say I am.<br />
<br />
As regards the fakery...have you ever noticed how terribly badly done it is ? What with a half dozen tapes from different broadcasters with the plane often completely missing and the like ? It's hard to believe that they would have tried to fool us with no-planes and then made such a consistently horrible job of it. My insticts are screaming 'setup'. That's what I mean by us (potentially) being led by the nose.<br />
<br />
I could be wrong of course but I am working off that premise for now and trying to use it to find evidence to back it up. Like the bits I've posted today. Do you see no logic in those theories?<br />
<br />
Those experts of ours are fully convinced of the video fakery and they are right..it IS fakery but maybe deliberate fakery meant to lead us away from thinking about the possibility I outlined.<br />
<br />
Can I post videolinks or is there a minimum amount of posts before I can do that ? Bill Smith, if that is your r…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-09-18:3488444:Comment:75222010-09-18T19:51:31.000Zsandy rosehttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/sandyrose
Bill Smith, if that is your real name, where's your pic? why do you<br />
look like a pair of women's feet in red shoes? i'm really tired of<br />
people coming to a forum about truth and being too afraid to show<br />
their real pics.<br />
using video fakery and the bs story about the planes did split<br />
the 9/11 truth movement, because not everyone has the stones to<br />
even think outside the box. exactly what the criminals had in mind.<br />
i'm certainly not an expert on video or physics or science, but i<br />
was sold long ago on…
Bill Smith, if that is your real name, where's your pic? why do you<br />
look like a pair of women's feet in red shoes? i'm really tired of<br />
people coming to a forum about truth and being too afraid to show<br />
their real pics.<br />
using video fakery and the bs story about the planes did split<br />
the 9/11 truth movement, because not everyone has the stones to<br />
even think outside the box. exactly what the criminals had in mind.<br />
i'm certainly not an expert on video or physics or science, but i<br />
was sold long ago on fakery, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist<br />
to look at the videos and see that they are bs.<br />
have you seen the footage of the first hit object at wtc? alias<br />
the flying pig? are you gonna try to say that thing is an airliner?<br />
see web fairy's pic of that, from the naudet snuff film, hopefully<br />
you've already looked at that. i have it over in the photo section.<br />
does that in any way resemble an airliner to you?<br />
also, how were we led by the nose to the no planes theory?<br />
not very many people even seem to stumble upon it, and many<br />
are just plain afraid to look at the videos. i don't notice anyone<br />
leading us by the nose on this one. and your theory would mean<br />
that all our great video experts would have been in on it, and i<br />
won't buy that one even if it's free.<br />
<br />
funny how you're trying to talk us into the planes being real.<br />
you may be a real truther, but i'm seeing more red flags here.<br />
we know that 9/11 was an inside job, which means their<br />
whole story was a crock of crap, including the hijackers and<br />
the boxcutters and the whole shebang.<br />
why do you look like a pair of ladies' shoes? that's disturbing. It would be so much easier to…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-09-18:3488444:Comment:75202010-09-18T17:30:13.000Zbill smithhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/billsmith
It would be so much easier to make an illusion of the WTC2 impact wall than it would be to make an illusion of the plane. Under real circumstaces the plane would not have penetrated tthe building at all, The original engineeers only calculated for the fuel that might enter through broken windows but the body of an impacting plane was expected to fall away.<br />
<br />
But for their purposes on 9/11 the perps had to have the plane ENTER the building and do supposed massive damage.
It would be so much easier to make an illusion of the WTC2 impact wall than it would be to make an illusion of the plane. Under real circumstaces the plane would not have penetrated tthe building at all, The original engineeers only calculated for the fuel that might enter through broken windows but the body of an impacting plane was expected to fall away.<br />
<br />
But for their purposes on 9/11 the perps had to have the plane ENTER the building and do supposed massive damage. It was the risk of the planes…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-09-18:3488444:Comment:75192010-09-18T15:38:16.000Zbill smithhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/billsmith
It was the risk of the planes missing that led me to a theory that truly indicated real planes.<br />
<br />
If the plane into WTC2 had missed it would most likely have ploughed into the ground. Even inder remote control that risk would have been there at 590mph. A tiny glitch and the plane would be in the ground and the building, full of preparation for a controlled demolition would be standing there waiting for it all to be discovered.. The perps could never take that risk.<br />
<br />
The only way that I can think…
It was the risk of the planes missing that led me to a theory that truly indicated real planes.<br />
<br />
If the plane into WTC2 had missed it would most likely have ploughed into the ground. Even inder remote control that risk would have been there at 590mph. A tiny glitch and the plane would be in the ground and the building, full of preparation for a controlled demolition would be standing there waiting for it all to be discovered.. The perps could never take that risk.<br />
<br />
The only way that I can think of to keep people out of the building in that case would be to declare that a biological weapon (probably Anthrax) had been unleashed inside the building. It would be put under immediate quarantine, a large containment area would be declared and nobady would go in or out.<br />
<br />
And funnily enough there was a large bio-warfare team at hand. They had arrived and started setting up for a 'training exercise 'on the evening of monday the 10th of september 2001. The day before 9/11. This is all documented fact.<br />
<br />
So if the biowarfare team was there to cover the eventuality of the plane missing,as I suspect then it had to be a real plane.<br />
<br />
<cite>Shallel Octavia said:</cite><blockquote cite="http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/no-proof-of-video-fakery#3488444Comment7518"><div>Real planes leave real wreckage, and since the planes couldn't have been the 767's which we were told they were, since it was so far out of their performance envelope, anyone finding wreckage could prove it wasn't from a 767. And what if they missed? The story relies on the planes penetrating the towers and that is something that would never happen.</div>
</blockquote> Real planes leave real wrecka…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2010-09-18:3488444:Comment:75182010-09-18T14:46:42.000ZShallel Octaviahttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/Shallel
Real planes leave real wreckage, and since the planes couldn't have been the 767's which we were told they were, since it was so far out of their performance envelope, anyone finding wreckage could prove it wasn't from a 767. And what if they missed? The story relies on the planes penetrating the towers and that is something that would never happen.
Real planes leave real wreckage, and since the planes couldn't have been the 767's which we were told they were, since it was so far out of their performance envelope, anyone finding wreckage could prove it wasn't from a 767. And what if they missed? The story relies on the planes penetrating the towers and that is something that would never happen.