Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

$100,000 for original 2nd hit video

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:35 PM
Original message
$100,000 for original 2nd hit video
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. No planer alert nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Ace Baker: PR Hound or Punky Prankster?
Mr. Baker knows his $100K offer is as safe as apple pie. So why would he even make such a ridiculous offer? Two possible reasons:

1. He's a publicity seeker.

2. He likes to bitch-slap Untruthers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. It's only "safe" because he'll never pay it
... just like the $1000 he offered to anyone who would debate him. Unfortunately, Mr. Baker is mentally ill.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. He'll never HAVE to pay it. No one will even TRY to claim it.
That's the truth. And all Untruthers know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. word
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
35. Read the conditions and "protocol" again....
and it's clear why no one has accepted the challenge so far. Baker is the sole judge of whether the submission meets his criteria. If he was really serious, he would make arrangements for an impartial process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #35
39. I'm sure that could be arranged
wouldn't you at least contact him to see about this if you had a video?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #39
44. Ummm, no.....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Third strong possibility
As readers of my work already know, I don't believe any airplanes crashed anywhere on 9/11.

No plane = no brain

Perhaps mental illness has turned his cognitive and or critical thinking skills to oatmeal.

I hope he gets help
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. Say, Spooky
I visited your blog, just to see what's new in the world of wacky 9/11 photo analysis, and I saw that you have a photo taken by Sara Schwittek. It shows the engine from UA175 leaving the northeast corner of WTC2, leaving a smoke trail that extends behind the Brooklyn Bridge tower, on its way to where it was found at the corner of Church and Murray:



You say:



As you know, I'm a big fan of your photo analysis skills, so I decided to check it out. The caption says the photo was taken from the Four Eyes office building in Brooklyn. Google says the address is 100 Water St., so I found that building in Google Earth and drew a ruler line from there to the corner of Church and Murray:



From a position near the top of that building, I found a view that's a reasonably good match for Schwittek's photo -- close enough for this purpose, anyway. (To do an accurate analysis, you'd need to know the focal length of the lens on Schwittek's camera, but Google Earth doesn't allow simulating that anyway.) It's good enough to estimate approximately where that line to Church and Murray would end. I then drew an arc from the approximate position where the engine left the corner of WTC2 to that ruler line. As you can see, it also passes behind the Brooklyn Bridge tower, very much like the smoke trail in the Schwittek photo:



So, despite your claim, this photo disproves your previous analysis: The engine would be expected to end up somewhere in the vicinity of Church and Murray.

It's worth noting (again) that the entirety of no-planer theory is based on crappy photo analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. i love it when ''truthers'' inadvertently provide...
the evidence that debunks their goofy claim...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. That's weird
Bushco has repeatedly contradicted and even indicted themselves time and again but your enemy and focus is on the truthers. Weird.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. i've repeatedly called for the indictment, prosecution and...
conviction of bush and cheney, dude. your pretending otherwise is getting really old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-11-09 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
132. I've noticed that too.
Seems like on a site by and for progressive Democrats, at the very least a sense of fair play would soften his interest in
demonizing and making enemies of those here whose interest is in learning the truth about Bushco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-11-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #132
135. have i been ''demonizing''?
i'm sorry. i forgot the ''debunker mission statement''. we're only supposed to engage in ''truth suppression''. look, dude, challenging you for proof of your goofy claims and pointing out when you can't provide isn't ''demonizing'' you or anyone else. this is just another one of your post hoc rationalizations when you're called on your bullshit. you seem to think you should get a pass on spreading your misinformation (and even disinformation) simply because you claim to be a progressive dem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. a few points
"It's worth noting (again) that the entirety of no-planer theory is based on crappy photo analysis."

Total bull. It's hardly based on photo analysis at all. It's mostly based on the bizarre physics of the plane crashes, bizarre 2nd hit videos, the bizarre holes left in the buildings, as well as things like the nose out of UA 175, missing black boxes, etc.

So to claim that "the entirety of no-planer theory is based on crappy photo analysis" shows a fair misunderstanding of the subject.

Now, obviously you're talented at Google Earth, and I have to say that I cannot do the type of analysis you did. However, importantly, you say "the vicinity of Church and Murray". I'm not sure what you mean by that, and this could be important.

In fact, my original analysis showed that the engine could possibly have landed NEAR Church and Murray-- even in the vicinity of Church and Murray. But it didn't quite get there. So as far as I am concerned you have proven nothing except that you are good at Google Earth manipulations. Congratulations.

What is it that you do for a living anyway? Just curious.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. so, spooked...
you are now admitting a plane hit wtc2, yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Your incredulity may be based on a crappy understanding of physics, but...
... all that's really offered as "evidence" is crappy photo analysis.

The ruler line I drew goes directly to the corner of Church and Murray, but of course the end point is behind the buildings in both of my views, so all I claim this proves is that the smoke arc in the photo is a very good match for my arc to the "vicinity" of Church and Murray. It's certainly close enough to show that your analysis is baloney, like everything else you've done.

I'm a software engineer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. but again-- you've proved nothing!
Edited on Sun May-03-09 02:15 PM by spooked911
and as far as "crappy photo analysis", if that's what you want to believe to keep yourself in denial (assuming you're honest), I guess there ain't much I can do about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Seger, when the guy who says nukes destroyed the towers and no plane hit them
says that you're the one in denial, the discussion is over. There's nothing you or I can do to dig someone out of that kind of entrenchment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Seger is flat wrong about the only no-plane evidence offered is photo analysis
and he's flat wrong on his alignment on a B757 with the Shanksville crater.

So clearly he's in denial about something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. The only thing I see Seger being in denial about
is possibly thinking that he might be able to talk you down. But that's not in evidence either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. With 100% certainty...
... I am not wrong about the Shanksville crater, as any reasonably intelligent person can easily see by the graphics I've posted. You simply don't understand what you are looking at, and you refuse every attempt to explain it. Keep that bullshit on your blog, and I couldn't care less. Keep bringing it here, and I'll rub your nose in it, every time, whether or not you understand it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. 100% certainty of how Untruthers respond to exposure of the truth.
"Keep bringing it here, and I'll rub your nose in it, every time, whether or not you understand it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Jump right in and show me where I'm wrong, mouth (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. "I'll rub your nose in it, every time"
Dude based on what you've shown, you couldn't rub off a lottey ticket with silver dollar and three people helping you.

Get real, you got nothing, no bark, no bite, nothing.

Seriously we "untruthers" are quite used to no-planers falling way short on understanding just about anything of substanse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Your substanse (sic) could use a litle SUBSTANCE.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Very good, you found a spelling error
See, you can do something of substance.

That's about as good as you can do, so enjoy it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. That's really quite amusing.
Did you do it on purpose? It could just be ironic, I suppose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. LOL, I didn't even notice the error until you pointed it out - nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #24
42. you haven't explained how the forward momentum would have the wing make a wing gash
go behind where you put the wing. And you still assume the fuselage would make a unreasonably tiny initial impact gouge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #42
84. Huh? Looks to me like the wing fuel tanks exploded.


And the crater where the fuselage hit is not "unreasonably tiny." It's a little larger than the fuselage:



You keep claiming that you're going to prove that UA93 didn't crash there. Your inability to understand how these things could happen is far, far short of proof that it didn't happen. You offer wild speculation but your proofs fail, leaving you with nothing at all to back up your speculations except to say that you don't understand how this could happen. All you've really got is more denial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Yes, I certainly have proved something
I've proved that the smoke trail shown in the Schwittek photo is perfectly consistent with the engine landing at Church and Murray, which disproves the conclusion you drew from your so-called "analysis," where you completely ignored the viewpoint and perspective of a photo. As anyone who has followed your misadventures here might notice, ignoring perspective is one of your persistent failings, and you just never "get it."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #25
38. In all honesty, the way you've presented your "proof" is not very straight forward
and I'm not convinced. In particular, the bottom figure is a good match for the photo but the street position isn't clear and the trajectory ends in the wrong place. There must be a better way to show the position. Also, I have to trust your arc extension, when when I presented a similar arc extension, no one was willing to believe it-- they wanted to see my math.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #38
47. The major problem wasn't your math
The major problem was your entire approach: You were using a photo that was at an angle to the buildings, and at a fairly large angle to the trajectory of the engine, but you did your distance estimates as if the photo and your drawing was perpendicular to both. There's no point in being precise about the exact trajectory when you make a mistake THAT large. And that's not the first time you made a similar mistake, as I recall.

As I said, my diagram was just an approximation, just to show a pretty good match with the Schwittek photo. If you don't understand why it does that, that's not my problem. If you think you can prove something with a more accurate diagram, then knock yourself out -- or just remain unconvinced, your choice. I don't think sane people need to be convinced that AA175 crashed into the WTC, and I don't think no-planers CAN be convinced.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #47
58. Dude
I may not have taken the angles to perfect account, however the angle foreshortening effect isn't nearly as critical in my engine shot as in that plane picture.

And all I was asking for was a better diagram. If I am wrong, I will admit it. But your diagram was ambiguous as to where the engine landed.

FWIW, here's what I wrote before (not so much for you WS, but for someone else who might have an open mind on this issue):
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/11/hey-whered...

All in all, it seems rather likely the engine piece was planted, for the following reasons:
1) the engine was not clearly the right type for a 767 and was certainly never identified as a 767 engine by the government
2) the engine piece was found under a construction canopy, without any hole in the top and without any major disruption of the sidewalk
3) I know of no witness describing the flaming engine coming from the south tower
and landing on the sidewalk
4) the engine was much too far from the south tower to be the flaming ejected debris from the tower explosion
5) the engine was most likely too far from the south tower to be the ejected debris from the tower explosion that flamed out early in its path, and moreover the engine would be more likely to be the flaming debris



I welcome anyone's else analysis on this.

UPDATE, 11.7.06-- Here is the diagram to which I alluded:


Here is an updated map showing where the flaming debris came down:


It should be clear that the large flaming debris doesn't come close to where the engine component was found.

ALSO NOTE: there is a VERY LARGE building between the maximum trajectory distance and where the engine was found. Thus, even if my trajectory distance analysis is too short, there is still the problem that the debris was getting low out at the end of its path and it seems essentially impossible that it could have hopped over the tall building in front of the Church and Murray intersection.

ALSO NOTE AS WELL: where the engine piece was found, at Church and Murray, is really quite off from the trajectory of the official plane path. It is not so noticeable in the cartoon shown above but it is very noticeable in the overhead photo. Thus, it seems even more unlikely that the engine came from a plane impacting the South tower, since it is unlikely an engine going through a building and deflected at an angle would travel so far.

The final killer piece of evidence, as noted by a commenter, is that officially the starboard engine HIT A FLOOR SLAB. Meaning that it is almost impossible that the engine could have flown at high speed out the other side after smashing into outer steel column, a steel spandrel plate and a concrete floor slab.

Since the "UA175" port engine officially had to travel through the dense steel network of the core section of the building, there is no way it could have made it through the building, and there is little sign of anything exiting the north face of the south tower near the core section.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #58
72. Dude!
> "But your diagram was ambiguous as to where the engine landed."

Baloney. It's not nearly so ambiguous that you can continue to claim that the Schwittek photo supports your analysis. The engine was clearly heading right toward that corner. Who are you trying to kid?

But let's take a look at your first blog posting on this, which is based on a video which you used to estimate the trajectories of two large pieces of debris:



With a little hunting in Google Earth (what an amazing tool!), I was able to find the precise location where that video was shot: an apartment building at 284 Pearl St., from approximately the 20th floor:



(Note that the blue building in the lower right is the new WTC7, whereas the old WTC7 is seen in the lower right of the video. The WTC tower model I downloaded from the Google Warehouse includes the old WTC7, too, so in this view the two are actually merged and you can see a little of the old building peeking through the new. Also note that the graphic for the near wall of the near apartment building is misaligned with the side wall, but it's close enough to see that it is the building in the video.)

Here, I've drawn a ruler line from that apartment building to a map pin at Church and Murray:



Notice that the line goes through the right side of a narrow white building, then goes through a larger gray building, and then Church and Murray is right behind that building. So, on this larger view, I can get a pretty good estimate where that corner would be be, marked with a red arrow:



So, now all we have to do is project the trajectories from the video. With resizing and a little rotation, your own sketch is good enough to make the point:



By your own trajectories, which I'm sure you'll admit are only estimates anyway, the engine would perhaps have fallen a little short of Church and Murray. But that makes sense, and that's what I would expect: Since the engine would still have quite a bit of forward momentum -- losing very little horizontal speed, in fact, since exiting the building -- it would be expected to bounce and roll before coming to rest under that construction canopy. (I'll be damned if I can figure out why THAT baffles you so much, but since we discussed that before, yet you still list it as some kind of anomaly, I suppose that's just another conceptual barrier you're unable to cross.)

So, another one bites the dust, Spooks: We have a video and a photo that are perfectly consistent with the engine ending up at Church and Murray. Most people in the world, I'm pretty sure, can figure out why that is.

As for the rest of your "open minded" nonsense: I already showed you the part of a Boeing 767 engine that looks exactly like that part found on the street, so why do you keep saying it doesn't? The canopy silliness, I already answered. The fact that you "know of no witness describing the flaming engine coming from the south tower and landing on the sidewalk" is one of your classic arguments from ignorance, and it's obviously irrelevant since we have several videos and photos showing it. Your opinion that the engine couldn't have gone that far has been disproved -- twice. And finally, your guess about which debris was the engine is irrelevant: It could in fact be either one, given that it would certainly bounce and roll when it hit the street.

My open-minded opinion is that you've literally got nothing here but denial, desperately looking for a justification but coming up short time after time.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #72
76. for all your carping about "crappy photo analysis", you basically showed what I initially found
Edited on Wed May-06-09 07:53 AM by spooked911
-- the engine doesn't quite get to that spot unless it rolls quite a bit. Which is possible-- as I initially thought. But it's unlikely it would have rolled and landed on that particular end. And you would think the engine landing in the street initially would have created rather a big crater, which someone would have filmed. Quite possibly the engine would have lodged into the asphalt as soon as it impacted and gotten stuck there.

I'm not sure why you won't show the overhead view on google earth-- it would help see the path better.

Points you still haven't addressed:
1) that engine officially hit a floor slab as it entered the tower, which really would would have strongly impeded the path of the engine through the tower
2) it's still not clear that the trajectory wasn't blocked by one of the large buildings in the path-- particularly there's a big building right before the "landing site"
3) the engine was found at an angle from the tower very different from the plane path angle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #76
82. LOL, SSDD
Edited on Wed May-06-09 09:41 AM by William Seger
No, I didn't "basically show what (you) initially found." You "found" that the engine couldn't possibly reach that corner. I find that it easily could, even if it didn't bounce, and even if I use your own trajectory (but not stop because I ran out of paper):



But given the momentum that heavy part would have had, I still think it's very unlikely that the engine would have just hit the street and stopped. Your argument that if the engine left a crater in the street it would have been photographed is another argument from ignorance. Given what was going on at that time, maybe nobody with a camera noticed it. Or, just maybe there are lots of photos taken that day that you haven't seen on the web, huh.

An overhead view shows that you are wrong to say that the "angle from the tower (was) very different from the plane path angle." It's close to being identical, close enough that it wouldn't take much deflection at all to end up there:



Your guess that the trajectory was blocked by one of the large buildings is easily checked by positioning in the middle of that intersection and looking up at the tower:



Well, whaddaya know, you can just about see the exit point in a straight line, so an arc would have no trouble clearing that building.

The "engine" might well have hit the floor slab or columns going through the building, and likely it did. Maybe that's why all that made it to the street was that compressor shaft and smaller pieces.

And again, there's a very simple explanation for why all your efforts to prove the engine couldn't have landed there have failed. But, hey, the great thing about denial is that you never have to give it up, huh.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #82
83. Sounds like you're trying to fool by selling with the Untruther ...
tactic of "it COULD" have happened. Best of all, your sleight of hand trick lets you off the hook of having to deal with
the much more likely fact that the engine part was planted, just like so many researchers have long contended.

Stupid fake evidence tricks for sale by "w. seger & company".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #83
85. Once again...
... jump right in and show me where I'm wrong, mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. Talk to a pilot about your "it COULD have happened this way"
Everyone knows that engine part didn't fly there. It was placed there. Who do you think you're fooling - naive DUers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #86
87. your posts seem to be all scat, no cattle
Edited on Wed May-06-09 11:28 AM by OnTheOtherHand
"Everyone knows"? That's obviously untrue, no matter how heartily you call out the people who refuse to agree with it.

ETA: By the way, got any witnesses for when and how an engine was "placed" at the corner of Church and Murray?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #86
88. Yes, it could have happened
I guess you missed the point (again): Spooky is claiming to have proof that it couldn't happen. I have shown that his proof fails.

In your little world of delusion, perhaps it's conventional to use the "reasoning" that since it didn't happen, then all the videos and photos must have been faked, and the engine must have been planted, and all the witnesses must be lying. In the real world, you don't give sensible people any reason at all to take you seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. Repeat: ask a pilot if your theory makes any sense.
It might make sense if your purpose is to divert attention away from the basic problem that most DUers know that the engine
part was planted. You must think most people here are so dense they'll fall for your diversionary tactics and forget that
they've long known that crucial evidence was faked and some was planted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. you've formed interesting opinions about DUers in the past few weeks
most DUers know that the engine part was planted.... they've long known that crucial evidence was faked and some was planted.

Riiiiiight. What could be clearer than that "most DUers" agree with everything you say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #93
95. Maybe you could be helpful by asking a pilot about S's theory
BTW, most DUers who post on this forum agree that 9/11 was an inside job. You would too, if you knew more about it than just
what you were told by the corporate media. Have the Untruthers convinced you that Bush and the MSM told the truth about 911?
Wait, I know. You too have "questions" about parts of the Official conspiracy but that doesn't mean you believe every
crazy theory that comes down the pike - that about right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. oh, jeepers
First of all, where am I supposed to find a pilot, and more to the point, why should I expect a pilot to have a strong or informed opinion about what would happen to the engine of a jumbo jet that flew into one of the Twin Towers? If we're going to consult experts, how about experts with relevant expertise?

"...most DUers who post on this forum agree that 9/11 was an inside job."

Whoa! a goalpost just crashed through my monitor! Luckily, I saw it coming. :eyes:

Do I need to walk you through the distinction between "most DUers" and "most DUers who post on this forum," or can you handle that on your own?

"You would too, if you knew more about it than just what you were told by the corporate media."

I bow in obeisance to your boundless knowledge -- and, oh yes, your dazzling charisma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #90
98. It's not a "theory"
You seem to have a lot of difficulty with the definition of common words. It's an extremely well documented and accepted FACT that UA175 hit WTC2, and that one engine part was found at Church and Murray. You insult the board with your empty claim that "most DUers know that the engine part was planted." Thankfully, only a tiny handful of DUers seem to be that delusional, and they don't "know" any such thing -- they simply assume it, for no good reason. Spooky claims he can prove that it couldn't have happened, which would mean all that evidence must have been faked, which would mean it should not be accepted as fact. Unfortunately, his proof fails. Miserably. And I see that as usual, you have absolutely nothing to contribute to the "debate" but naked assertions and denial, along with insinuations that anyone who doesn't buy this idiotic bullshit must be an accomplice after the fact. Very impressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #98
105. Then you admit that you're not a pilot, right? Thought so.
I think you're afraid to ask a real pilot for his opinion about your engine flight theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. You're becoming less and less coherent
Why in hell would I "ask a pilot" -- or anyone else, for that matter -- what happened to UA175's engine, when I can see for myself what happened, in numerous videos and photos? What do you expect would happen to it, if it came barreling out of the building at a couple hundred miles per hour? What "theory" are you even talking about? Momentum and gravity? Sorry, but I have no idea what point you're so unsuccessfully trying to make.

You keep telling me that all that evidence is fake, but unfortunately it appears that your reasoning is simply ass-backwards: You think the evidence must be fake because there wasn't any plane. Sorry, but it's pretty dang clear by now that you have no rational reason for your bizarre belief system, so rational people are never going to take you seriously. I think you need to find a better way to deal with that than just repeating it over and over on a forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #105
116. Why in the world would a pilot....
be an expert in this area?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #82
104. thanks for the extra views
this time what you showed is much easier to see what is going on.

First-- the angle on the red line *is* way off from the official flight path-- note where the starboard engine would have gone in with your line. Deflection is possible sure, but the line is nonetheless quite a bit off course.

A big part of this whole thing comes down then, to how you draw the arc. Re-looking at the pictures and the video, I'm not convinced that either of our arcs are accurate.

The problem with the four eyes pic is that we're looking at a smoke trail which may represent slightly drifted smoke and not represent the actual path. And in that video I initially used, I can't see the path of the ejected debris much past WTC1. I thought I could see it before one I first did this but now I can't.

So you make a good case and I appreciate your effort. This is certainly much much more convincing than your flight 93 crater alignment. But to be convinced 100%, I need to check out the arcs more.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #104
108. If you REALLY want to figure out how far it would have gone...
... instead of fooling around with diagrams, all you have to do is get an accurate estimate for how fast it was going and how high up it was when it left the building. Then, calculate out how long it would take for something to hit the ground falling from that height. Gravity is a constant acceleration, so an object will take the same amount of time to hit the ground whether it's moving horizontally or dropping straight down. So, given the speed, you just need to calculate how far it would travel horizontally in that amount of time, and you're finished. If you want more precision, you'll need to adjust both the average speed and the falling time for air resistance, but given the limited accuracy of measurements taken from a video anyway, I doubt that will make much difference.

Or, work it backwards: Figure out how fast it would need to be traveling horizontally to make it to Church and Murray, then try to prove it couldn't have been going that fast.

I'm not a psychic, but I predict another failure to prove that the engine couldn't get that far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. My money's on WS. As long as he gets to be the decider...
of whether or not it's even theoretically possible. Forget about whether or not the damn thing was planted. That's a given.
The argument now is a theoretical one about how far a jet engine could fly. (actually, I believe it' been reduced to include a modifer now - so make that jet engine PART -- later that could, if necessary be further modified so that the statement would be "jet engine decal")

Either way, my money's on Seger if he gets to say whether or not that decal could "get that far".

Good luck, Spooked911. At least you can be thankful that you have a worthy, honorable opponent, who is scrupulously fair, despite
the fact that there's no way you can win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #109
125. Here's a thought
If you have nothing to contribute, STFU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #125
126. You didn't like my contribution, so you resort to your playbook...
or manual on how to divert attention, distract, and otherwise suppress those who disagree with Bush's BS 9/11 lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #108
111. I did that before
Edited on Wed May-06-09 08:24 PM by spooked911
if you calculate it with the Church and Murray distance, it works out to something like 100 mph, don't remember the exact number--

OK, this site
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/traj.html

using roughly 300 m as height and 300 m as distance, gives eject speed of 38.3 m/s = 137,880 m/h = ~455,004 ft/h = ~86 mph
Certainly it is no more than 100 mph.



Interestingly, the speed of the eject seems a lot higher than 100 mph, if you look at the videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClFGZ-hj-aI&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFxx1o84dj4

In the videos, the eject is just slightly less than the speed of the plane (540 mph) which makes the eject going pretty fast-- say 300 mph--- much much higher than the distance indicates.

Something is screwy.

Perhaps the eject is not a solid object, but rather an item that burns up as it is traveling and thus loses momentum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #111
117. sorry-- got the distance wrong-- ignore last calculation and look at this one
Edited on Wed May-06-09 09:53 PM by spooked911
so using this site
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/traj.html

using roughly 300 m as height and 400 m as rough distance, gives eject speed of 51.1 m/s = 183,960 m/h = ~607,068 ft/h = ~115 mph
So yes-- it is somewhat over 100 mph.



Again, the speed of the eject seems a lot higher than 100 mph, if you look at the videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClFGZ-hj-aI&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFxx1o84dj4

In the videos, the eject is just slightly less than the speed of the plane (540 mph) which makes the eject going pretty fast-- say 300 mph--- much much higher than the distance indicates. I think it's clear that the neither of the ejects are going only 20% as fast as the plane.


Hmmm-- the lower flaming eject even looks like it speeds up a bit after it comes out of the tower... odd.

Anyway-- something is screwy.

Perhaps the eject is not a solid object, but rather an item that burns up as it is traveling and thus loses momentum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #117
124. The distance was a liitle less than 1480 feet (450 m)
... to that light post on the northeast corner of Church and Murray which is seen in the engine photos.

Assuming the height was around 1000 feet or less, in the neighborhood of 300 m, the time to fall would be somewhere between 7.8 and 7.9 seconds. Assuming no bounce, the engine would need to have been traveling somewhere between 127 MPH and 130 MPH when it left the building.

Now, go find a video with a known frame rate that's good enough to estimate frame-by-frame distances, and try to prove that the engine was traveling either much faster or much slower than that. (And this time please don't forget to account for the perspective of the video, or we're going to pointlessly waste more time.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #8
37. If you've seen the photo of this engine, it looks like it was put there the day before -- !!!
...or sometime overnight --

As I recall the photo, there were people around, just walking by it --

Shortly we'll probably hear there was a witness who saw it flying thru the air and

down into that spot!!!

This has the same look and feel of the "engine" planted at the Pentagon!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
4. Quick. Change the subject. You're making Untruthers nervous...
because they know that there can't be a genuine 2nd hit video because no planes crashed into WTC2 or anywhere else on 9/11, so

they reach into their trusty Untruther "How to Distract People From the Truth" handbook and voila, we get diversions and insults -

longtime faves of Untruthers everywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. when you can explain how a jet engine could have been...
''planted'' at church and murray streets, then people might buy your ''no-plane'' bullshit. you know, it's truly amazing how someone could manage to have even less credibility than the bush administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. lots of people buy it-- they know the ring of truth
Edited on Sun May-03-09 10:20 AM by spooked911
and the 2nd hit videos have the ring of bullshit.

Planting an engine fragment would be trivial. Have a truck plant the engine the night before, keep it covered with a canopy. Then when everybody is distracted with the WTC-- looking up, pull the tarp off. Sprinkle a few extra parts around on the street.

Note that one of the curiosities of the engine was that it turned up UNDER a construction canopy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. jesus, spooked...
how would someone have ''sprinkled a few extra plane parts on the street'' and no one noticed it? also, are you deliberately trying to conflate a construction canopy with a tarp? what is so curious about the engine landing under a construction canopy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. The Hezarkhani video and Carmen Taylor photo are certainly genuine
... as demonstrated by the fact that they form a perfect stereographic pair, taken about 20 feet apart:



(Left-right-left views: To see in 3D, the left pair can be parallel viewed; right pair can be cross-viewed.)

There is not a single no-planer "photo analysis" that can stand up to scrutiny. There is no basis whatsoever for claiming that ANY of the UA175 videos is fake. That's why no-planers are marginalized even within the "movement."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. dude-- that proves nothing
except that the perps filmed the towers at slightly different angles-- which I suspect they did for modeling purposes, allowing them to create an endless number of second hit videos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. Yeah, right
In other words, since the videos are all faked, then whatever the videos show just proves they're all faked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #27
40. No, I'm not saying that
but showing that two planes shots represent different angles doesn't constitute proof that the videos are real either
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. so...
Every piece of footage was done by "perps"? And not one single photo was taken with no planes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #29
41. how can you take a picture of nothing?
Edited on Mon May-04-09 08:53 AM by spooked911
:)

and yes, to the first-- at least any plane was put in by perps. There could be honest footage that was manipulated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. So...
Either not one single person (non-perp person) in NYC that morning captured it on film... or... They did but it was then altered and they have decided to not say anything and instead go along with the cover-up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #45
51.  the idea is that most of the videos were made by perps.
some honest people who caught something weird were coerced to have their videos altered. does that answer your question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. I guess
I mean... It tells me what you believe. I have no idea how you resolve it, it makes absolutely no sense to me. Do you have any idea just how much the towers stood out? How far away they could be seen?

OK, I picture myself in NYC on the morning of 9/11. I hear that something hit one of the towers and it is on fire with tons of smoke pouring out of it. I happen to have a camera or video recorder and point it up there. I film an explosion with no planes at the second tower. It is being carried live on pretty much every channel on TV and radio and they are all claiming something that is completely wrong... I know it, I have evidence of it.

You know what I'm thinking? Holy shit! I've got to make copies right now and get them everywhere I can and get the original safe. No question about it, I am not handing over my only copy to anyone... hell, I'm not even telling anyone that might report it until I'm sure there are lots of copies out there. I'm sending it to foreign news agencies, anyone I can think of because it is obvious there is something massive going on.

I really don't consider myself paranoid but that is pretty much exactly what I would do. Having grown up right outside of NYC, I feel pretty comfortable that a lot of people in that area, in the same situation would react exactly the same. Would some immediately hand it over to authorities? Sure, no doubt but there would be plenty that would not.

The effort required to stop such a picture/video or knowledge of such from getting out would have to be so massive, everyone... EVERYONE in NYC that day would be completely aware of such effort. Eight years later and not one person is brave enough to come forward and say something?

Sorry, but I honestly have no idea how you account for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Buried inside your whatever it is, is a claim which ...
raises some questions, but I'll just ask two for now.

Do you know what time WTC began to collapse?

Do you know what time the first video images were shown on network television?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Exactly? Off the top of my head? No
When?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. first of all, this isn't the start of the idea-- it's where the idea has to go and it is a problem
but the impossible crash physics and the clearly bogus videos trump all.

But what you suggest isn't so impossible. You'd have to be taping the south tower at exactly the right moment at the right spot to have clear evidence that no plane went in. There are in fact relatively few videos that show the plane enter the south face.

Importantly, there were some witnesses who never saw a plane.

We are talking about a pretty big conspiracy; it's not unreasonable to think the perps have ways of coercing/intimidating innocent witnesses who may have seen something funny.

The people who never saw the plane go in certainly think they just missed it, being constantly brain-washed by the playing of the plane videos over and over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-05-09 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #56
60. Sorry but... thats weak at best
"but the impossible crash physics and the clearly bogus videos trump all."

I've seen nothing that indicates any of the videos are fake. I've seen enough to understand why you do think they are fake, I do not agree. Regardless, that is not my point in this sub thread.

"Importantly, there were some witnesses who never saw a plane."

Really? The truth movement has witnesses that have come forward to say they were looking in the right spot and saw an explosion and no plane? Link? or... do you have select quotes with no planes mentioned in the quote? How many people does the truth movement have that have come forward to say that they were there, witnessed the event and that there was definitely no plane?

"We are talking about a pretty big conspiracy; it's not unreasonable to think the perps have ways of coercing/intimidating innocent witnesses who may have seen something funny."

Completely unreasonable. There were, literally, millions... MILLIONS (one big fucking number) of people within range that had the potential to capture the event on film. As I said before, in very short time (I'm talking minutes, not more then an hour), anyone that caught the event with no planes would have very quickly realized they had something to blow open a massive conspiracy. How would the perps find them and keep it quiet that they were doing so? People from all over the tri-state area (NY, NJ, CT) would have to have been searched on their way out of the city and anything that could take a picture confiscated. Everyone that lived in the city, searched and anything that could take a picture confiscated. Plus all the foreigners in the city that day, all searched and anything that takes pictures taken. All the rescue workers (many volunteers) kept quiet and searched regularly to make sure no un-official pictures got out.

AND... if you were to be correct, they were able to do this... without one single picture or video getting out... Eight years later, not one single person willing to talk about it out of the millions that went through it. Not one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-05-09 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. Out of millions --- not even one that is authentic. Why?
You said "There were, literally, millions... MILLIONS (one big fucking number) of people within range that had the potential to capture the event on film."

What's your explanation (with PROOF, damnit) for why there hasn't been one single video that shows a real plane crashing into ANY of the buildings at the WTC or the Pentagon? CGI planes that were inserted into videos don't count. Where's a video that shows a
REAL commercial airliner crash into a building.

You and your fellow Untruthers talk a good insult game, but when it comes time for YOUR team to produce evidence, you don't have any.
Tricks, yes. Doctored videos, yes. BS --- megatons of it. Videos that show real airliners crashing on 9/11? HELL no. Why not, big talker? Why not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-05-09 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. Once again, you want to go off topic
Please show one real expert (not some nameless schlub off the internet) that shows conclusively the videos were faked.

oh... and after you do that, care to address the topic at hand in this sub-thread? or are you going to keep trying to de-rail it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-05-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. Big TALKER...of BS.
Edited on Tue May-05-09 11:13 AM by NowHearThis
You claim millions of people could have photographed WTC2 being crashed into by an airliner, but when you are asked to produce
just one single authentic video showing a plane crash into the building (or any other buildings on 9/11), you can't.

You know, DU provides this forum for discussion of the events of 9/11, and some people take that as opportunity to come here
and try to shame people from discussing the evidence. In the real world outside the Net, I hope that you would be embarrassed
to think that intelligent people can't see through BS and attempts to fool them.

I've seen intelligent minds from Untruthers on display here. I've also seen highly intelligent people here who have studied
the evidence and know it thoroughly. In the case of the doctored videos, the evidence is overwhelming that they are not authentic, and there have been plenty of posts here explaining how they were doctored. Many of those same posts provided links to where
anyone interested in knowing even more about the technical aspects of how the videos were doctored can become even more educated
on that subject.

Yet, here we are nearly eight years after 9/11 and a small, but highly aggressive group of Untruthers continue to try and play DUers
for fools.

You must be crazy if you think that most people here still believe the disinformation that the Gov. has been trying to sell to the world for the past nearly eight years. Repeating it might work for a fairly good portion of the general public, but DUers aren't
stupid and just because we are bound by the rules to refrain from saying what many here probably think, that doesn't mean they
don't think it and know it.

The irony is that we know that you know and that you know that we know it, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-05-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #63
64. so. since, as you claim, no planes crashed into anything on...
Edited on Tue May-05-09 11:50 AM by SDuderstadt
9/11, there must be numerous videos which, prior to being ''doctored'', show explosions with no plane, yet no one has come forward with said video. so, you're asking us to believe all those who shot vide that day are ''in on it'' too? do you realize how batshit crazy that is? this is why you have no credibility here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-05-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. So... your answers are no and yes
You cannot supply any reputable sources to prove the videos are fake and your going to continue to try and de-rail this sub-thread. Interesting.

"The irony is that we know that you know and that you know that we know it, too."

Have you any idea how insane you sound? I don't think you know anything about me. I have, in fact, left out a number of facts about myself and 9/11 because that is not what I am talking about here. My brother was a paramedic at ground zero on 9/11 and for several days following. My mother witnessed the second impact from the Jersey side of the Hudson. I have/had friends that worked inside the towers that day... some made it out and some did not.

You know... If they are all fake, it should be easy to prove it. There are plenty of video experts (in this and other countries). There are plenty of software packages that do video analysis but... what do we get shown? You-tube videos that show low quality shit with some nameless schlub talking out their ass... oh and usually some real ominous music to go along with it.

You see, I've not made the claim that all of the videos are real. I've claimed it is not possible to insure they got all potential photo/video evidence that no planes hit the towers without it being common knowledge that such an effort was put forth. You claim they are all fake. You prove your claim. Line up the experts that show they are all fake, it is sooo obvious, it should be easy.

oh... and maybe address what I am actually talking about here. How was it insured that all evidence was taken without word getting out that it was done?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #61
73. I think you mean, not one video that is fake
... or at least, not a single one that no-planers have actually proved is fake. But I recognize that you have some difficulty understanding what that word means. To you, it seems to mean that someone said so in a YouTube video.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #73
77. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. can you prove that?
of course you can't. so, all these people were coerced, yet no one has come forward?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #17
152. Thanks William. Seeing that in 3D is spooky. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
89. LOL, if irrationality and bullshit claims made me "nervous"..
... there's a hell of a lot more in the world than no-planers to be nervous about. Now, ferinstance, these 2012ers make me nervous -- no telling what demonstrably irrational people might do if they think it's the end of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. You must be in that same contest. Or, maybe you're a masochist
There's no other plausible reason I can think of. Oh, wait, yes there is. And every Untruther here knows it. So do most DUers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. Why do you attempt to isolate a group of DUers as "untruthers"?
Edited on Wed May-06-09 02:32 PM by Bolo Boffin
Why do you imply that they are not "real" DUers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. Why do you attempt to isolate a group of DUers as "truthers"?
Why do you imply that they are not "real" DUers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. Produce a post where I do any such thing or retract that charge.
Edited on Wed May-06-09 03:06 PM by Bolo Boffin
I think you will find that I eschew the term "truther," favoring CT advocate or CD advocate, or even discussion opponent instead. And I do not think that anyone here is not a DUer, nor do I ever imply such a thing. I think that many CT advocates are misguided and throwing their best energies away when it could be accomplished shared goals. But I do think that we share goals here.

And shared goals are the only standard for determining DU membership or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #94
99. "truther" is a soi-disant term. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
36. I think there's a pretty good challenge to the official film of the 2nd plane . . .
Read it fairly quickly but the observer points out how lucky the guy would have had

to have been to have just happened to have raised the camera to the exact spot where

the "plane" hit -- a very narrow area.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #36
46. The inability of "truthers" (especially "no-planers") to think critically is...
Edited on Mon May-04-09 10:12 AM by SDuderstadt
simply stunning. Why, indeed, would someone just happen to have a camera trained on the ares where the second plane hit? Try this little exercise. Note where the first tower was struck. Note the proximity of the towers to each other. Now, answer this question. How would it be unlikely that someone would be filming the damage to 1st tower and manage to also record the attack oin the second tower?

I swear, if "truthers" would just take some critical thinking classes, a lot of this nonsense would never see the light of day where it frankly embarrasses all of us liberals. The fact that "truthers" are not embarrassed by it only goes in the direction of proving my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. Why should we trust their ability to think critically about the OCT when they cannot
think critically about their own theories?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Good question...
we shouldn't and, of course, we don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #49
79. what's with your rape tagline, Bolo?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #79
81. Hmm, haven't been watching the news recently?
How many times was KSM waterboarded?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #81
100. I saw the 183 and recognized the waterboarding # but I don't get the rape connection
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. Think in terms of the "modest proposal."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #36
59. "a very narrow area"
You just can't make this stuff up. "a very narrow area" apparently is now defined as a building 220 feet across and over a 1000 feet tall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boastOne43 Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
43. yes PLANES could've penetrated the WTC steel.....
its all about kinetic energy baby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS2bIaFGWO0
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #43
57. yes, but that is a straw man argument
the problem is that the planes wouldn't have sliced effortlessly through the outer wall and then completely disintegrated once inside.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-05-09 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #57
66. Well,
I am sure the act of slicing through the outer wall would have done a lot of damage to the plane. And of course hitting the massive core columns in the center of the building might have contributed somewhat to the further disintegration once inside the tower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-05-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. except no damage occurs to the plane as it goes in
--it's path isn't even slightly deflected

--and the tail disappears without going in

-- explosions appear where the plane didn't even go in

-- the wingtip of the plane produces a massive explosion for some strange reason

--all sorts of weirdness with the videos


--but the one nonetheless I am sure you will never budge from the official story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-05-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Once the hole has been punched out by the
what is there to damage or deflect the rest of the plane? As to the tail, I suspect that it has more to do with the resolution of the footage and/or digital artifacts due to compression. It is not like there are any high definition shots of the impact.

If you want to hang your case on amateur analysis of shitty video, knock your self out. I will become a no-planer when you produce a shot of the second explosion that does not show a plane - you know as well as I do that without that you have no case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-05-09 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. I will become a pro-planer when high quality footage becomes available
that clearly shows no manipulation...

I suspect they will never release the good footage. Gee, what do they have to hide?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-05-09 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. Who is they ?
what source of high resolution images haven't we seen?

And how do you explain the lack of footage of the second explosion without a plane? How can that be possible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-05-09 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. In all likelihood...
"they" are the product of spooked911's fevered imagination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. the media and the govt have not released high res footage of the second plane
isn't that obvious?

the lack of footage without a plane exists-- there are videos that show the south tower explosion without the plane

these people didn't happen to be filming the south face as it exploded-- why would they, if there was no plane?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #74
75. Why would the government be filming anything
on 911? Are government film crews routinely out and about just in case something spectacular happens and needs to be filmed in high res?

Can you provide a link to a video that shows an explosion but no plane?

What if they were filming the fires from the other tower? Lots of people were doing that - surely one of them caught the other tower exploding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #75
78. I didn't mean the govt was filming, but they've taken possession of some videos
such as the Fairbanks footage. I even filed a FOIA with the FBI to get a copy of Fairbanks video, but they claimed some bogus exemption.

These people missed the plane--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76MNYlerdz8


David Handschuh, among other others, never saw the plane but saw the explosion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmMZQFRzFY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #78
103. You really think David Handschuh is a truther?
or are the truthers simply twisting his words? Do you have evidence that he was even in a position to see the plane?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #103
112. he was in a position to see the plane and he was shocked he never saw it
watch the video I linked. He's not a "truther".

There are a couple others like him, though I'd have to take some time to dig them up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #112
118. He also states he was taking pictures....
which means he would have had an eye up to the viewfinder...why would you think it odd he didn't see the plane under those circumstances?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #75
80. "Why would the government be filming anything"
Edited on Wed May-06-09 08:26 AM by NowHearThis
Ask the government. But those of us who spend more time reading history than trying to suppress it, know that the government
has a long history of filming its black operations. In addition to all of the films which citizens turned over to
various government and law enforcement authorities immediately after JFK's assassination. The authorities even forced people
to turn over cameras, some of whose owners reported that film was exposed before the cameras were returned to them. Others reported that the government withheld film/photos.

There were other people seen filming in Dealey Plaza, the most famous of which was the so-called "Babushka Lady" who was
never identified and who simply walked away from the scene. Up to 12 people were seen operating cameras, including those set
on tripods -- none of whom were identified, all of whom were filming from areas where they would be the least likely to be
noticed.

You would know these things if you worked the JFK forums, but then you'd just be doing the same thing as what you do here:
"impressing" readers with your truth-suppression tactics and disinformation. Truth is, you most likely DO know these things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #80
101. And your point is what, exactly?
the lack of video evidence is proof that it was all confiscated by the government?Is that really what you think?

In a digital age with wide spread proliferation of recording devices and an event with potentially hundreds of thousands of witnesses, the plotters thought that they could control the imagery of 911? Really?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #101
106. Only perps knew to have cameras ready & aimed for ...
explosions to erupt at WTC2. It is odd though, that no credible witnesses reported seeing a plane crash into the building EXCEPT
for when they were watching a video on TV. Also strange that TV networks would only show low-resolution videos. Don't they have
high resolution cameras? Or, is it the case that the images became fuzzier as the result of when they were doctored to insert the
CGI planes? Isn't it also possible that after the videos were doctored, the networks realized that they were too clear to fool people into believing they contained real airplanes, so they had to fuzz them up in order to make the lie at least plausible enough
for the few times that the general public would ever see them on network television.

Can you provide links to any amateur videos that were taken by people who don't have suspicious bona fides? The only ones I've ever
seen all turned out to be of dubious origin.

The lack of videos with a real airplane that CRASHES instead of melts into the building is revealing, wouldn't you agree?

BTW - Do you believe that everyone here should be treated respectfully or do you think it's fair game to treat people any way
you want to -- under the "all's fair in love and war" notion? It's hard to keep up with all of the Untruther usernames here, but
I believe you're one of the few of them who isn't convinced of the superiority of your cause versus that of folks who
believe differently. Am I right? I don't want to have to go back and read a bunch of your posts to refresh my memory of
how you treat those who disagree with you, so how's about saving me the trouble of doing that and just let me know directly.

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #106
110. So there was no reason to film the fires in WTC1?
The second impact was only 17 minutes later - wouldn't you have your camcorder out and recording if you were there? And because the towers were so close to each other, can't you see how, by filming WTC1, one would most likely catch the plane hitting WTC2? You do understand this simple logic, don't you?

I have to laugh at your "suspicious bona fides" comments - we all know that in this case that smear encompasses everyone that disagrees with your CT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #110
113. I'm disappointed. I expected a substantive response to my post.
hack89, you hack me off. I wish there was some signal you could give to let readers know if one of
your messages has a substantive response to the message you're replying to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #113
114. You do understand there is such a thing...
as reciprocity, right? It would be a good thing to keep in mind if you want substantive responses to your posts in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #113
115. Bye - I'm done with you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #106
120. Now you're claiming that none of the tens of thousands of people...
who actually saw the plane strike the second tower in real time are credible? Dude, you are a hoot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. I've come to believe NowHearThis
Edited on Wed May-06-09 09:38 PM by LARED
is just a prankster. It is beyond reasonable to believe anyone could seriously believe what he posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #121
122. The unfortunate thing is I think he is dead serious...N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #121
123. Serious question for you
What is your educational background?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #123
127. Not that it matters
Edited on Thu May-07-09 05:30 PM by LARED
I have a Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering

and

A Masters Degree in Engineering Management.


How about you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-10-09 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #127
129. how come you used to claim that you were a chemical engineer?
or was that another LARED who posted here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-10-09 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. I don't remember him ever making that claim...
and that's the sort of thing I would remember.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-11-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #130
131. well I do-- because lots of people asked him if he was an engineer a few years back
and he said he was a chemical engineer. In any case, I'd like to hear LARED's response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-11-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #131
133. Maybe he made a career change and forgot that he had.
Early symptom of old timers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-11-09 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #133
139. I answered your question, yet you seem to have missed
my question?

What is your educational background?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #139
143. Of course he missed it.
Our educational backgrounds are to be scrutinized, but not theirs. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #143
144. Nice fake to the right
The issue is credibility and apparently some people are of the opinion that some Untruthers are a little light in that department.
No one really cares what kind of degree, if any, "lared" has - though we know it isn't in English, in spite of the fact that
his posts have far fewer grammatical and punctuation errors than in the past. I know, I know. He uses spell check now. Which is
another reason why his messages don't sound like they were written by someone from across the pond somewhere.

Likewise, his career/occupation isn't the issue.

Have a rice day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #144
145. so, it's a "serious question," but no one really cares about the answer?
Well, as you say, the issue is credibility. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #144
146. Hmmm. How would you know what LARED's posts used to read like?
You've been posting here less than a month.

If his educational background isn't the issue, then why did you ask him what it was? (post #123, in case you forgot)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #146
149. I'm pretty sure NowHearThis is a retread, but I've not
been able to place a name to him. The style definitely seems familiar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #144
147. Dude you owe me 60 bucks
After reading your post I ran it through the trusted LARED irony meter and it broke by going off scale. Now I have to pay the technician $60 to recalibrate.

The issue is credibility and apparently some people are of the opinion that some Untruthers are a little light in that department.

Good Mother of God, a no-planer accusing anyone of lacking credibility is a clear cut winner of the coveted LARED "Ironic Post of the year Award". Congratulation.

No one really cares what kind of degree, if any, "lared" has -

So why did you ask?

Also please be aware my spelling sucked long before I become a DU'er. Most likely sucked when you were in diapers. Spell check is my friend for many years, and before spell check a dictionary was my friend. We are on a BB and one one seems to care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #143
148. Well admitting one is
a freshmen in HS could be construed as lacking the experience to "discuss" these matters, so I really can't blame them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-11-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #131
134. you might need to refresh your Google skills
Apparently you're misquoting him. However, he did use the words "I'm," "engineer," and "chemical" in the same sentence -- and someone else called him "Mr. Chemical Engineer." So that may account for your recollection.

Four years ago he said he was a mechanical engineer. Oddly, that exactly matches his response now. :shrug: (I may be violating DU rules by revealing all this; I will leave that to other people's interpretation.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-11-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #134
136. I've read that he's not the only one who made a career change...
but perhaps a good lawyer could parse the words used by that particular person in order to try to minimize the damage to his reputation for veracity.

One thing I believe we can all agree on is that "lared" said that on 9/11 he worked in NJ - "right across the river" from NYC and he, along with a bunch of his co-workers observed the WTC "shock and awe" from the roof of the building where he worked. In fairness, I was told that "lared" did NOT claim that he personally "saw the plane" crash into WTC2 - but I may be wrong about that. I wonder if he was able to see the "dancing Israelis" from his work location.

Maybe he'll tell us what he recalls from that date 9/11/91.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-11-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #136
140. In order to minimize the damage as you say (snort)
Edited on Mon May-11-09 07:27 PM by LARED
I worked as a mechanical engineer in Bayonne, NJ. In fact here is a picture I took a few years before 9/11 from the top of the structure with a telephoto lens.



I worked elsewhere on 9/11/01. But I did speak with my old colleagues about what they saw. If you can bother the check the flight path on the second hit you will find that it flew over the Eastern end of Bayonne. Very nearly overhead of my friends. They watched and heard it impact the tower.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-11-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #136
141. I have no reason to think that he made (or claimed) a career change
As for the coded message about "that particular person," I myself didn't receive it. It might be best to leave it there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NowHearThis Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-11-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #141
142. Who said that you did?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-11-09 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #134
138. Oddly indeed - nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-11-09 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #129
137. I never claimed I am a Chemical Engineer
I have worked largely in the Chemical Industry as a Mechanical engineer.

Does that help?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-08-09 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #123
128. Why no response? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #123
150. And what do you do for a living...
Still Waiting


me- telecomunications
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-13-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #123
151. you going to state yours?
still waiting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #80
119. "Truther Logic"
debate is "truth-suppression".

I'm just curious. When you're in a mall and you approach one of those mall directories that says "you are here", do you ever wonder how "they" know exactly where you are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
48. there's probably a Japanese tourist out there....
who filmed it all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC