Why Plan a Reverse Sequence Demolition?

[bryan]

In the last few months virtually every thread in the 9/11 forum has been diverted at some point towards the question of the reverse sequence demolition. If we can devote a thread to discussing that particular issue, any further trolling on the subject in other threads can be reported as such by clicking on the road sign at the bottom left of the post.


For anybody fortunate enough to be unfamiliar with the concept of the reverse sequence demolition, here's a quick summary of what it's about.

On 9/11 the North Tower was the first of the Twin Towers to catch fire but the last one to collapse, in spite of the two towers being almost identical and suffering more or less the same level of damage. In fact, the North Tower remained standing for about half an hour longer than the South Tower. While this is not exactly a smoking gun, it's still an apparant anomaly and it's likely that the perps would want the sequence of events to appear as logical as possible.

In theory the questions that are being asked on this subject are aimed at finding a rationale for this reversed sequence of the two demolitions. In practice though, the issue has simply been used to try to discredit No Planes Theory. The claim has been that if no planes were used in the attacks, there can be no logical explanation for the demolition sequence.


A couple of days ago some of us realized that just the opposite is true - No Planes Theory is the only inside job theory that can explain why the perps would plan a reverse sequence demolition. The other theories can only explain the sequence in terms of a major deviation from the plan.


Here's how the No Planes Theory accounts for the reverse sequence demolition.


Part One - Why the North Tower was the first tower to be hit.

The purpose of the first plane hit was to attract attention to the WTC, so that the second hit could be filmed and broadcast around the world.

According to No Planes Theory, the impact of the second plane was faked in the hours following the event, by inserting computer generated images into videos of the explosion. The videos had been filmed by freelance cameramen on the ground close to the South Tower.

The TV cameras only showed images of the plane disappearing behind the towers. These images were also cgi's, but they were much simpler than the ones used in the impact videos and they could be inserted into the TV footage either live or shortly afterwards.

The crucial point is that the TV cameras were not allowed to film the impacted side of the building.

A feature of the street layout of South Manhattan is that the TV studios and other buildings suitable for the positioning of cameras (such as the Empire State Building) are located to the north of the World Trade Centre site. The cameras had to be on the north side of the WTC, which means the south face of the South Tower was the obvious choice for the second hit.

Since the South Tower had to take the second hit, the North Tower had to take the first hit.


Part Two - Why the North Tower was the last tower to be demolished.

It's generally supposed that the emergency bunker in WTC 7 was used as a control room for the 9/11 attacks in New York. If that's correct, then it stands to reason that this building would have to be the last one to be demolished.

Since WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, it would be hard to justify its collapse, especially at freefall speed, and such a demolition might cause suspicion if it was recorded on film. One way they could conceal the nature of the demolition would be to bring down WTC 7 a few minutes after the demolition of the last of the two towers to be brought down. The cause of the collapse could be attributed to falling debris, and nobody would be any the wiser because the whole thing would have happened behind the cloud of dust still around after the collapse of the tower.

The North Tower was the closest of the two towers to WTC 7, so it was the tower that would have to come down last in order to provide a smokescreen for the demolition of WTC 7. As it turned out, the demolition of WTC 7 failed and the perps were forced to bring down the building later that afternoon in broad daylight when the demolition team finally managed to complete the job.


Does anybody have a more plausible explanation?

[dave52]

Here's how the No Planes Theory accounts for the reverse sequence demolition.

Seems like a reasonable explanation. I think the speculation that the WTC7 demolition failed can only ever be that - speculation, but it would account for the strange choice of dropping WTC7 so late in the day. The only other reasons for WTC7 to be demolished so late in the day was that that was when the team finally finished up their work in the Emergency Management Bunker or maybe they needed another tower to fall, seamingly due to fire, just to back up the excuses for WTC1 and 2s collapses....

Good thread!

[bryan]

Seems like a reasonable explanation. I think the speculation that the WTC7 demolition failed can only ever be that - speculation, but it would account for the strange choice of dropping WTC7 so late in the day.


It's a little bit more than speculation, Dave. I got the idea from this video clip where a reporter says he was told by a fireman that 50 storeys went down in another collapse at 10:45am.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_E6RhuEQu4

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/04/was-1045-am-originally-planned.html


It's been argued he was talking about some remaining lower floors of the North Tower, but when you think that WTC 7 had 47 storeys, you can't help but wonder how likely that would be.

I posted the same links in another thread a few weeks ago.



The only other reasons for WTC7 to be demolished so late in the day was that that was when the team finally finished up their work in the Emergency Management Bunker


That's just it. I think once the North Tower had been turned into dust, there was nothing else for them to do but blow the bunker up.

[white horse]

Hang on....

Hang on....

I think...

We might be getting somewhere.

ChrisA has had some uses - he has forced us to think and to face the reverse demolition sequence; that has bugged me since day one...

I like your way of thinking. It does have a logical ring to it. Remember, if these perps pulled this off, theyhave a supremely psycholigical outloo on things...

There is a reverse logic going on here - if they had used RC planes painted to look like Boeings, AND wanted the world to see - they would have arranged for the whole world to see it in full glory...

As it was cos it wasn't a plane (a missile/drone/hologram/mixture of all 3!?!?!) they had to really fake it - so they could not afford any live shots of that face of hte building;

So they had to arange it so that that face of the second tower was no in full view of the cameras...

I like your thinking,

I feel like a few pieces of the jigsaw have been placed!

Hmmm... need to think on this, but that is good thinking!


(See - see what happened here - a bunch of intelligent people have a conversation, share some ideas and come up with a new theory... then they share the new theory, kick it around a bit, see if it fits, if it resonates, and move on to looking ofr evidence that fits then ammend and modify... fucking genius) [3... 2... 1... wait for the school yard knee jerkers to kick in...]

Are we movign towards a grand unified theory of 911? :eek:

[bryan]

There is a reverse logic going on here - if they had used RC planes painted to look like Boeings, AND wanted the world to see - they would have arranged for the whole world to see it in full glory...


That's it. They'd have hit the South Tower first, so all the cameras would have been in just the right place to film the second plane fly into the north face of the North Tower. As a bonus, the demolition sequence would have appeared more natural.

[bryan]

Are there still people who believe planes hit the towers? If so, do any of you have an explanation why the perps would have planned for the first plane to hit the North Tower?

If the first plane had hit the South Tower, the North Tower impact would have been in full view of the cameras filming from the rooftops of the TV studios. The plane would also have approached over central New York instead of coming in over the river, which means the there would have been a lot more witnesses to see and hear it. Wasn't the idea to use the first plane to attract everybody's attention so people couldn't fail to witness the second one?

I can't see any reason for them to hit the North Tower first if real planes were involved.

[bryan]

To show there's more than one side to the story, I've taken a few quotes from another thread and used them to present an overview of an alternative explanation for the reverse sequence demolition. This theory was developed by the person who was the first to wonder why the demolition sequence was reversed.


If remotes were involved, somebody chose to have a backwards sequence.

Now you have to explain the logic of WHY they chose backwards.



The only logical way to explain the backwards demo sequence is that the towers were on timers and the hijacker of the first plane hit the wrong tower. And, .... that radical turn of flight 175 in order to line up with the south tower now makes sense. He showed up to see his target on fire.



I speculate there was competing mind control over the hijacker of flight 11 and a paganistic faction usurped control at the last moment by utilizing ancient spiritual structures that are based in directional symbols. He intentionally disobeyed orders to satisfy a personal impulse. The north face of the north tower has a primary directional symbolism. You would have to understand ancient spiritual symbolism to know that.

This speculation is supported by the tilting of the tops of the towers in directions opposite to the way they should have fallen compared to the damage from impact and the radical CCW turn flight 175 made.

The north tower was to be hit at the approximate elevation it was on the SOUTH side. The south tower was to be hit on the west side at the approximate height it was hit, based on the directions the tops of the towers fell.



Logic is what I'm doing.


http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8808&page=10


So now we have two competing explanations for the reverse sequence demolition: one from the perspective of 'planes flown by hijackers', the other from the perspective of 'no planes hitting the towers'.

We are still missing a third alternative: one from the perspective of remote-controlled planes.

[stannrodd]

I just want to throw this into the equation even though I don't subscribe to the NPT.

What is alleged to have happened on 9/11 was that a plane crashed into WTC1.

The first footage of that tower was of the gash on the "impact" face, and rightly so in a way, because this is where the "plane" .. hit .. and would be of most interest to the viewers.

Smoke from WTC1 was blowing toward WTC2 and so filming from the other side would have been less of a drama scene in "news" terms.

So the majority of the early footage was of the north face of WTC1, this in itself might explain why the "impact" of the second "plane" was not seen directly but seen as disappearing behind WTC2.

Now given the topic here, which is the reverse sequence demolition, if the first tower to be "hit' was WTC2 the cameras would have been pointing at the "impact" site on the south face of WTC2 ... and the "impact" on WTC 1 would have been hidden from these cameras, and so the second plane would have been seen disappearing behind WTC1 - if you get my drift.

I'm not sure this helps here, but it's the way I see it being played out from a media perspective covering the unfolding events.

I'm open to the idea but far from convinced.

Stann

[bryan]

So the majority of the early footage was of the north face of WTC1, this in itself might explain why the "impact" of the second "plane" was not seen directly but seen as disappearing behind WTC2.


It does explain why the second plane disappeared behind the tower. What it doesn't explain is why anybody would want it to happen that way.



Now given the topic here, which is the reverse sequence demolition, if the first tower to be "hit' was WTC2 the cameras would have been pointing at the "impact" site on the south face of WTC2 ... and the "impact" on WTC 1 would have been hidden from these cameras, and so the second plane would have been seen disappearing behind WTC1 - if you get my drift.


The map of Manhattan below has been rotated to fit better on the page, but that suits us because we can imagine that the north and south faces of the towers were aligned exactly with north and south.

http://newyorkcity2005.web.infoseek.co.jp/information/images/maps/manhattan.jpg

The WTC was in Lower Manhattan, and all the TV studios were located to the north of the towers. That means there would have been cameras filming from the north side no matter which tower was hit first. With the exception of choppers feeds and close-ups from Battery Park, it wouldn't have been practical to film from the south, because it's all water.


(Quite apart from that, you say the topic is the reverse sequence demolition, but you're not addressing the question of why the North Tower was the last to come down even though it was the first to be hit by a plane. You haven't mentioned the timing of the demolitions.)



What is alleged to have happened on 9/11 was that a plane crashed into WTC1.

The first footage of that tower was of the gash on the "impact" face, and rightly so in a way, because this is where the "plane" .. hit .. and would be of most interest to the viewers.

Smoke from WTC1 was blowing toward WTC2 and so filming from the other side would have been less of a drama scene in "news" terms.


If 9/11 was an inside job and the attacks were to be blamed on suicide pilots, then the thing that would be of most interest to the perps would be for the viewers to see images of a plane impacting one of the towers. The reason the first footage to be broadcast was of the gash on the North Tower is not because that's what was of most interest to the viewers, but because it was being filmed from the rooftops of the TV studios and the Empire State Building. The first hit was just an excuse to point the cameras in that direction, and the images of the result of that impact didn't need to provide a good view of the gash. In fact, the lack of plane debris in the gash could have made people suspicious about the story.


If you believe planes hit the towers, I assume you don't believe the TV companies had prior knowledge of the plan. That would raise two questions that I haven't seen answered yet:

1. Why didn't the TV companies cover the WTC from more angles after the first tower was hit? Since they already had fixed cameras on the north side, they could have put the choppers on the south side, and they could have put camera crews in Battery Park. At the time of the second hit, no TV cameras were on the south side of the South Tower. Smoke blowing towards the south east is not a credible reason why news choppers would choose to keep out of an area amounting to more than half the possible viewing angles, when they were covering what was probably the most dramatic event in the history of television news.

2. Why didn't the perps plan the operation so the second impact would be in full view of the TV cameras? They knew it would be impractical for the camera crews to film from the south, so why didn't they arrange for the second plane to fly into the north face of the North Tower, guaranteeing that the impact would be broadcast on TV in all its glory? If there were drawbacks to reversing the sequence of the plane hits, what were they?

[ashur]

forget the no planes theory there was planes. You got Norad standing down to these planes asking if it was a drill cause they were sequenced for a drill that was the exact same situation as the real event. This was for a scapegoat and also to confuse it's a technique used in government sponsored terrorism. So there was planes but they were not American airline they were military designed for the operation ok. The had a missile launched into the building as it went in by remote control.

[dave52]

forget the no planes theory there was planes. You got norad standing down to these planes asking if it was a drill cause they were sequenced for a drill that was the exact same situation as the real event. This was for a scapegoat and also to confuse it's a technique is the government sponsored terrorism what they do. So there was planes but they were not American airline they were military designed for the operation ok. The had a missile launched into the building as it went in by remote control.

At the risk of sounding like Chris, why did the towers come down in the wrong order then...?

[stannrodd]

Quite apart from that, you say the topic is the reverse sequence demolition, but you're not addressing the question of why the North Tower was the last to come down even though it was the first to be hit by a plane. You haven't mentioned the timing of the demolitions.

My personal speculation is that the WTC2 was hit lower down and received a more asymmetrical damage to it's structure than WTC1 ... the structural dynamics at the lower level are greater even though the towers were built with an increasing strength at lower levels I doubt this would have a bearing on how the failures occurred. The more symmetrical damage at WTC1 allowed the structure more time before failure.

The timing of the demolitions ? .. if you refer to the collapses, rather than any pre-planted explosives (if any) .. I think is a result of the above and was simply a function of the processes at work.

But like I say this is speculation and conjecture .. I'm no engineer.

Stann

[white horse]

I just want to throw this into the equation even though I don't subscribe to the NPT.

What is alleged to have happened on 9/11 was that a plane crashed into WTC1.

The first footage of that tower was of the gash on the "impact" face, and rightly so in a way, because this is where the "plane" .. hit .. and would be of most interest to the viewers.

Smoke from WTC1 was blowing toward WTC2 and so filming from the other side would have been less of a drama scene in "news" terms.

So the majority of the early footage was of the north face of WTC1, this in itself might explain why the "impact" of the second "plane" was not seen directly but seen as disappearing behind WTC2.

Now given the topic here, which is the reverse sequence demolition, if the first tower to be "hit' was WTC2 the cameras would have been pointing at the "impact" site on the south face of WTC2 ... and the "impact" on WTC 1 would have been hidden from these cameras, and so the second plane would have been seen disappearing behind WTC1 - if you get my drift.

I'm not sure this helps here, but it's the way I see it being played out from a media perspective covering the unfolding events.

I'm open to the idea but far from convinced.

Stann

Seriously though NPT is a triple quadruple mind fuck! :eek:

[stannrodd]

Seriously though NPT is a triple quadruple mind fuck!

Not quite sure what you mean ? Are you saying it's a load of snake shit .. for example ??

Stann

[bryan]

My personal speculation is that the WTC2 was hit lower down and received a more asymmetrical damage to it's structure than WTC1 ... the structural dynamics at the lower level are greater even though the towers were built with an increasing strength at lower levels I doubt this would have a bearing on how the failures occurred. The more symmetrical damage at WTC1 allowed the structure more time before failure.

The timing of the demolitions ? .. if you refer to the collapses, rather than any pre-planted explosives (if any) .. I think is a result of the above and was simply a function of the processes at work.


Here we have a dedicated 9/11 truther who, after researching 9/11 for at least four and a half years, doesn't believe the WTC was demolished. :eek:



But like I say this is speculation and conjecture .. I'm no engineer.


When faced with awkward questions about the alleged collapse of the towers, his convenient answer is that he's "no engineer".

However, when he's shouting down no-planers on the Let's Roll forum, he poses as a physics expert.


Boeing 767 aircraft are made of many components some of which are quite massive (and I use the term as in physics) and are not aluminum.

The equation and figures you present above are not consistent with the structure of the aircraft. The photographs of the impact zones clearly show damage consistent with these massive parts slicing through the building facade.


The plane was shredded like a potato ricer, the accumulated mass of shredded metal and other parts simply penetrated the building taking with it the perimeter columns mostly where the majority mass of the shredded plane hit the building. Simple .. look at the impact zones .. analyze the mass concentrations of a 767. Study the construction of the WTC towers and reach a logical conclusion

This is exactly why the aircraft can penetrate the building.

The pressure (kinetic energy) of the aircraft is concentrated on the leading edge of the wings, the leading edge of the tail control surfaces. and the nose of the fuselage at the time of impact. The energy transfer equation is about the area contacted, versus the kinetic energy associated with that object which is impacting on that area.



It's still not clear why his fellow snake, gamalon, has been so respectful to the no-planers on this forum, considering he's a JREFer who promotes the OCT.


Why do you think he [Chris] attacks all the folks here who present the NPT?

My position is that I never explored the angle of no planes or planes. I've been reading stuff here recently and I find it interesting. I haven't researched it on my own though so I am not able to comment intelligently on the subject.


Stannrodd, on the other hand, didn't mention the issue at all, even though we know from the Let's Roll forum he has strong views on the subject of no planes.


Phil I agree, sounds very much like a weak attempt to infiltrate with no-plane crap.

They are all idiots Phil.. and will believe what they want without any obvious education. Most demonstrate a total lack of any understanding of high end physics or an ability to post even with basic spelling and grammar in tact.

Mansoor you are wasting your time here with your bullshit science.

The No plane concept is IMO a dead duck, and all distractions of that kind should be guided to the appropriate forum.


But hang on a minute. . .


Not quite sure what you mean ? Are you saying it's a load of snake shit .. for example ??


That's better!


Wouldn't you think he'd be laughing his arse off to see a forum full of no-planers turned into a laughing stock by a ridiculous concrete core theory. :confused:


He denies he's working together with Christopher Brown to disrupt the truth movement, but it's interesting to note they both showed up at around the same time.


He [Chris] has been making this claim now since at least September 2004 and has yet to show any proof of his claims.



Let's Roll Forums
stannrodd, Moderator, Join Date: Sep 2004



No wonder he has the game weighed up so well.


Here he [Chris] is pretending to be the good guy, when in fact he is the infiltrator.


Stannrodd's the new good guy who's come to save us from the evil concrete core theory. He came here because Chris and the other shills were doing such a terrible job of shutting up the growing number of people on this forum who realize the truth movement is a limited hangout covering up the truth about the planes.


A comment from a member of the Let's Roll forum about the admin there is a pretty good description of what we've seen here over the last couple of weeks.


These guys are the most INSECURE and EGO based bunch you'll ever find. They run this place like a Gestapo of five year olds. They show their intelligence by NAME-CALLING and then wonder why so few major 911 truth people take this forum seriously.

You will never find a more sickening CLIQUE than this one


http://letsrollforums.com/strange-things-cnn-film-t16470p10.html

[gamolon]

It's still not clear why his fellow snake, gamalon, has been so respectful to the no-planers on this forum, considering he's a JREFer who promotes the OCT.http://letsrollforums.com/strange-things-cnn-film-t16470p10.html
Not sure what you mean why you think I shouldn't be resectful of people here. Care to explain that comment? Are you saying that because I was at the JREF forums, I can't be respectful?

:confused:

And why did you link the letsroll forum after this comment. I'm really curious.

Let's get a couple of things straight here before we move on shall we? I'm not sure who you think you are, but the fact that you refer to me as "Stann's fellow snake" is a little over the top in my opinion.

I am no way affiliated with Stann other than we share the same views as far as Chris is concerned. I love how you just assume things based on the fact that you "think" I promote the OCT. Another thing, I don't promote the OCT. I don't go out to other forums and provide proof or evidence on my own to show everyone that government's story is true. So using word "promote" is just plain wrong.

My stance on the govenrment story is this. I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence to show me that what they believe is more closer to the truth based on their provided evidence. That being said, here are the theories that I have researched so far:

Chris's concrete core
CIT's flyover theory

I read BOTH sides of the story and so far, and both have no basis on fact whatsoever and have failed to prove anything to me as far as being legit. As far as the no planes theory for the towers, I have said that I haven't looked into this yet so I am not able to comment on it. I am not saying it is wrong or right.

I have been nothing but respectful to anyone here that I have responded to in this forum and yet I get labeled a snake and "partner" of Stann's and have also been told I can kiss a certain person's ass. I came here to refute Chris' theory and to provide folks here with real evidence that shows his theory is crap.

Do I believe the government is capable of doing things as claimed? Yes I do. Like I said, I have yet to see any connvincing evidence concerning the above mentioned theories to overcome the official story.

[gamolon]

Originally Posted by gamolon
Not quite sure what you mean ? Are you saying it's a load of snake shit .. for example ??

I said that? Really? Better go back and check. And I already admitted elsewhere in the forum that I came here because Stann left me a personal message on the Break For News forums stating that Chris was here spewing his garbage. I came over to see what he was saying and decided to join in.'

Do you have a problem with that?

[bryan]

I said that? Really? Better go back and check.


Sorry about that. It was stannrodd who I meant to quote and I've edited now.

The rest still stands.

[gamolon]

Sorry about that. It was stannrodd who I meant to quote and I've edited now.

The rest still stands.

The rest still stands?

Can you please explain why you posted a link to the Let's Roll forums right after saying I'm a JREFer who promotes the OCT? I'm a bit confused on that one.

Can you also please explain why I SHOULDN'T be respectful to folks here? Your comment as to "why I have been so respectful to no-planers" has me a bit curious.

[bryan]

Can you please explain why you posted a link to the Let's Roll forums right after saying I'm a JREFer who promotes the OCT? I'm a bit confused on that one.


The thread on the Let's Roll forum I linked to is the source of all the quotes I made, except for the ones taken from this forum. The link is at the end of the post, not right after I said you promote the OCT.



Can you also please explain why I SHOULDN'T be respectful to folks here? Your comment as to "why I have been so respectful to no-planers" has me a bit curious.

My post is based on the assumption that you and stannrodd are up to no good here. That's because your story is not credible.

1. JREFers are notorious for using bogus science to debunk 9/11 research. Mark Roberts and Frank Greening are typical cases.

2. The pair of you have researched the construction of Twin Towers so well that you're familiar with the ins and outs of the concrete core theory, yet you haven't seen any evidence of controlled demolition.

3. The pair of you have researched the Pentagon plane strike so well that you're familiar with the details of the plane wreckage on the lawn and the flyover theory, yet you've seen no proof that the government's story is untrue.


If you've got about 7 seconds to spare, fast forward to 0:19 in the following video and you'll have all the evidence you need for controlled demolition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akpnIFK-RM


If you've got a couple more seconds to spare, take a look at the picture below and ask yourself what happened to the Boeing 757.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg


I question the motives of anybody who's prepared to devote a great deal of time to debunking obscure theories on 9/11 truth forums, while at the same time denying basic evidence like I've just posted. Denying controlled demolition when it's staring you in the face is the same as promoting the OCT. Your trick is to intentionally ask the wrong questions and ignore the right ones - it's a typical JREFer trick.

I think the respect you've been showing for the people here is fake, and that's been confirmed by stannrodd's "snake shit" comment. Most of my post was aimed at him, but you are associated with him because he brought you here and you've worked as a team ever since.

I've noticed how some posters on the Break For News forum ended up just as fed up with you two as they were with Chris.

[stannrodd]

Calm down bryan,

Seriously though NPT is a triple quadruple mind fuck!

I responded to this comment because I was unsure of what it meant. OK !

What I said in response was this..

Not quite sure what you mean ? Are you saying it's a load of snake shit .. for example ??

Is that fair. I was attempting to clarify the members statement to assess his position in the discussion. Sometimes the written word doesn't come across very clearly.. is that OK ?

I stated I am not an an engineer .. this is a fact. My work history is electronics and analogue audio, recording studios etc. I do have a useful knowledge of physics, and general science. Is that OK ?

I am now retired from paid work.

Your tirade above is out of line and is basically abusive. I clearly stated I do not subscribe to the NPT and your research confirms that .. in my forum history at LetsRoll. I am still a moderator & member there, but have not been very active over the past year because the general flavour of discussion has moved into areas I'm not all that interested in. Hence my activities at other forums. Is that OK? Or are you the 9/11 forum policeman here !

It seems fairly obvious that my presence here has upset you. Am I allowed to debate the NPT or not ?? Do you feel that the theory is being threatened by my comments?

What is your problem? Christopher Brown not being here ?? I don't know why he stopped posting - perhaps he gave up - perhaps he was banned for breaking forum rules - I don't know and I don't give a flying dingoes kidney !

If I find him at a forum I challenge his theory because it is a load of disprovable garbage. Gamolon and I do not know each other, apart from the interaction at BFN forums. He presents intelligent and useful information, without the sort of paranoid drama that has been demonstrated here by you.

As far as the demolition of the towers goes, it is still indeterminate in my view, but I don't believe the Official story. The Pentagon event - I do not believe a 757 hit it.

So far the NPT hasn't shown much merit in my opinion.

Now that I bared my soul, shall we get back on topic or would you like to continue your abuse.

Cheers
Stann

[bryan]

Is that fair. I was attempting to clarify the members statement to assess his position in the discussion. Sometimes the written word doesn't come across very clearly.. is that OK ?


He didn't mean anything like that, but maybe you didn't know which side he's on.



I stated I am not an an engineer .. this is a fact. My work history is electronics and analogue audio, recording studios etc. I do have a useful knowledge of physics, and general science. Is that OK ?


I still think it was a cop-out compared to the confidence you show when you're explaining the physics of a plane crashing into a building.



I clearly stated I do not subscribe to the NPT and your research confirms that .. in my forum history at LetsRoll. I am still a moderator & member there, but have not been very active over the past year because the general flavour of discussion has moved into areas I'm not all that interested in. Hence my activities at other forums. Is that OK? Or are you the 9/11 forum policeman here !


If you've been visiting here regularly since October, you'll know that up till a few weeks ago we couldn't discuss planes without provoking insults and abuse from the other side, which resulted in some good threads getting closed down. There was a general discussion about the problem and the atmosphere's been great since then, except for Christopher repeating the same things over and over again and refusing to admit when he's been proved wrong. This is one of the few 9/11 forums where we can discuss controversial subjects and I'm sure the thermite crowd would like to change that as soon as possible. I don't want that to happen and that's why I'm suspicious at the moment. Discussing planes or exotic weaponry causes no problems whatsoever till the critics start with their ad hominems.



It seems fairly obvious that my presence here has upset you. Am I allowed to debate the NPT or not ?? Do you feel that the theory is being threatened by my comments?


No-planers love to debate NPT, because people who are sitting on the fence will see there's no alternative conclusion when you look at the evidence. What we don't want is timewasters who repeatedly ignore the arguments, throw insults around or just talk gibberish. If you're prepared to forget what's happened, I'm happy to get back to the topic of this thread. One difficulty though is that nearly everybody here starts with the assumption that 9/11 was an inside job and the buildings were demolished. We don't want to be talking about whether Bin Laden planned the attacks or not. If you turn round and say the South Tower collapsed first because it sustained more damage than the North Tower, that argument is totally worthless to most people here.

Come to think of it, even hijackers would have wanted the TV cameras to have a good view of the impact of the second plane. So do you have an alternative explanation to why they would have hit the North Tower first? Or do you go along with the usurping of the pilot by a paganistic faction using a directional shamanic impulse? :)

[stannrodd]

One of the issues that developed at LetsRoll911 was the outrageous attitude of some folk when their theories or conjectures were scrutinized. To have fair debate there must be critics and scrutineers, otherwise it's simply a mutual admiration society, sitting around patting each other on the back.

On the other hand you can develop a theory together with your critics, with the outcomes being defended by logical process.

I recall a video clip of the WTC2 coming down where a screen capture had been taken of the so called squibs, and were circled in red. Unfortunately one of the squibs turned out to be a street light which just happened to look like a squib in the still image. This was before YouTube posting. So the vid had to be downloaded to view, before you could make a real assessment. Difference today is that the YouTube version is very poor quality and the downloaded was very clear. It was a Fox5 vid which I can't point you too just now.

The CNN version is in this compilation at 5'10" but it's lousy quality and very brief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K75BF9BTpbU

The original poster got it totally wrong and would not accept that fact at least in the forum debate. This was used as evidence of an explosive charge in a 9/11 DVD when it is clearly not so. Just a point I took on board at the time .. that sometimes things aren't what they appear to be or what others may assert. I then became very suspicious of the intentions of some members .. who were prepared to go along with evidence which is obviously false and use it to advantage their "theory" .. to me this wasn't on, and it didn't make some people happy.

Chris was preaching a theory and would not listen to his critics.

I'm quite happy to throw in some scrutiny for the sake of an honest outcome.

This thread deals with an unusual concept which depends on a number of other things being true. It's a bit like a truth table which is used in electronic logic circuits to define how the thing works. Certain inputs must occur before a particular output will happen.

To say the wrong tower fell first, implies that there was a planned sequence.

Ok that's probably not too way out. Sometimes thinking outside of the square yields new avenues for discussion and research. The same sort of processes happen in scientific research.

Let's move on.

Stann

[bryan]

One of the issues that developed at LetsRoll911 was the outrageous attitude of some folk when their theories or conjectures were scrutinized. To have fair debate there must be critics and scrutineers, otherwise it's simply a mutual admiration society, sitting around patting each other on the back.


Is the quote below a typical example of your criticism and scrutiny on the Let's Roll forum?


Mansoor you are wasting your time here with your bullshit science.


http://letsrollforums.com/strange-things-cnn-film-t16470p6.html



On the other hand you can develop a theory together with your critics, with the outcomes being defended by logical process.


The theory of controlled demolition has already been developed and proved. It's now a given and can be assumed in any realistic discussion of 9/11. Using your logic, a geography teacher would have to prove the earth is round at the start of every lesson. That suits the agenda of people who want to bog down the truth movement in useless arguments.



I recall a video clip of the WTC2 coming down where a screen capture had been taken of the so called squibs, and were circled in red. Unfortunately one of the squibs turned out to be a street light which just happened to look like a squib in the still image. This was before YouTube posting. So the vid had to be downloaded to view, before you could make a real assessment. Difference today is that the YouTube version is very poor quality and the downloaded was very clear. It was a Fox5 vid which I can't point you too just now.

The CNN version is in this compilation at 5'10" but it's lousy quality and very brief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K75BF9BTpbU


There's certainly a squib at 5:39, unless it's a street light being forced out of the building a few floors below the progressing collapse front.



The original poster got it totally wrong and would not accept that fact at least in the forum debate. This was used as evidence of an explosive charge in a 9/11 DVD when it is clearly not so. Just a point I took on board at the time .. that sometimes things aren't what they appear to be or what others may assert. I then became very suspicious of the intentions of some members .. who were prepared to go along with evidence which is obviously false and use it to advantage their "theory" .. to me this wasn't on, and it didn't make some people happy.


This is what I mean about asking the wrong questions. You can sit through a video showing molten metal pouring from the corner of the building just before the structure fails at that exact place, and all you want to talk about is whether one alleged squib is a really a squib or something else.

It's the kind of argument that's the stock-in-trade of the JREFers. They debunk a minor element to a theory and then claim we have to throw the whole lot out. If somebody was caught using fake pictures to argue the earth is round, it wouldn't mean the earth must be flat.



This thread deals with an unusual concept which depends on a number of other things being true. It's a bit like a truth table which is used in electronic logic circuits to define how the thing works. Certain inputs must occur before a particular output will happen.

To say the wrong tower fell first, implies that there was a planned sequence.


Maybe you didn't notice but I've tried to accomodate you and the OCT by focussing on the sequence of the plane hits and ignoring the demolitions. I asked you why hijackers would have hit the North Tower first. That assumes the official story, not an inside job.



Let's move on.


It's in your interest to move on if you can't answer the questions.

[gamolon]

There's certainly a squib at 5:39, unless it's a street light being forced out of the building a few floors below the progressing collapse front.

Got a couple of questions for you Bryan. And I am not asking to be a smart ass, but asking because these are the questions that come to mind when I read through your stuff.

You say of WTC, "a" squib. As in one. My questions to you are this. In some of the controlled demolitions that are shown in the video posted above, the are visible squibs seen going off around the perimeter of the buildings, not just one. Why just the one squib in that area? As far as having the same characteristics as a controlled demolition, that one aspect doesn't agree with the "has the same characteristics" of a controlled demolition.

Another question. Unless I am mistaken, squibs are caused by explosives blowing the support steel. Where is that squib originating from? one of the perimeter columns or one of the interior support columns in the core?

Another question. In order to make a case for some of these pieces of evidence used to prove the end result, you have to prove that what you are saying is true and that there can be no other explanation for what we are seeing. Can you tell me what evidence or proof you have that what we are seeing is not debris being ejected from the inside of the building do to air being forced out of the windows? If you can provide me that evidence, I would appreciate it. As it stands now, All you have is that it LOOKS like a squib caused by explosives. All I have is that it LOOKS like it could be debris being ejected through the windows. What proof do you have that trumps my explanation? As I see it, we are at an impasse.

I know you can come back and ask the same question of me concerning debris being ejected. But the point I am trying to make is that as long as there are two possible causes of that squib, you cannot choose one over the other as being true based on logic alone as both of our explanations are logical in my eyes.

To sum up, as far as that squib being partial proof of a controlled demolition, I would have to say no because of the following I have seen in the videos of controlled demolitions:

1. Some of those demolitions in the video show charges going off around the perimeter/level at the same time, not just one.

2. I thought charges were put onto the main support columns? Why would they blow just ONE perimeter column?

[gamolon]

Another thing Bryan. I have looked at quite a few controlled demolition videos and they all seem to start blowing the supports at the bottom and the building then collapses in on itself. How can the WTC towers be compared to a controlled demolition in the videos when the collapse initiated toward the top?

[stannrodd]

It's in your interest to move on if you can't answer the questions.

You have an unhealthy interest in the comments I made some time ago, at another forum which you seem very familiar with !!??

An Ex member I suspect, you seem very familiar, your style, language. Probably banned for being a nuisance! At least you know who you are dealing with in me. I don't hide behind other usernames

You take a comment out of another forum, totally out of context with the thread here and use it to slap my face.

Sounds like you are just an argumentative type with no real interest in truth, pushing your own agenda in much the same way as Chris was.

The squib in question was a street light .. I have found the video now and will take a screen shot. The point I was making was not that there was no explosives, but that an event in a video which looked like an explosive squib in a still frame was not in fact what was being claimed. It was then used as evidence to support the explosive demolition in a distributed 9/11 DVD.

This type of misrepresentation is the sort of stuff which when exposed makes the whole movement look unethical.

The simple answer is to scrutinize the evidence and when something is indeterminate or found to not be what is speculated .. then drop it. There are plenty of real squibs to be seen .. why fudge this one ??

Just dishonest .. plain and simple. Not much use in a truth movement !! It's a bit like tits on a frog !!

So how about the reverse sequence thing.. want to go down that track or not.

If not, I'm out of this thread because I'm not going to play silly games. Life's too short to waste on useless argument.

Stann

[tannah]

As far as the no planes theory for the towers, I have said that I haven't looked into this yet so I am not able to comment on it. I am not saying it is wrong or right.


You mentioned that you'd managed to talk to people who worked at the twin towers, is that right? Have these people ever mentioned seeing a plane come straight for the towers?

I'd never considered the idea of there not being any planes. But I recall now some of the info about the "terrorist" pilots not having the adequate skills to pull off the strike, for example. And the info about these same named terrorists still being alive (but I don't know if this info is right). Not to mention the story that the media wanted everyone to believe, and even suggested they'd found some passports belonging to some of the terrorists. So maybe it isn't too ludicrous to suggest that it wasn't planes flown by terrorists that actually hit the towers. Are we talking missiles then? Same as hit the Pentagon? That's not a question specifically for you, but anyone that cares to elaborate.

It would be grand if one didn't allow the same devolution into caos as happened at breakfornews, and I'm sure is prone to happen elsewhere. Take a deep breath and don't let the trolls, whoever they are, succeed.

[white horse]

I responded to this comment because I was unsure of what it meant. OK !


Is that fair. I was attempting to clarify the members statement to assess his position in the discussion. Sometimes the written word doesn't come across very clearly.. is that OK ?


Lol! What I meant was that trying ot unravel NPT is a gordian knot. It is a mine field! After viewing footage again, and then chatting on DI to try to form a theory, it makes my brain hurt!

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/1/Posters/fp0209~Monty-Python-Gumby-Man-Posters.jpg

Seriously I would give it up as a joke but everytime I look at the footage of that second plane... man I hold my head in disbelief!

You call that a plane...???:eek:

I have found a few kindred spirits here which is why I stay - over the last year or so some have come and gone... I remember my first postings about NPT - I was very confused because I could not understand how it could be so. I came here for guidance and support - to ask if I was crazy to think that... and I found others thought the same.

The ONLY thiong I knew was that the more and more I looked for Flight 175 the less and less it was there... so I have done my research and along with others I am fairly sure I'm close to a reasonably logical order of events, and reasons, MMO, to go with them.

Yes it is complex. And it requires a leap of faith or two; if you factor in the NWO and project Blue BEam, then NPT makes a lot of sense.

I posted a thread 'The General Theory of 911 Planes' because I had a 3am flash of inspiration... what if all were true?

Whait if some people saw a plane, what if some saw a drone/missile, what if some saw nothing at all?

How could a hologram be reconciled with the witness statements and the dodgey footage?

What if CGi was used to cover the missile on the live feed? What if a hologram was projected by the flying device (missile/drone) [ a fairly primitive holograph that the chrome did not work on]?

I do believe somehting physical hit the towers.

BUT - where is it on the TV footage?

Stann - have you looked at all the footage (it is slowly disappearing from the net)

I take it you have been around 911 on other boards for a while, I know that NPT is as hated in 911 'Truth' circles more than a 'Paul-is-dead' T-Shirt at a Beatles convention...

However, al this discussion on NPT is theoretical hot air, admittedly; but it is trying to fill the gap that the tv/video footage has left.

IF the footage all concured, adn we could see a Boeing plane, with Blue and white livery on it, ok, you coudl call us insane for going donw NPT - but I have been dragged down NPT Avenue byteh footage itself.

It is dodgey.

To say the least.

I SEE NO PLANES!!!

Yeah- I see some plane shaped black blobs in some videos;

- I see a very small object in others, and in others, I see nothing at all.

The best one of all the Battery Park - which NEARLY had me abandon NPT for good, until I looked closely; I downloaded a high quality vid and viewed it frame by frame on my pc instead on YouTube.

Holy crap! There are a couple of frames where hte plane... disappears?!?!? The psuedo physicists on here try to tell us 'yeah that's momentum for you'...

I don't car what the plane or the towers are made of; the plane could have been made of solid diamond, objects do not behave like that... the plane 'disappears' into the building and explodes whne it is inside; the wings, engine and fusalage enter the building without making a mark; then it explodes.

(And to me, the demonic face is a badge from the CGI noffin who made the vid!)

And Hezakhani is totally unconvincing.. really bad... I've heard line delivered on Eastenders more convincingly! (The other voices on the tape scream at the point of the explosion, he calmy says 'O no a plane just flew into the building...'

It's so staged!

Do me a favour Stann - this aint an attack - let me know what you think of the footage? Do you think that was a recoding of Flight175?

Or something else?

Don't forget - most of the NPTers here believe in some form of flying object, NOT in pure holography...



I stated I am not an an engineer .. this is a fact. My work history is electronics and analogue audio, recording studios etc. I do have a useful knowledge of physics, and general science. Is that OK ?

Am I allowed to debate the NPT or not ?? Do you feel that the theory is being threatened by my comments?

So far the NPT hasn't shown much merit in my opinion.



Why not? Are you convinced by the footage?

If there were no planes at Shanksville and the Pentagon, then why would there be the bone fide planes at NY?

Using hijacked planes too risky, what if they missed or chickened out?

Using actual Boeings - could they be sure they just wouldn't bounce off? Remember for the demolition to be convincing these planes had to penetrate deep into both buildings...

What if that flimsy Boeing had just smashed a few windows, stuck an engine into the building and the rest of the plane fell to the ground?

No - they had to be sure of deep penetration of the building shell;

A missile...

I have come to the realisation that there may be more to this, because it is met with such derision, maybe because it is the closest thing we have to their biggest mistake - it is 'hidden in plane' view (scuse the pun)...

It can take a while for someone new to 911 truth to look into the pentagon and be convinced of a lack of plane, same with Shanksville;

With TV Fakery it can take seconds - I've show certain vids to people and they have looked at me like a guppy fish at feeding time...

Properly presented TV Fakery can open this thing up wide...

------------------

But yeah - us No-Planers at DI have put up with a lot of abuse and stick for a while, now there seems to be a bit of a calm vacuum... maybe we are so used to fighting our corner that we've become a bit defensive and easy to bite!



I apologise for that!

[white horse]

Another thing Bryan. I have looked at quite a few controlled demolition videos and they all seem to start blowing the supports at the bottom and the building then collapses in on itself. How can the WTC towers be compared to a controlled demolition in the videos when the collapse initiated toward the top?

A few things spring to mind; we are dealing with a unique event, a very very big psyops.

First thing is there is evidence of large explosions in the basement seconds before the collapse; presumably to weaken the base structure and shear it from its foundations.

The twins were very very big;

I mean WTC7 was an enourmous building, 47 stories is very high!

These were twice as high and then some.

Two points;
1 - perhaps it was deemed physically unfeasable to detonate from the bottom up in a structure of this size; perhaps they blew the foundation 'moorings' and then brought the top down; the timing of the explosions just infront of the 'collapse wave' to remove any resistance.

2 - perhaps also demolishing traditionally from the bottom up would have been just TOO MUCH of a give away! It really would have looked AND SOUNDED like a controlled demo live on TV!!

As it was, the squibs and the explosive concussions were virtually disguised in the collapse; remember there has never been a need to make a demolition look natural and hide the controlled nature of it. And also, I don't think they anticipated this event to have been revisted by so many damned commie truthers! We watched the reruns for a few weeks to sear the images onto our brains then it was supposed to be left to the history books, no one ever questioning the official story.

It cannot be compared like for like to traditional demolitions because the controlled nature had to be disguised.

... my thoughts!

(Hey, I love the way we have all ahd to become armchair experts in demolition, high explosives, physics, military procedures, video analysis and airline pilotage these last few years! :D)

[bryan]

You say of WTC, "a" squib. As in one. My questions to you are this. In some of the controlled demolitions that are shown in the video posted above, the are visible squibs seen going off around the perimeter of the buildings, not just one. Why just the one squib in that area? As far as having the same characteristics as a controlled demolition, that one aspect doesn't agree with the "has the same characteristics" of a controlled demolition.

Another question. Unless I am mistaken, squibs are caused by explosives blowing the support steel. Where is that squib originating from? one of the perimeter columns or one of the interior support columns in the core?

Another question. In order to make a case for some of these pieces of evidence used to prove the end result, you have to prove that what you are saying is true and that there can be no other explanation for what we are seeing. Can you tell me what evidence or proof you have that what we are seeing is not debris being ejected from the inside of the building do to air being forced out of the windows? If you can provide me that evidence, I would appreciate it. As it stands now, All you have is that it LOOKS like a squib caused by explosives. All I have is that it LOOKS like it could be debris being ejected through the windows. What proof do you have that trumps my explanation?

I know you can come back and ask the same question of me concerning debris being ejected. But the point I am trying to make is that as long as there are two possible causes of that squib, you cannot choose one over the other as being true based on logic alone as both of our explanations are logical in my eyes.


This is another example of focusing on the minutiae and trying to undermine the obvious by suggesting we can never be certain of anything. Personally, I think the squibs are irrelevant and I only pointed out that particular squib because stannrodd seemed to be pleased that a different one had been debunked. It's a straw man that's been handed to you on a plate by the fake Scholars for 9/11 Truth, who have typically put great effort into studying something that doesn't prove anything.

The proof of demolition is the way the towers collapsed. The speed of collapse is icing on the cake. The explosions seen when the upper block is severed from the remaining structure is confirmation even for people who usually prefer to trust the experts on TV more than their own common sense.

There was a discussion on the demolition of the towers not long ago. As far as I can remember, the subject of squibs never came up.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48528

Feel free to resurrect the thread if you have anything to add. You'll notice there was another JREFer taking part, who at first claimed not to be taking sides but then went on to slavishly support the government's story and Frank Greening's pack of lies dressed up as a scientific paper.



1. Some of those demolitions in the video show charges going off around the perimeter/level at the same time, not just one.


I posted the video so you could watch Builidng 7 collapse in 6 or 7 seconds. You don't need to count how many squibs go off to know it was demolished.



As I see it, we are at an impasse.


Nice try.



Another thing Bryan. I have looked at quite a few controlled demolition videos and they all seem to start blowing the supports at the bottom and the building then collapses in on itself. How can the WTC towers be compared to a controlled demolition in the videos when the collapse initiated toward the top?


When I've been to the JREF forum, I've never clicked on the thread marked 'Resources for debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories', but I imagine this is the kind of debunking resource it contains.

These were probably the first controlled demolitions in history where the clients stipulated that the demolitions had to have the appearance of a gravitational collapse starting from a damaged area near the top. Maybe that's why they don't look like any controlled demolition you've seen before.




You have an unhealthy interest in the comments I made some time ago, at another forum which you seem very familiar with !!??

An Ex member I suspect, you seem very familiar, your style, language. Probably banned for being a nuisance! At least you know who you are dealing with in me. I don't hide behind other usernames


I just googled "stannrodd" that's all. I've no interest in signing up to sites run by shills like Phil Jayhan. You've made my day though - at least it's not just me who's paranoid.



You take a comment out of another forum, totally out of context with the thread here and use it to slap my face.


You were replying to somebody who was claiming that the Boeing 767's were substituted for military planes. You said it looked like "a weak attempt to infiltrate with no-plane crap". We can only wonder how you'd have reacted if he'd said there were no planes at all.



This type of misrepresentation is the sort of stuff which when exposed makes the whole movement look unethical.


It's still not obvious why you'd be bothered.



The simple answer is to scrutinize the evidence and when something is indeterminate or found to not be what is speculated .. then drop it.


Have you scrutinized the notion that in a progressive collapse of the North Tower starting from the 95th floor, in a period conservatively estimated to be not more than 16 seconds, each floor would collapse in 0.168 seconds on average?



So how about the reverse sequence thing.. want to go down that track or not.


I'm already down that track. Do you want to be the first planehugger to make a serious attempt to follow me?

[stannrodd]

White horse,

Like I said I am open to the theory.

I live in New Zealand right, 9/11 happened for me on September the 12th.

I woke up around 7.00am to the radio alarm clock and the news.

To date I have never found a timeline for the presentation of live footage.

What I would like to know is the order of the live footage along with the footage itself.

Which images were shown first and what were they.

I know a lot of footage was not live, but broadcast after the event. Thus allowing the use of "unreal" footage.

To me it is crucial that this set of facts be known before assessing anything further.

Everything regarding 9/11 which I saw .. was after the events had happened. The Towers had already collapsed etc etc.

The NPT'ers must have researched this to see what was live and what the footage contained.

It would be my guess that the first live footage (direct to air) would have been of WTC1 on fire at the upper levels, with the tower having a gaping hole in it.

The rest is unclear, but the next event would be the WTC2 event .. which footage was live and which footage was not live ?? .. has this work been done ?? .. if so where can I review it.

I'm not a faith based person .. so forget that with me. I like to look at facts as best we can determine.

There are numerous pieces of footage which to me I cannot sort, because I simply don't know. This I think is the problem for people who won't entertain the idea.

I can see how false footage could have been planted into the information stream, but I would like to see in chronological order the actual live to air footage and what the videos actually contain. There are vids of WTC1 burning .. then suddenly WTC2 explodes in the background .. no sign of a plane !! Was this an actual live to air broadcast .. or was it delayed footage??

Until this stuff is sorted I can only sit on the fence. I don't have the time or inclination to do the leg work myself .. especially when it may have already been done.

Does that help ?

Stann

[stannrodd]

You were replying to somebody who was claiming that the Boeing 767's were substituted for military planes. You said it looked like "a weak attempt to infiltrate with no-plane crap". We can only wonder how you'd have reacted if he'd said there were no planes at all.

That may be so, but life isn't static .. it is dynamic .. that was then .. now is now.

One can have a change of heart .. yes ??

Did you read this thread which was about the WTC1 event. It was a long time ago now and hey I'd gone down another track .. funny that.

It's still a possibility in my view.

http://letsrollforums.com/wtc1-north-tower-impact-t6785.html

Hey bryan .. those were the heady days of 9/11 reaearch .. it was like a feeding frenzy.:D

So if you want to cut the crap and try a decent approach, I might just try and listen to you.

Stann :)

[bryan]

The NPT'ers must have researched this to see what was live and what the footage contained.


I recommend the following video, website and pdf. It's best to go through the website from top to bottom in the menu, apart from the summary anyway. The pdf is a fairly formal presentation of the theory.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page

http://www.psy-opera.com/Papers/Composites-1-8.pdf (pdf download)

Then you can compare it to what's in the live footage.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive.html

(They are easier to navigate if you copy them to your hard drive and watch them in a media player.)


Start with ABC and watch the first two segments of each channel. Each segment is 41m 41s long. Even just watching the ABC footage should be enough to verify the timeline.



So if you want to cut the crap and try a decent approach, I might just try and listen to you.


Fair do's. Have a look at the stuff I linked to and let's have a fresh start.

[white horse]

White horse,

Like I said I am open to the theory.

I live in New Zealand right, 9/11 happened for me on September the 12th.

I woke up around 7.00am to the radio alarm clock and the news.

To date I have never found a timeline for the presentation of live footage.

What I would like to know is the order of the live footage along with the footage itself.

Which images were shown first and what were they.

I know a lot of footage was not live, but broadcast after the event. Thus allowing the use of "unreal" footage.

To me it is crucial that this set of facts be known before assessing anything further.

Everything regarding 9/11 which I saw .. was after the events had happened. The Towers had already collapsed etc etc.

The NPT'ers must have researched this to see what was live and what the footage contained.

It would be my guess that the first live footage (direct to air) would have been of WTC1 on fire at the upper levels, with the tower having a gaping hole in it.

The rest is unclear, but the next event would be the WTC2 event .. which footage was live and which footage was not live ?? .. has this work been done ?? .. if so where can I review it.

I'm not a faith based person .. so forget that with me. I like to look at facts as best we can determine.

There are numerous pieces of footage which to me I cannot sort, because I simply don't know. This I think is the problem for people who won't entertain the idea.

I can see how false footage could have been planted into the information stream, but I would like to see in chronological order the actual live to air footage and what the videos actually contain. There are vids of WTC1 burning .. then suddenly WTC2 explodes in the background .. no sign of a plane !! Was this an actual live to air broadcast .. or was it delayed footage??

Until this stuff is sorted I can only sit on the fence. I don't have the time or inclination to do the leg work myself .. especially when it may have already been done.

Does that help ?

Stann

hey Stann... like the approach...

wait and I will pull some vids and decent time lines out for you...

And yes, I have been over this ground many times now;

You are echoing my own thought process at the start of my journey...

I came to NPT because I was researching for an article I was writing about the psychological impact that 911 had on teh US in light of how easily the people supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I never for one second believed it to be a psyop, just a fuckop!

(I had seen some websites claiming hte towers were controlled demo - I found that histerical and a bit distateful at the time... and I have NEVER been niaive!)

Anyway - stage one of my journey was to imagine myself as an American, and better still a NEw Yorker, getting ready for work and seeing that at breakfast time...

1 - how would I feel?
2 - How would the presenters on the live news feel and react?

So I started to hunt for the live footage and the order of events...

This is when I started to hit my first snag...

(This was about 2-3 years ago)

The footage was being very awkward to find... Being the biggest and most filmed event in recent history, I thought it would be spilling out the edges of the internet. Buit no. It was actually hard to find.

The only places I could find it were on Youtube and the odd activist's website...

But it was not what I was looking for and not what I was expecting to see.

I was expecting to see a Boeing smashing to pieces as it collided with a building.

But fuck me... what is this jerky black shadow that looks liek a Japanese shadow puppet that some one is holding up infront of the TV?

So my NPT journey started there, and I made some friends at DI at the time trying to suss out if I was mad...

Then I looked futher and found some good analysis videos and websites...

Much of the best has gone,

But yeah, I will try ot dig somehting out and try to present something to you...

Watch this space or for a new thread...

[stannrodd]

Thanks for the sequential pointers.

I have seen the video and just finished the pdf document.

Alarmingly a lot of it (the pdf in particular) actually makes sense. I'm going to pass it on to a friend who just happens to be in the TV news industry and quiz him on some of the techo aspects. I am familiar with most of the video terms and methods so it's not as if I am a total dullard. Like I said my history was in analogue audio, but recording studios also had to be functional for video synch when doing sound tracks etc. Time coding and all that stuff ..!

I also have some problems with certain stated assumptions regarding aluminium aircraft wings and perimeter columns.

You see the aircraft impacts and penetrations, would have to be "possible" as alleged .. for the story to be sold to physicists.

Here's a link which you may find interesting.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14655835

The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.

Gotta do some housework !!

Cheers
Stann

[adversarialreality]

forget the no planes theory there was planes. You got Norad standing down to these planes asking if it was a drill cause they were sequenced for a drill that was the exact same situation as the real event. This was for a scapegoat and also to confuse it's a technique used in government sponsored terrorism. So there was planes but they were not American airline they were military designed for the operation ok. The had a missile launched into the building as it went in by remote control.

Honestly why do you keep saying this...Using planes is way too risky...and remote military planes shooting missiles into the buildings split seconds before impact is NOT more plausible than cgi planes on TV...

That is much more difficult and they would have had to do it TWICE!
So many things can go wrong with that plan.

I explained the drills to you already....all the rerouting of jets and "norad stand down" was not so that NORAD wouldn't be able to intercept 'planes' but because there were no planes for them to intercept. If norad had been operational on 911 and asked why none of the planes were intercepted, they have to say "what planes"?

Do you think that "norman mineta's" testimony was real?

Minetta is part of the coverup...he is gov't disinfo his testimony promotes that a 'plane' actually hit the pentagon, and was just ordered to 'not be shot down'...that is total arab hugging/plane hugging/ LIHOP.....it is complete disinfo

You'd agree that no plane hit the Pentagon right?

The military mock drills of flying planes into buildings was cover against honest gov't officials who might come across the plan when it was being passed through military intelligence circles. If they came across the plan they'd just assume it was the drills. ...It was to prevent whistleblowers.

[stannrodd]

.... there were no planes for them to intercept.

???

I'm still on the fence with NPT but hey this looks like a representation of a UA 767 at a rough guess .. still image taken from a his resolution video.


http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/impact6.jpg

I dunno .. :confused:

Stann

[bryan]

I also have some problems with certain stated assumptions regarding aluminium aircraft wings and perimeter columns.

You see the aircraft impacts and penetrations, would have to be "possible" as alleged .. for the story to be sold to physicists.

Here's a link which you may find interesting.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14655835


Stann, I had a thread recently which covered this subject.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50161

(There's a basic mistake in the OP but it doesn't affect the argument)

I started it because I could see that the only way the 'physicists' can get the plane to go through the wall is to treat the aircraft as a rigid mass, completely ignore the floors and spandrels, and calculate the momentum in terms of average over time. That's a gross misrepresentation of reality, and the abstract you posted is doing he same.


The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.


They totally refuse to analyse the crash as a progressive event starting with the nose cone hitting the wall, because it soon becomes obvious that the front section of fuselage will crumple on the outside of the building and we'd see it in the videos.

As for the photo you posted, like so many others, the plane seems to have better definition than the buildings, even though it's in motion.

[adversarialreality]

???

I'm still on the fence with NPT but hey this looks like a representation of a UA 767 at a rough guess .. still image taken from a his resolution video.


http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/impact6.jpg

I dunno .. :confused:

Stann

You support the official story that flight 175 boeing 767 hit the south tower?

[tannah]

???

I'm still on the fence with NPT but hey this looks like a representation of a UA 767 at a rough guess .. still image taken from a his resolution video.


http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/impact6.jpg

I dunno .. :confused:

Stann

If someone posted something like this as a way to prove a UFO, wouldn't it be subjected to vigorous testing? Has such testing taken place here, and by whom?

[gamolon]

This is another example of focusing on the minutiae and trying to undermine the obvious by suggesting we can never be certain of anything. Personally, I think the squibs are irrelevant and I only pointed out that particular squib because stannrodd seemed to be pleased that a different one had been debunked. It's a straw man that's been handed to you on a plate by the fake Scholars for 9/11 Truth, who have typically put great effort into studying something that doesn't prove anything.

The proof of demolition is the way the towers collapsed. The speed of collapse is icing on the cake. The explosions seen when the upper block is severed from the remaining structure is confirmation even for people who usually prefer to trust the experts on TV more than their own common sense.

So you don't consider squibs as evidence of a controlled demolition. That's fine. Then we no longer need to use squibs as evidence to support the theory of controlled demolition.

As far as your comment of focusing on the minutiae, I'm not sure I follow. All I am doing is taking all points of evidence that people use to come to the conclusion of a controlled demolition and see if they add up to the end result. Many folks say that the squibs are part of the proof that there was a controlled demolition. If that's the case, then I am going to look ino that particular claim and see if it holds water. So far it doesn't. I don't consider these squibs to be concrete proof of a controlled demolition as they can easily be explained as debris being ejected through broken windows. Until someone can prove one way or the other, that piece of evidence cannot be used to prove anything either way. I can't use it to prove the OCT and you can't use it to prove controlled demolition. That's one piece of evidence that can be thrown out.

Now on to your other points. Let''s talk of the speed of the collapse.

1. Are you saying the the twin towers totally collapsed at free fall, within 9 seconds or so?
2. If not free fall, what how fast did they completely collapse?
3. Are you saying that the government story of planes hitting the towers and fire weakening the steel columns shouldn't have caused the towers to collapse as fast as they did?
4. Are you saying that controlled demolition is the only way to cause the towers to collapse as fast as they did?

[tannah]

As far as your comment of focusing on the minutiae, I'm not sure I follow. All I am doing is taking all points of evidence that people use to come to the conclusion of a controlled demolition and see if they add up to the end result. Many folks say that the squibs are part of the proof that there was a controlled demolition. If that's the case, then I am going to look ino that particular claim and see if it holds water. So far it doesn't. I don't consider these squibs to be concrete proof of a controlled demolition as they can easily be explained as debris being ejected through broken windows. Until someone can prove one way or the other, that piece of evidence cannot be used to prove anything either way. I can't use it to prove the OCT and you can't use it to prove controlled demolition. That's one piece of evidence that can be thrown out.


Which reasoning may be applied to the NIST report. As most of their explanations can be explained other ways, the report should be thrown out.
These two way explanations, is the glass half full or half empty?



Now on to your other points. Let''s talk of the speed of the collapse.

1. Are you saying the the twin towers totally collapsed at free fall, within 9 seconds or so?
2. If not free fall, what how fast did they completely collapse?
3. Are you saying that the government story of planes hitting the towers and fire weakening the steel columns shouldn't have caused the towers to collapse as fast as they did?
4. Are you saying that controlled demolition is the only way to cause the towers to collapse as fast as they did?

I've acquainted myself with most of these questions by reading some of the thread over at breakfornews. Shall I hire a coach and we can go relive the experience over there.

Just come out with it, admit your own position means no one can be sure of anything. You can pick any explanation and see the little areas that could be explained another way. However, which way is the wind blowing? What direction is this moving in? Is it vindicating the official story, or is there reason to believe it is a mish mash of orchestrated destractions in order to pull off a massive scam? and at which point may one say "right, let's demand
some real answers"? And we won't reach that kind of action going over things with a fine toothpick.

[bryan]

So you don't consider squibs as evidence of a controlled demolition. That's fine. Then we no longer need to use squibs as evidence to support the theory of controlled demolition.


Good.



Now on to your other points. Let''s talk of the speed of the collapse.

1. Are you saying the the twin towers totally collapsed at free fall, within 9 seconds or so?
2. If not free fall, what how fast did they completely collapse?
3. Are you saying that the government story of planes hitting the towers and fire weakening the steel columns shouldn't have caused the towers to collapse as fast as they did?
4. Are you saying that controlled demolition is the only way to cause the towers to collapse as fast as they did?

You're sadly mistaken if you think you can waste my time so easily. You'll find the answer to these questions in the thread I linked to before. It's only six pages long.

[stannrodd]

You support the official story that flight 175 boeing 767 hit the south tower?

I'm working on analysing the live to air 9/11 footage in chronological order currently.

Like I said I am on the fence. I am in a state of :confused:. I have a large collection of video I downloaded over the past five years, this image is from a hi resolution piece of footage.

I have no idea yet if that is the actual flight 175 (767), or if it is a military tanker (KC-767) in disguise or whether it is a cloaked missile or a flying toasted cheese sandwich.:D

Do you get that ??

What I am doing is .. looking for the first time at the NPT in a serious fashion, and I'm doing this for my own reasons. So you can get off your high effin horse and stop the bullshit questions OK !!!

Being adversarial with me will not influence my attitude to research. If this theory has merit it will take care of itself, it doesn't need me to be a believer for it to be fact.

I have a friend in USA (Vegas) who is very familiar with all aspects of TV News and he is going to go through the pdf with me and make relevant comment.

If you guys want any support then cut the crap attitudes.

If someone posted something like this as a way to prove a UFO, wouldn't it be subjected to vigorous testing? Has such testing taken place here, and by whom?

Like I said loosen up on the attitude .. this footage is in the public domain feel free to investigate it for all you're worth .. all I did was post it to demonstrate that not all footage of that "alleged" aircraft is a blurry dark blob in the distance as is sometimes claimed.

FFS

Stann

[tannah]

Like I said loosen up on the attitude .. this footage is in the public domain feel free to investigate it for all you're worth .. all I did was post it to demonstrate that not all footage of that "alleged" aircraft is a blurry dark blob in the distance as is sometimes claimed.

FFS

Good idea to loosen up there mate. It was a rhetorical question, no finger pointing at you. Just wondered how vigorously such an image has been tested. Go write a tune, relax, play with yourself.:-)

[stannrodd]

Just wondered how vigorously such an image has been tested.

How the ferk would I know :eek: duh !!

Go write a tune, relax, play with yourself.:-)

Don't sit and wait
Don't sit and dream
Put on a smile
Go find a scene

I'm totally relaxed mate ..!

Stann ;)

[dianewood]

why do people go on about demolitions or collapse of the towers...the towers were turned to dust be some destructive method not seen before...the only person who has come any where near to explaining this is dr judy wood www.drjudywood.com ...no relation by the way

[tannah]

How the ferk would I know :eek: duh !!

Out of interest, did it occur to you that it might be a manipulated image?


Don't sit and wait
Don't sit and dream
Put on a smile
Go find a scene

Dangle your legs
Whilst sat on the fence
Play with your wotsit
You know it makes sense!

[white horse]

???

I'm still on the fence with NPT but hey this looks like a representation of a UA 767 at a rough guess .. still image taken from a his resolution video.


http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/impact6.jpg

I dunno .. :confused:

Stann

That is a very good frame shot - about the only one with any chrome or depth; the following frames get decidely more and more dodgy.

I think I know which vid this comes from, (was it one shown on CNN or CBS? Both had a similar video played later on) will take a closer look at it, needs analysing. (It is a later vid, but I don't know how long after 911 it emerged - that fact is crucial)

There are I think 3 videos (recorded) of the plane from a similar angle as this; all show the plane as pretty dark.

Why is it so dark and inshadow - look at the brilliantly lit buildings around - there are no buildings casting a shadow on the plane (the sun is up at around 40 degrees). Later on in the shot the plane does seem to 'twinkle' in the light, but then it looses chrome altogether.

Here is the crux of the confusion of NPT; why can this plane not be seen in other footage?

Why is there no plane but a faint little blob in the 'Live' Chopper 4 vids...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP2D370oq6M

This is the famous Chopper 4 'blob/drone/missile' apparantly shown live...

[stannrodd]

Out of interest, did it occur to you that it might be a manipulated image?

Why would it occur to me?

Dangle your legs
Whilst sat on the fence
Play with your wotsit
You know it makes sense!

You seem to have a fascination with playing with your wotsit. Got anything useful to say .. just curious. :)

@ white horse.

I'm not sure of it's origin, the image of the plane which I posted, was cropped from the total frame shot and has a file size of 18.919Mb

The file name .. as downloaded from wherever is 2328200101a.jpg

Image size is 6457 x 4330

I don't recall where I got it from originally, but there is an 80 Mb .bmp version here ..

http://hybrideb.com/images/newyork/2328200101a.bmp

and the 18Mb jpg version here

http://www.hybrideb.com/images/newyork/2328200101a.jpg

I'm not the image expert .. have fun. I look forward to your opinions.

Stann

[tannah]

Why would it occur to me?

Dunno, you seem very efficient in demanding definitive proof from others, perhaps a small matter of wondering about the authenticity of such a photo may have occurred to you. Didn't it?



You seem to have a fascination with playing with your wotsit. Got anything useful to say .. just curious. :)

Yes I have, I imagined you typing this very response as I was concocting the little ditty back to you. So that is something that occurred to us both. Although calling it a fascination is no more than a wishing to instill a false sense of reality here, when no more than two friendly silly comments were made that way. How did that occur to you?

[tannah]

why do people go on about demolitions or collapse of the towers...the towers were turned to dust be some destructive method not seen before...the only person who has come any where near to explaining this is dr judy wood www.drjudywood.com ...no relation by the way

Phew, that's a big site, thanks! Haven't looked into her theory, but I like her comments about joining the call for a reinvestigation. I'll have a proper look tomorrow.