September Clues part 7

[travisbickle]

Even more evidence fake planes hit the WTC.

SeptemberClues7

[narcolepticwatchman]

Game over for the TV fakery case....that empire state building shot at the start is irrefutable.

[cruise4]

I suggest you are not going to prove anything fake or not fake by using the in question video. Now admissions by those doing the faking would be a different story.

[narcolepticwatchman]

I suggest you are not going to prove anything fake or not fake by using the in question video. Now admissions by those doing the faking would be a different story.

Parts 1-7, for me, show beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was TV fakery. There is also claimed live video of the pentagon which isn't really live and is a really poor tape loop. 9/11 researchers are now going through all of the archive footage with a fine toothcomb and the discrepancies that they are finding can only have one possible explanation. TV fakery on 9/11 is real.

If you are looking for 100% proof with anything then I'm afraid that your quest will be a long one. In all areas of the great conspiracy, of which the tip of the iceberg is 9/11, I doubt there is not a single case where you will have 100% proof, to me its impossible. Almost any argument can be countered. This is where your own discretion and common sense comes in.

[helloperator]

Are there any good quality rebuttle videos of the September Clues series?

I've only just got back into looking into 911 and it's all very interesting. The no planes theory was just an acorn last time I remember...now it has an 8 part, quite convincing in itself, video series.

What about the footage from Hoboken? Did it show a plane?

[mynameis]

Yes if you have above average IQ the video rebuts itself with a little research. When did we get to the point of having to have one video rebut another without people actually going out there on the net and researching for themselves what to think, feel, and believe?

Are there any good quality rebuttle videos of the September Clues series?

I've only just got back into looking into 911 and it's all very interesting. The no planes theory was just an acorn last time I remember...now it has an 8 part, quite convincing in itself, video series.

[teslafire]

Yes if you have above average IQ the video rebuts itself with a little research.

You sound annoyed.

When did we get to the point of having to have one video rebut another without people actually going out there on the net and researching for themselves what to think, feel, and believe?

When the evidence is video, it is natural to corroborate the footage with other video footage to make sure one piece of evidence isn't doctored, different from another.

The wonders of instant replay.

[helloperator]

Yeah, and there has, or used to be, such a proliferation of rebuttle type videos...many with pun titles...such as 'Screw Loose Change' or whatever.

mynameis....my question was very specific...are there any rebuttle videos?

You just took that to imply that I wouldn't look into it on the net myself and strive to formulate my own opinions. Try not to get so angry. Like the guy Forest Gump punches in the nose at the Black Panther meeting in Forest Gump the movie.

I just asked a direct question...you read too much into it mynameis

[picha]

The fact that the planes were estimated to be flying at over 500mph at 700 feet when that is physically impossible is proof enough for me of the NPT.

Also the video of the plane going into the building but the building still being intact between the wing and the fuselage is also very damning.

Also the plastic nose cone popping out the other side....it seems I could go on and on.

[john white]

The fact that the planes were estimated to be flying at over 500mph at 700 feet when that is physically impossible is proof enough for me of the NPT.


Interesting claim

Where's your proof that the Plane couldnt do that speed at that altitiude?

Video compression artifacts we'll just leave out of it

[narcolepticwatchman]

they discuss it here.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread304786/pg1

and the phone call is here....

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=144575&postcount=24

Last clip on Geos post.

But I suppose your gonna say thats all fake as well coz i suppose pilots for truth haven't mentioned it eh?

[john white]

I've talked to CB Brooklyn often enough to know what a moron he is: so his opinion is worth nothing: and the two responses he got on that thread says a lot:

can a 767 descend from cruse altitude at a steep angle at full power and level off at 700ft going over 500 mph, yes it can very easily.

For the engineer to say the 767 would start to shake itself apart at 220 mph is totally stupid. I fly all the time flat and level in a prop C-130 at 230 knots at 500 feet and that is 265 MPH.


Speed of sound is important, but 550 MPH at 35000 feet is very normal for any jet and that is about .82 Mach. 550 MPH at 700 feet is .72 Mach.

All big jets cruise between .74 and .89 Mach. This is the NORMAL (not max) cruising speeds, so I really do not know what that guy was trying to say.


I would have to agree. The stick shaker is a stall feature and none of the aircraft appeared to be at the stall threashold.

Most comercial aircraft have a maximum speed for a given altitude. However, as often the case the airframe itself is capable of dealing with higher loads for short periods of time. Im trying to find a good reference for this but it is eluding me so far.

Maximum speed also factors in fatigue etc. Companies like Boeing and Airbus are conservative with thier figures so as to avoid cutting into the fatigue life of the airframes.

THe Egypt air crash of a 767 many years ago seemed to indicate that the airframe stayed intact in the dive untill after the plane passed mach 1 in a dive. So 500 mph is not that unfeasable esp. if you had a pilot who obviously carred little for the stress he was puttin on the airframe.


You boys are just getting desperate


BTW, what do you think of Killtown admitting that the Plane could penetrate the tower no problem without "bouncing off"? He also stated that anyone saying differently was not a "legit" "no planer"

[narcolepticwatchman]

BTW, what do you think of Killtown admitting that the Plane could penetrate the tower no problem without "bouncing off"? He also stated that anyone saying differently was not a "legit" "no planer"


Oh well if Killtown says it then it must be true. Give in with your smarmy drivel john. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. just because he is a well known no plane theorist does not make him right. My opinions are not based on following some figurehead. I make my own descisions based on my own research and life experience. I do not follow the leader.

Btw, I think you have been manipulating the guys words there....oh,and did I ever say the whole plane would bounce off? I don't think I did. Thee is no doubt that there would be damage and some of the plane would penetrate the building.....see the empire state building damage for back up to that claim.....my argument was always about the wings bud. Failure occurs at the weakest point.....remember??? what we saw was the whole plane (cgi) swallowed by the building ( which seemed to momentarily heal itself) and dissappear before exploding inside well after the initial impact. it does not make any sense.....for you to be saying it does makes you look like a complete and utter fool.

[john white]

You get a lot from me passing on Killtown's comments

But I got that you say Killtown is wrong. Filed and noted ;)