Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 28-09-2011, 03:14 PM   #401
7forever
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

The fake planes were facing different directions only seconds before impact. Nothing can change where they were during fake news footage. No 3D view or different camera angles change that three different flight paths were shown on TV. The plane theory falls apart on that alone. The divebomber myth descends steeply, traveling northeast and then west before fake impact. The wide angle is traveling south to north with NO divebomb. The orb is traveling west to east and caused the second tower's explosion, strangely, the fireball's on the northeast corner like T1.


The wide angle does not divebomb but goes straight north into the south facing of T2.

The orb travels east and a little north causing the explosion in the live footage that can never be challenged.

Last edited by 7forever; 28-09-2011 at 03:25 PM.
7forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 03:16 PM   #402
gamolon
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

anthnyc,

Why does your drawing show the supposed "faked" plane in the wrong flight path? In order to prove the official story wrong, doesn't your drawing need to show the CORRECT flight path of the supposed "faked" plane?


You show the plane level with the impact point of the tower? Wasn't supposed to be higher from that far out? You also calculate your distance from the tower of the "faked" plane using the fact that it came in perpendicular to the tower's face it impacted? Didn't the supposed "faked" planed hit the tower at an angle?

You use incorrect data to try and prove the plane "fake"?

Hilarious...

gamolon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 03:21 PM   #403
gamolon
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyc31 View Post
Since you're in position to be next, maybe you should really be focusing on how you're going to outdo Nimmrodd because, i have to tell you, his mustache tickled
Still can't show how my calculations are incorrect in any way huh? Still have to resort to spewing complete idiocy to compensate for your lack of a serious rebuttal? I understand. It's what you folks ALWAYS revert to when you're backed into a corner and can't admit they're wrong.

Keep on posting and showing your lack of a response. It just helps my case.
gamolon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 03:23 PM   #404
gamolon
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

What aout this gem anthonyc?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gamolon View Post
Wow...

More incorrect scaling. Why do you keep making errors. First question. How far back is that Gatorade bottle that you can just arbitrarily us it's height as a scale? It's not in the same plane as the thickness of the plate you are measuring. You keep making the same mistake. You are trying to apply two dimensional scaling to a photo that represents three dimensions. If I used your scaling, that would make the width of those columns 31" (measured up and down). Here are the dimensions of the core columns.


Or are you suggesting that the wood separating the columns are 4" x 8" not 2" x 4"?

No answer to this blunder either? Here's the photo you scaled:



Last edited by gamolon; 28-09-2011 at 05:06 PM.
gamolon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 03:24 PM   #405
gamolon
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Or this anthonyc?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamolon View Post
anthonyc,

Let's take your following calculations.


Here's your problem. Your scaling is off yet again. Why do you continue have issues with this? The center coordinates for the north tower were N4802.5', W10059.5'. The center coordinates for the south tower were N4465.5', W9842.5'.

So N4802.5' - N4465.5' = 337' from the center of the north tower to the center of the south tower. So now we get 337' - 208' (half of each tower added together) = 129' between tower's faces.

According to your "more accurate measurements, the space equals 44p. 129' / 44 = 2.93' per. That means that the towers, which your "more accurate measurements" show as being 89p, we can take 89p * 2.93' and we get...

260.77' for the tower widths.

Uh oh! That's about 52' wider than what they actually were. Where's your mistake anthonyc?

I even used your own scaling!!!

LOL!
gamolon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 03:27 PM   #406
anthonyc31
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 89
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gamolon View Post
anthnyc,

Why does your drawing show the supposed "faked" plane in the wrong flight path? In order to prove the official story wrong, doesn't your drawing need to show the CORRECT flight path of the supposed "faked" plane?





First off, your calculations are a total disaster. Your method of calculation ration and distance is borderline criminal, as i have already pointed out.

You cannot use just 1 of the WTC towers to determine the scale ratio as we analyze these zoomed out frames. You must use the most # of pixels possible from the zoomed-in frames to establish the scale ratio. That means calculating the pixels:distance ratio for WTC 1, WTC 2 and the space in between the buildings. If you do that, the correct calculations will look like this:
by anthonyc31, on Flickr

Furthermore, my calculations are in fact backed up by the calculations done in the following video, which was shown to the world on the day of 9/11:

And as for the flight paths, spittle-breathe, you can compare the flight path i used in my calculations to the fake flight paths observed by the 2 fake plane videos that you shared with us. Note that unlike the video i analyzed, which was shown to the world on TV on the day of 9/11, the 2 videos that you shared with us were not shown to the world on TV on the day of 9/11. Your videos came into circulation many months if not years after 9/11. That would be yet another huge #FAIL for you to swallow, you sensational spittle snacker.

So, people following along can compare your 2 fake videos showing the fake F175 trajectories to my calculations above to verify that the projections of where F175 should have been, are in fact reasonable.

Fake video #1: (not shown on day of 9/11)

Fake video #2: (again, not shown on day of 9/11

Last edited by infidelyork; 30-09-2011 at 10:12 PM. Reason: baiting
anthonyc31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 03:29 PM   #407
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gamolon View Post
I have yet to find an argument provided by any of you that is BETTER than the official story.
Which is why I say you are a shill, because no honest, intelligent, thinking person who has taken the time to examine the evidence could do this. Note: I don't accuse you of not being intelligent or not having the ability to think and reason. I accuse you of being dishonest and part of the conspiracy. Not just you, but many others here.
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.

Last edited by anyhoo; 28-09-2011 at 03:31 PM.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 03:37 PM   #408
7forever
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
Which is why I say you are a shill, because no honest, intelligent, thinking person who has taken the time to examine the evidence could do this. Note: I don't accuse you of not being intelligent or not having the ability to think and reason. I accuse you of being dishonest and part of the conspiracy. Not just you, but many others here.
You are a simple, dodging denialist, because no honest, intelligent, thinking person who has taken the time to examine the evidence would say a plane impacted the second tower. Note: I don't accuse you of being intelligent because that would be an error.LOL You are a very small part of the willful ignorance this cover-up has displayed on some message boards and youtube.

Last edited by 7forever; 28-09-2011 at 03:40 PM.
7forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 03:40 PM   #409
gamolon
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
Which is why I say you are a shill, because no honest, intelligent, thinking person who has taken the time to examine the evidence could do this. Note: I don't accuse you of not being intelligent or not having the ability to think and reason. I accuse you of being dishonest and part of the conspiracy. Not just you, but many others here.
Then why is it none of you can provide me with counter-arguments to the claims I make?

Have you answered or looked at the plethora of mistakes I have pointed out in anthonyc's claims?

Have you wondered why Bryan won't provide a link or quote to Daniel Nigro's supposed admission that he investigated the call to Silverstein and found that NOBODY talked to him?

So based on the fact that YOU think all the evidence that points to a conspiracy is without error, you think I should think that? Even though I continue to point out errors in people's evidence?

So tell me. How is pointing out mistakes in anthonyc's evidence being dishonest? I'm all ears.
gamolon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 03:48 PM   #410
anthonyc31
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 89
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I keep forgetting to post this.

Check out this interview with the professional cameraman that filmed the self-contradicting "nosed out" video that shows the alleged F175 hitting WTC 2, but fails to capture F175 in previous zoomed out frames where, if F175 was real, should be visible but is not.

Note that he claims that he did not actually see a plane:

anthonyc31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 03:53 PM   #411
gamolon
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyc31 View Post
You're obviously too busy wiping off my special "spittle" to focus on this topic any more ... your comments are becoming more sloppy with each post.

First off, your calculations are a total disaster. Your method of calculation ration and distance is borderline criminal, as i have already pointed out.

You cannot use just 1 of the WTC towers to determine the scale ratio as we analyze these zoomed out frames. You must use the most # of pixels possible from the zoomed-in frames to establish the scale ratio. That means calculating the pixels:distance ratio for WTC 1, WTC 2 and the space in between the buildings. If you do that, the correct calculations will look like this:

WTC2 - F175 should be in view but is NOT! (2 of 4) by anthonyc31, on Flickr

Furthermore, my calculations are in fact backed up by the calculations done in the following video, which was shown to the world on the day of 9/11:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEoievoxces

And as for the flight paths, spittle-breathe, you can compare the flight path i used in my calculations to the fake flight paths observed by the 2 fake plane videos that you shared with us. Note that unlike the video i analyzed, which was shown to the world on TV on the day of 9/11, the 2 videos that you shared with us were not shown to the world on TV on the day of 9/11. Your videos came into circulation many months if not years after 9/11. That would be yet another huge #FAIL for you to swallow, you sensational spittle snacker.

So, people following along can compare your 2 fake videos showing the fake F175 trajectories to my calculations above to verify that the projections of where F175 should have been, are in fact reasonable.

Fake video #1: (not shown on day of 9/11)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-dORoqI--8

Fake video #2: (again, not shown on day of 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahvvvw930Rc
You fail to see where you messed up don't you?



Did you calculate placement of the "fake plane" at the linear distances of 3696'/5133' in your photo using a flight path that was perpendicular (perfectly straight) to the face of the south tower it impacted (and perfectly parallel to the faces you measured on the towers)? Or did you figure out that linear distance in your photo coupled with the fact the plane was in three dimensions?

Obviously you don't get it.
gamolon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 03:57 PM   #412
gamolon
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyc31 View Post
See those two red arrows? Are you representing the correct "faked" altitude the "faked" plane was supposed at in in these two locations or are you saying that the plane should have shown up directly level with the impact point when that far out?

It's simple really.
gamolon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 03:58 PM   #413
7forever
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
Which is why I say you are a shill, because no honest, intelligent, thinking person who has taken the time to examine the evidence could do this. Note: I don't accuse you of not being intelligent or not having the ability to think and reason. I accuse you of being dishonest and part of the conspiracy. Not just you, but many others here.
Every single poster in this thread is pushing disinformation, except myself. All this bickering back and forth is a ruse. That's a fact. This thread was started because my work goes straight to the point and focuses on the irrefutable fact that the orb cannot be the 767, like the 767 cannot be the orb. And any live footage cannot, not have a boeing 767 in it unless there was really no plane. These clowns posting their rambling nonsense have known each other for years as is proven by one saying that that stanidiot has been jerking 911 for seven years. This thread consists of a few fake no planers vs. planers. It's all bullshit in here but that's okay because my work does not pull any punches.

noun
▸a plan or trick used for hiding your true intentions

Last edited by 7forever; 28-09-2011 at 04:00 PM.
7forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 04:04 PM   #414
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7forever View Post
Every single poster in this thread is pushing disinformation, except myself. All this bickering back and forth is a ruse. That's a fact. This thread was started because my work goes straight to the point and focuses on the irrefutable fact that the orb cannot be the 767, like the 767 cannot be the orb. And any live footage cannot, not have a boeing 767 in it unless there was really no plane. These clowns posting their rambling nonsense have known each other for years as is proven by one saying that that stanidiot has been jerking 911 for seven years. This thread consists of a few fake no planers vs. planers. It's all bullshit in here but that's okay because my work does not pull any punches.

noun
▸a plan or trick used for hiding your true intentions
I was having a conversation with a different shill, but so good of you to answer. Do you and I really have anything meaningful to say to each other?
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 04:06 PM   #415
7forever
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
I was having a conversation with a different shill, but so good of you to answer. Do you and I really have anything meaningful to say to each other?
Yes, your thread was successful in bringing out the plane disiformationailists but my work still stands and cannot be challenged in any way. You are a failure, total and complete.
7forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 04:08 PM   #416
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7forever View Post
Yes, your thread was successful in bringing out the plane disiformationailists but my work still stands and cannot be challenged in any way. You are a failure, total and complete.
Thank you, 7Forver. (bows)
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 04:12 PM   #417
gamolon
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Maybe this will make it easier anthonyc to see what I am asking. See this next photo? What is the distance from the corner of the tower on one side of the dimension to the edge of the skateboard?


Can you figure that out for me? Or do you do exactly what you did in your other photos.? Do you just take the known distance from one corner of the tower to the opposite corner of the same tower in the photo and then apply that scale to the distance I am asking for?

Or does the fact that a photo represents a three dimensional area with only two dimensions come into play with your "this is where the plane should be in my photo" schtick like I am trying to get you to realize?

Also, how far from the tower is that skateboard?

Last edited by gamolon; 28-09-2011 at 04:24 PM.
gamolon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 04:20 PM   #418
7forever
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
Thank you, 7Forver. (bows)
You know the truth, but it's up to you whether you'll cross over or not. It comes down to calling a dog a puppy or a rock a boulder...that's it. Even though Charles Gibson and many other mainstream reptilians called the orb the 767, they would never do it under oath and they will never have to.

The orb is not attached to the belly in most shots but it is here. The 911 cover-up was officially solved when I proved, not just two but three flight paths. It took me less than three weeks because of the plethora of work done in recent years from apparently, some Euros.



7forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 04:30 PM   #419
anthonyc31
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 89
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7forever View Post
You are a simple, dodging denialist, because no honest, intelligent, thinking person who has taken the time to examine the evidence would say a plane impacted the second tower. Note: I don't accuse you of being intelligent because that would be an error.LOL You are a very small part of the willful ignorance this cover-up has displayed on some message boards and youtube.
I don't quite know what to make of 9/11 "researchers" that still cling to planes. I learned about "no planes" last year and didn't believe it at first. But, it became very obvious after a few hours of digging and i became convinced that no planes hit the towers after a few days of my own analysis. I already knew that no plane hit the Pentagon, so that helped in realizing that maybe no planes were involved at the WTC either.

At this point, my litmus test for ferreting out 98% of 9/11 shills is simple .... Dimitri Khalezov's testimony -- you're either a believer or not.

- All 3 WTC buildings were demolished to dust using built-in underground nuclear devices (not "mini-nukes")
- No planes hit the WTC towers, it was just explosives
- No plane hit the Pentagon, it was an undetonated nuclear warhead missile
- No hijackers, no cell phone calls
- A plane was shot down over Shanksville

In summary:
US officials were duped into destroying the WTC towers and shooting down the plane over Shanksville. After the Pentagon undetonated nuclear missile attack, "intelligence" then fed officials the story that Osama bin Laden planted 2 mini-nukes at the top of the WTC towers, and officials had to do "something" to prevent an atmospheric detonation of these mini-nukes because it would kill millions in NYC. Officials decided to use the WTC's built-in devices to destroy the tower (this is why WTC 2, which was hit last, collapsed before WTC 1). Officials decided to destroy WTC 7 to hide the evidence of the 3rd undetonated underground nuclear device, which is why WTC 7 collapsed to dust later that day even though nothing hit the building.

Here are just a few links to support Dimitri's testimony that it was an underground nuclear demolition:

Radiation at Ground Zero? Yes.
Damage to WTC "Bathtub"? Yes.
High temperatures at Ground Zero? Yes.
Buildings collapsed to dust? Yes.

And let's not forget what Ground Zero actually means:
The point on the earth's surface directly above or below an exploding nuclear bomb.

Last edited by anthonyc31; 28-09-2011 at 04:42 PM.
anthonyc31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-09-2011, 04:54 PM   #420
gamolon
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyc31 View Post
And let's not forget what Ground Zero actually means:
The point on the earth's surface directly above or below an exploding nuclear bomb.
Completely delusional. Ground zero ONLY means that...



http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/16a599/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...4synic20100129
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-rioters.html
gamolon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:40 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.