2
   

Was this video of the 911 plane doctored?

 
 
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 06:56 pm
If you are an expert or not do you think that this video of the 911 plane is doctored?

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 3,467 • Replies: 21

 
Butrflynet
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 07:02 pm
@reasoning logic,
45 minutes? Really? Which part of it do you question the authenticity of? Let me know and I'll think about watching that portion of the 45 minute video.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 07:12 pm
@Butrflynet,
The nose of the airplane seems to come out the other side of the tower. In the first 4 minutes of the video you can get a good idea where the video is leading.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 07:25 pm
@reasoning logic,
If the Twin Towers were still standing after 911 I would be highly suspicious that the videos were doctored. Otherwise... well, you figure it out.
camlok
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2017 01:04 pm
@rosborne979,
That is most assuredly NOT a scientific evaluation. Unbelievable!
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2017 04:16 pm
@camlok,
The supposition doesn't merit a scientific analysis.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2017 09:08 pm
@rosborne979,
Dollars to donuts, you couldn't provide one if you were asked.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2017 10:54 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

If you are an expert or not do you think that this video of the 911 plane is doctored?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds[/youtube]


A well thought out answer for you.

No.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:17 pm
@Krumple,
It's amazing what passes for "well thought out" for Americans, isn't it?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:40 pm
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

It's amazing what passes for "well thought out" for Americans, isn't it?


Which Americans? Canadians or Brazilians? Maybe you meant Mexicans? They are all Americans.

Oh you aren't that dumb, excuse me, you meant US citizens. Well perhaps we arent well thought out at all but we invent a lot of stuff

Lightning rod

Mail order

Swivel chair

Bifocals

Hardtack crackers

Refrigeration

Lobster trap

Circular saw

Dental floss

Morse code

Threshing machine

Combine harvester

Wrench

Revolver

Safety pin

Gas mask

Potato chips

Clothespin

Breast pump

Condensed milk

Toilet paper (rolled)

Monkey wrench

Burglar alarm

Can opener

Escalator

Modern oil well

Repeating rifle

Vacuum cleaner

Postcard

Machine gun (revolving)

Ratchet wrench

Breakfast cereal

Roller skates (four-wheeled)

Urinal (restroom version)

Motorcycle

Paper clip

Barbed wire

Tape measure

Paper bag

Clothes hanger

Fire hydrant

Chewing gum

Pipe wrench

Cream cheese

Diner

Jeans

Earmuffs

Fire sprinkler

QWERTY

Airbrush

Tattoo machine

Phonograph

Cash register

Metal detector

Electric fan

Thermostat

Dissolvable pill

Machine gun

Fountain pen

Skyscraper

Dishwasher

Telephone directory

Drinking straw

Revolving door

Paper towel

Ferris wheel

Gas-operated reloading

Tesla coil

Traveler's check

Zipper

Tractor

Radio

Jackhammer

Mousetrap

Comic book

Charcoal briquette

Remote control

Flashlight

Vertical filing cabinet

Thumbtack

Assembly line production

Disposable safety razor

Hearing aid

Teddy bear

Air conditioning

Tea bag

Crayons

Airplane

Windshield wipers

Automatic transmission

AC power plugs and sockets

Fly swatter

Muffler

Headset

Autopilot

Traffic cone

Fortune cookie

Supermarket

Pop-up toaster

Flowchart

Adhesive bandage

Power steering

Jukebox

Ice cube tray

Bubble gum

Electric razor

Air traffic control

Sunglasses

Frozen food

Electric guitar

Tape dispenser

Nylon

Teflon

Soft serve ice cream

Deodorant

Napalm

Microwave oven

Cruise control

Mobile phone

Acrylic paint

Cat litter

Video games

Cable television

Atomic clock

Credit card

Leaf blower

Disposable diaper

Cooler

Wetsuit

Golf cart

Polio vaccine

Barcode

Automatic sliding doors

Hard disk drive

Videotape

Laser

Weather satellite

Kevlar

Compact disc

Airbag

Laser printer

Smoke detector

Mousepad

Wireless local area network

Personal computer

Microprocessor

E-mail

Heimlich maneuver

Digital camera

Ethernet

Magnetic resonance imaging

Internet

Blogging

Global Positioning System

JavaScript

You are welcome on behalf of the US.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:48 pm
@Krumple,
It's amazing what passes for "well thought out" for Americans, isn't it?
Krumple
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:57 pm
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

It's amazing what passes for "well thought out" for Americans, isn't it?


Right you only have one trick. You are such a genius. I see why your posts are easily refuted now.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2017 12:16 am
@Krumple,
Offer your considered opinion, Krumple. But that would mean you had to watch the video, which you won't, because you are too frightened to consider it.
Krumple
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2017 12:26 am
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

Offer your considered opinion, Krumple. But that would mean you had to watch the video, which you won't, because you are too frightened to consider it.


Yeah its so scary.

How about it was just retaliation by some people who held a strong grudge against the US doing shitty things in the middle East?

Na. It must be a conspiracy!

The US is too stupid but just smart enough to carry out a false flag attack on itself without anyone having hard evidence to prove it. Instead we will just look a grainy cellphone footage from 2001 and invent silly explanations instead of realizing it's due to low quality video.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2017 12:27 am
@Krumple,
Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, the Maine, ... .
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2017 12:45 am
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, the Maine, ... .


Most people didn't even know about the false report that a ship was attacked in the gulf of Tonkin. It was just that, a story that got out that wasn't true.

There was a lot of bad reporting during the Vietnam war. Many US soldiers would get into a fire fight near a small hamlet and after the engagement ended the reporters would show up to report on dead women and children. Problem is it was unclear who actually did the killing. Some say the Vietcong would kill them to play the media game knowing the US soldiers would be blamed for it in the media.

Not to say messed up **** wasn't our fault but you can't say all of it was.

Political leaders lie, we know this. Same **** with George Bush's yellow cake, weapon factories in Iraq.

I don't think there is any way they could have conducted 9-11 without a whistle blower breaking silence. It woulda taken dozens of people to coordinate all the details and labor to make happen. No one working the inside job had any remorse? Not one? Hard to believe.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2017 12:55 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
I don't think there is any way they could have conducted 9-11 without a whistle blower breaking silence. It woulda taken dozens of people to coordinate all the details and labor to make happen. No one working the inside job had any remorse? Not one? Hard to believe.


Gulf of Tonkin wasn't revealed until McNamara himself revealed it. And though he did there are probably the majority of Americans who still think it happened.

Science says it just is not possible for 9-11 to have happened as the government said. Molten 2,800F/vaporized steel 4900+F could not have been caused by guys that had only jet fuel max 1,800F.

WTC7 fell at free fall speed - that means controlled demolition.

THE ANATOMY OF A GREAT DECEPTION - Full Movie by DAVID HOOPER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v2TAiyW54Q
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2017 08:07 pm
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

Quote:
I don't think there is any way they could have conducted 9-11 without a whistle blower breaking silence. It woulda taken dozens of people to coordinate all the details and labor to make happen. No one working the inside job had any remorse? Not one? Hard to believe.


Gulf of Tonkin wasn't revealed until McNamara himself revealed it. And though he did there are probably the majority of Americans who still think it happened.

Science says it just is not possible for 9-11 to have happened as the government said. Molten 2,800F/vaporized steel 4900+F could not have been caused by guys that had only jet fuel max 1,800F.

WTC7 fell at free fall speed - that means controlled demolition.

THE ANATOMY OF A GREAT DECEPTION - Full Movie by DAVID HOOPER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v2TAiyW54Q


Building 7 was on fire over ten hours because the focus was on rescue attempts in the collapsed towers and the already huge loss and strain on missing firefighters.

It also wasn't standard construction. I posted an animation that shows how it collapsed internally before you really saw the shell of the building fall. The reason it fell so fast was due to the internal structure was already hallowed out from collapse.

I'm skeptical of any engineer who looks at molten metal and identify its type. It easily could have been mistaken for molten aluminum which melting point I'd just a few hundred degrees. Not only that but when you have steel coated with hot aluminum it severely weakens the steel. It doesn't even need to melt to cause failure of the material under load.

Sorry but 9-11 wasn't an inside job.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Apr, 2017 02:17 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
Building 7 was on fire over ten hours because the focus was on rescue attempts in the collapsed towers and the already huge loss and strain on missing firefighters.


No, it was not. Portions, and that is the operative word, PORTIONS, of WTC7 were on fire for slightly less than 7 hours. That is how office fires go. As the fuel is used up the fire moves to a new area of fuel. The short time duration of offices fires has no chance to heat up structural steel enough to cause failure, let alone a symmetrical, free fall collapse.

That is 100% impossible.

Quote:
It also wasn't standard construction. I posted an animation that shows how it collapsed internally before you really saw the shell of the building fall. The reason it fell so fast was due to the internal structure was already hallowed out from collapse.


Please post your animation again. It has to be the NIST animation.
Point 1: Since the NIST study was a fraud, it follows that their animation was a fraud.
Point 2: It is completely impossible, that is a zero chance that the "internal structure was already hallowed out from collapse". The internal structure is part and parcel of the entire structure. They are all tied together.

What do you think half of all the floors and floor loads are supported by?

An internal collapse, if it could ever happen on its own, it cannot, would cause huge deformations in the external structural steel.

Quote:
I'm skeptical of any engineer who looks at molten metal and identify its type. It easily could have been mistaken for molten aluminum which melting point I'd just a few hundred degrees.


Nope. Molten aluminum appears silvery in daylight conditions. The yellow/white color of the molten steel/iron falling from WTC2 minutes before it was blown up, shows the metal was iron/steel.

Quote:
Not only that but when you have steel coated with hot aluminum it severely weakens the steel. It doesn't even need to melt to cause failure of the material under load.


The steel wasn't coated with hot aluminum. The material found on the eutectic steel from both the twin towers and 7 was caused by sulfidation. That means thermate which has sulfur added to cause the steel's melting point to be much reduced.

The following explains it all.

Jonathan Cole - 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate - AE911Truth.org
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Apr, 2017 02:41 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
It [WTC7] also wasn't standard construction.


You are right in this. However, that idea supports the US/NIST fable even less.

The two year study of WTC7/NIST study is all but complete.

Professor Hulsey said this and I paraphrase, 'WTC7 was built asymmetrically, stronger on one side than the other, for gods sake, even a symmetrically built building cannot come down in this fashion without being forced down'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IegkDCBJxjY

Watch from 18:00 on for a good summary

The asymmetrical manner in which it was built would have absolutely prevented it from falling as it did even IF fires had been able to bring it down.

Note the "for gods sake", he was emphasizing that even symmetrically built buildings have enough differences that they cannot collapse symmetrically without being forced down ie. controlled demolition.

Here is a question from a lawyer to the scientist who did the study.

Exchange between lawyer and Prof Hulsey

Daniel Sheehan [lawyer]: "On a scale of 1 to a 100, ... how probable do you think it is, or how possible do you think it is that this building [WTC7] could have collapsed simply because of the fires?"

Professor Hulsey: "Zero."

To see it for yourself, go to, 3:00 of the following.

Dr. Leroy Hulsey Testifies before Panel of Attorneys [short version]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mt9UZ20_nI
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What really happened on 9/11? - Question by maxdancona
"If black lives matter..." - Discussion by Miller
The truth about what really happened in the USA - Discussion by reasoning logic
9/11 - Discussion by Brandon9000
What happens when I call 911? - Question by roger
Where Were You? - Discussion by jespah
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Was this video of the 911 plane doctored?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/26/2019 at 06:10:34