$100,000 for original 2nd hit video

Mr. Baker knows his $100K offer is as safe as apple pie. So why would he even make such a ridiculous offer? Two possible reasons:

1. He's a publicity seeker.

2. He likes to bitch-slap Untruthers.

... just like the $1000 he offered to anyone who would debate him. Unfortunately, Mr. Baker is mentally ill.

That's the truth. And all Untruthers know it.

and it's clear why no one has accepted the challenge so far. Baker is the sole judge of whether the submission meets his criteria. If he was really serious, he would make arrangements for an impartial process.

wouldn't you at least contact him to see about this if you had a video?

As readers of my work already know, I don't believe any airplanes crashed anywhere on 9/11.

No plane = no brain

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

I hope he gets help

I visited your blog, just to see what's new in the world of wacky 9/11 photo analysis, and I saw that http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/04/south-tower-engine-trajectory-follow-up.html">you have a photo taken by Sara Schwittek. It shows the engine from UA175 leaving the northeast corner of WTC2, leaving a smoke trail that extends behind the Brooklyn Bridge tower, on its way to where it was found at the corner of Church and Murray:



You say:



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



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



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

It's worth noting (again) that the entirety of no-planer theory is based on crappy photo analysis.

the evidence that debunks their goofy claim...

Bushco has repeatedly contradicted and even indicted themselves time and again but your enemy and focus is on the truthers. Weird.

conviction of bush and cheney, dude. your pretending otherwise is getting really old.

Seems like on a site by and for progressive Democrats, at the very least a sense of fair play would soften his interest in
demonizing and making enemies of those here whose interest is in learning the truth about Bushco.

i'm sorry. i forgot the ''debunker mission statement''. we're only supposed to engage in ''truth suppression''. look, dude, challenging you for proof of your goofy claims and pointing out when you can't provide isn't ''demonizing'' you or anyone else. this is just another one of your post hoc rationalizations when you're called on your bullshit. you seem to think you should get a pass on spreading your misinformation (and even disinformation) simply because you claim to be a progressive dem?

"It's worth noting (again) that the entirety of no-planer theory is based on crappy photo analysis."

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

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

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

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

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

you are now admitting a plane hit wtc2, yes?

... all that's really offered as "evidence" is crappy photo analysis.

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

I'm a software engineer.

and as far as "crappy photo analysis", if that's what you want to believe to keep yourself in denial (assuming you're honest), I guess there ain't much I can do about it.

says that you're the one in denial, the discussion is over. There's nothing you or I can do to dig someone out of that kind of entrenchment.

and he's flat wrong on his alignment on a B757 with the Shanksville crater.

So clearly he's in denial about something.

is possibly thinking that he might be able to talk you down. But that's not in evidence either.

... I am not wrong about the Shanksville crater, as any reasonably intelligent person can easily see by the graphics I've posted. You simply don't understand what you are looking at, and you refuse every attempt to explain it. Keep that bullshit on your blog, and I couldn't care less. Keep bringing it here, and I'll rub your nose in it, every time, whether or not you understand it.

"Keep bringing it here, and I'll rub your nose in it, every time, whether or not you understand it."

Dude based on what you've shown, you couldn't rub off a lottey ticket with silver dollar and three people helping you.

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

Seriously we "untruthers" are quite used to no-planers falling way short on understanding just about anything of substanse.

nt

See, you can do something of substance.

That's about as good as you can do, so enjoy it.

Did you do it on purpose? It could just be ironic, I suppose.

go behind where you put the wing. And you still assume the fuselage would make a unreasonably tiny initial impact gouge.

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



You keep claiming that you're going to prove that UA93 didn't crash there. Your inability to understand how these things could happen is far, far short of proof that it didn't happen. You offer wild speculation but your proofs fail, leaving you with nothing at all to back up your speculations except to say that you don't understand how this could happen. All you've really got is more denial.

I've proved that the smoke trail shown in the Schwittek photo is perfectly consistent with the engine landing at Church and Murray, which disproves the conclusion you drew from your so-called "analysis," where you completely ignored the viewpoint and perspective of a photo. As anyone who has followed your misadventures here might notice, ignoring perspective is one of your persistent failings, and you just never "get it."

and I'm not convinced. In particular, the bottom figure is a good match for the photo but the street position isn't clear and the trajectory ends in the wrong place. There must be a better way to show the position. Also, I have to trust your arc extension, when when I presented a similar arc extension, no one was willing to believe it-- they wanted to see my math.

The major problem was your entire approach: You were using a photo that was at an angle to the buildings, and at a fairly large angle to the trajectory of the engine, but you did your distance estimates as if the photo and your drawing was perpendicular to both. There's no point in being precise about the exact trajectory when you make a mistake THAT large. And that's not the first time http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x224391#225014">you made a similar mistake, as I recall.

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

I may not have taken the angles to perfect account, however the angle foreshortening effect isn't nearly as critical in my engine shot as in that plane picture.

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

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

> "But your diagram was ambiguous as to where the engine landed."

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

But let's take a look at http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/11/hey-whered-that-engine-come-from.html">your first blog posting on this, which is based on a video which you used to estimate the trajectories of two large pieces of debris:



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



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

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



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



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



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

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

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

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

-- the engine doesn't quite get to that spot unless it rolls quite a bit. Which is possible-- as I initially thought. But it's unlikely it would have rolled and landed on that particular end. And you would think the engine landing in the street initially would have created rather a big crater, which someone would have filmed. Quite possibly the engine would have lodged into the asphalt as soon as it impacted and gotten stuck there.

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

Points you still haven't addressed:
1) that engine officially hit a floor slab as it entered the tower, which really would would have strongly impeded the path of the engine through the tower
2) it's still not clear that the trajectory wasn't blocked by one of the large buildings in the path-- particularly there's a big building right before the "landing site"
3) the engine was found at an angle from the tower very different from the plane path angle.

No, I didn't "basically show what (you) initially found." You "found" that the engine couldn't possibly reach that corner. I find that it easily could, even if it didn't bounce, and even if I use your own trajectory (but not stop because I ran out of paper):



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

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



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



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

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

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

tactic of "it COULD" have happened. Best of all, your sleight of hand trick lets you off the hook of having to deal with
the much more likely fact that the engine part was planted, just like so many researchers have long contended.

Stupid fake evidence tricks for sale by "w. seger & company".

... jump right in and show me where I'm wrong, mouth.

Everyone knows that engine part didn't fly there. It was placed there. Who do you think you're fooling - naive DUers?

"Everyone knows"? That's obviously untrue, no matter how heartily you call out the people who refuse to agree with it.

ETA: By the way, got any witnesses for when and how an engine was "placed" at the corner of Church and Murray?

I guess you missed the point (again): Spooky is claiming to have proof that it couldn't happen. I have shown that his proof fails.

In your little world of delusion, perhaps it's conventional to use the "reasoning" that since it didn't happen, then all the videos and photos must have been faked, and the engine must have been planted, and all the witnesses must be lying. In the real world, you don't give sensible people any reason at all to take you seriously.

It might make sense if your purpose is to divert attention away from the basic problem that most DUers know that the engine
part was planted. You must think most people here are so dense they'll fall for your diversionary tactics and forget that
they've long known that crucial evidence was faked and some was planted.

Riiiiiight. What could be clearer than that "most DUers" agree with everything you say?

BTW, most DUers who post on this forum agree that 9/11 was an inside job. You would too, if you knew more about it than just
what you were told by the corporate media. Have the Untruthers convinced you that Bush and the MSM told the truth about 911?
Wait, I know. You too have "questions" about parts of the Official conspiracy but that doesn't mean you believe every
crazy theory that comes down the pike - that about right?

First of all, where am I supposed to find a pilot, and more to the point, why should I expect a pilot to have a strong or informed opinion about what would happen to the engine of a jumbo jet that flew into one of the Twin Towers? If we're going to consult experts, how about experts with relevant expertise?

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

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

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

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

I bow in obeisance to your boundless knowledge -- and, oh yes, your dazzling charisma.

You seem to have a lot of difficulty with the definition of common words. It's an extremely well documented and accepted FACT that UA175 hit WTC2, and that one engine part was found at Church and Murray. You insult the board with your empty claim that "most DUers know that the engine part was planted." Thankfully, only a tiny handful of DUers seem to be that delusional, and they don't "know" any such thing -- they simply assume it, for no good reason. Spooky claims he can prove that it couldn't have happened, which would mean all that evidence must have been faked, which would mean it should not be accepted as fact. Unfortunately, his proof fails. Miserably. And I see that as usual, you have absolutely nothing to contribute to the "debate" but naked assertions and denial, along with insinuations that anyone who doesn't buy this idiotic bullshit must be an accomplice after the fact. Very impressive.

I think you're afraid to ask a real pilot for his opinion about your engine flight theory.

Why in hell would I "ask a pilot" -- or anyone else, for that matter -- what happened to UA175's engine, when I can see for myself what happened, in numerous videos and photos? What do you expect would happen to it, if it came barreling out of the building at a couple hundred miles per hour? What "theory" are you even talking about? Momentum and gravity? Sorry, but I have no idea what point you're so unsuccessfully trying to make.

You keep telling me that all that evidence is fake, but unfortunately it appears that your reasoning is simply ass-backwards: You think the evidence must be fake because there wasn't any plane. Sorry, but it's pretty dang clear by now that you have no rational reason for your bizarre belief system, so rational people are never going to take you seriously. I think you need to find a better way to deal with that than just repeating it over and over on a forum.

be an expert in this area?

this time what you showed is much easier to see what is going on.

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

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

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

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

... instead of fooling around with diagrams, all you have to do is get an accurate estimate for how fast it was going and how high up it was when it left the building. Then, calculate out how long it would take for something to hit the ground falling from that height. Gravity is a constant acceleration, so an object will take the same amount of time to hit the ground whether it's moving horizontally or dropping straight down. So, given the speed, you just need to calculate how far it would travel horizontally in that amount of time, and you're finished. If you want more precision, you'll need to adjust both the average speed and the falling time for air resistance, but given the limited accuracy of measurements taken from a video anyway, I doubt that will make much difference.

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

I'm not a psychic, but I predict another failure to prove that the engine couldn't get that far.

of whether or not it's even theoretically possible. Forget about whether or not the damn thing was planted. That's a given.
The argument now is a theoretical one about how far a jet engine could fly. (actually, I believe it' been reduced to include a modifer now - so make that jet engine PART -- later that could, if necessary be further modified so that the statement would be "jet engine decal")

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

Good luck, Spooked911. At least you can be thankful that you have a worthy, honorable opponent, who is scrupulously fair, despite
the fact that there's no way you can win.

If you have nothing to contribute, STFU.

or manual on how to divert attention, distract, and otherwise suppress those who disagree with Bush's BS 9/11 lies.

if you calculate it with the Church and Murray distance, it works out to something like 100 mph, don't remember the exact number--

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

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



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

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

Something is screwy.

Perhaps the eject is not a solid object, but rather an item that burns up as it is traveling and thus loses momentum.

so using this site
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/traj.html

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



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

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


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

Anyway-- something is screwy.

Perhaps the eject is not a solid object, but rather an item that burns up as it is traveling and thus loses momentum.

... to that light post on the northeast corner of Church and Murray which is seen in the engine photos.

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

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

...or sometime overnight --

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

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

down into that spot!!!

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

because they know that there can't be a genuine 2nd hit video because no planes crashed into WTC2 or anywhere else on 9/11, so

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

longtime faves of Untruthers everywhere.

''planted'' at church and murray streets, then people might buy your ''no-plane'' bullshit. you know, it's truly amazing how someone could manage to have even less credibility than the bush administration.

and the 2nd hit videos have the ring of bullshit.

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

Note that one of the curiosities of the engine was that it turned up UNDER a construction canopy.

how would someone have ''sprinkled a few extra plane parts on the street'' and no one noticed it? also, are you deliberately trying to conflate a construction canopy with a tarp? what is so curious about the engine landing under a construction canopy?

... as demonstrated by the fact that they form a perfect stereographic pair, taken about 20 feet apart:



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

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

except that the perps filmed the towers at slightly different angles-- which I suspect they did for modeling purposes, allowing them to create an endless number of second hit videos

In other words, since the videos are all faked, then whatever the videos show just proves they're all faked.

but showing that two planes shots represent different angles doesn't constitute proof that the videos are real either

Every piece of footage was done by "perps"? And not one single photo was taken with no planes?

:)

and yes, to the first-- at least any plane was put in by perps. There could be honest footage that was manipulated.

Either not one single person (non-perp person) in NYC that morning captured it on film... or... They did but it was then altered and they have decided to not say anything and instead go along with the cover-up?

some honest people who caught something weird were coerced to have their videos altered. does that answer your question?

I mean... It tells me what you believe. I have no idea how you resolve it, it makes absolutely no sense to me. Do you have any idea just how much the towers stood out? How far away they could be seen?

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

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

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

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

Sorry, but I honestly have no idea how you account for this.

raises some questions, but I'll just ask two for now.

Do you know what time WTC began to collapse?

Do you know what time the first video images were shown on network television?

When?

but the impossible crash physics and the clearly bogus videos trump all.

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

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

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

The people who never saw the plane go in certainly think they just missed it, being constantly brain-washed by the playing of the plane videos over and over.

"but the impossible crash physics and the clearly bogus videos trump all."

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

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

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

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

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

AND... if you were to be correct, they were able to do this... without one single picture or video getting out... Eight years later, not one single person willing to talk about it out of the millions that went through it. Not one?

You said "There were, literally, millions... MILLIONS (one big fucking number) of people within range that had the potential to capture the event on film."

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

You and your fellow Untruthers talk a good insult game, but when it comes time for YOUR team to produce evidence, you don't have any.
Tricks, yes. Doctored videos, yes. BS --- megatons of it. Videos that show real airliners crashing on 9/11? HELL no. Why not, big talker? Why not?

Please show one real expert (not some nameless schlub off the internet) that shows conclusively the videos were faked.

oh... and after you do that, care to address the topic at hand in this sub-thread? or are you going to keep trying to de-rail it?

You claim millions of people could have photographed WTC2 being crashed into by an airliner, but when you are asked to produce
just one single authentic video showing a plane crash into the building (or any other buildings on 9/11), you can't.

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

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

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

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

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

9/11, there must be numerous videos which, prior to being ''doctored'', show explosions with no plane, yet no one has come forward with said video. so, you're asking us to believe all those who shot vide that day are ''in on it'' too? do you realize how batshit crazy that is? this is why you have no credibility here.

You cannot supply any reputable sources to prove the videos are fake and your going to continue to try and de-rail this sub-thread. Interesting.

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

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

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

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

oh... and maybe address what I am actually talking about here. How was it insured that all evidence was taken without word getting out that it was done?

... or at least, not a single one that no-planers have actually proved is fake. But I recognize that you have some difficulty understanding what that word means. To you, it seems to mean that someone said so in a YouTube video.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

of course you can't. so, all these people were coerced, yet no one has come forward?

... there's a hell of a lot more in the world than no-planers to be nervous about. Now, ferinstance, these 2012ers make me nervous -- no telling what demonstrably irrational people might do if they think it's the end of the world.

There's no other plausible reason I can think of. Oh, wait, yes there is. And every Untruther here knows it. So do most DUers.

Why do you imply that they are not "real" DUers?

Why do you imply that they are not "real" DUers?

I think you will find that I eschew the term "truther," favoring CT advocate or CD advocate, or even discussion opponent instead. And I do not think that anyone here is not a DUer, nor do I ever imply such a thing. I think that many CT advocates are misguided and throwing their best energies away when it could be accomplished shared goals. But I do think that we share goals here.

And shared goals are the only standard for determining DU membership or not.

Read it fairly quickly but the observer points out how lucky the guy would have had

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

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

simply stunning. Why, indeed, would someone just happen to have a camera trained on the ares where the second plane hit? Try this little exercise. Note where the first tower was struck. Note the proximity of the towers to each other. Now, answer this question. How would it be unlikely that someone would be filming the damage to 1st tower and manage to also record the attack oin the second tower?

I swear, if "truthers" would just take some critical thinking classes, a lot of this nonsense would never see the light of day where it frankly embarrasses all of us liberals. The fact that "truthers" are not embarrassed by it only goes in the direction of proving my point.

think critically about their own theories?

we shouldn't and, of course, we don't.

How many times was KSM waterboarded?

You just can't make this stuff up. "a very narrow area" apparently is now defined as a building 220 feet across and over a 1000 feet tall.

its all about kinetic energy baby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS2bIaFGWO0

the problem is that the planes wouldn't have sliced effortlessly through the outer wall and then completely disintegrated once inside.

I am sure the act of slicing through the outer wall would have done a lot of damage to the plane. And of course hitting the massive core columns in the center of the building might have contributed somewhat to the further disintegration once inside the tower.

--it's path isn't even slightly deflected

--and the tail disappears without going in

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

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

--all sorts of weirdness with the videos


--but the one nonetheless I am sure you will never budge from the official story

what is there to damage or deflect the rest of the plane? As to the tail, I suspect that it has more to do with the resolution of the footage and/or digital artifacts due to compression. It is not like there are any high definition shots of the impact.

If you want to hang your case on amateur analysis of shitty video, knock your self out. I will become a no-planer when you produce a shot of the second explosion that does not show a plane - you know as well as I do that without that you have no case.

that clearly shows no manipulation...

I suspect they will never release the good footage. Gee, what do they have to hide?

what source of high resolution images haven't we seen?

And how do you explain the lack of footage of the second explosion without a plane? How can that be possible?

"they" are the product of spooked911's fevered imagination.

isn't that obvious?

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

these people didn't happen to be filming the south face as it exploded-- why would they, if there was no plane?

on 911? Are government film crews routinely out and about just in case something spectacular happens and needs to be filmed in high res?

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

What if they were filming the fires from the other tower? Lots of people were doing that - surely one of them caught the other tower exploding?

such as the Fairbanks footage. I even filed a FOIA with the FBI to get a copy of Fairbanks video, but they claimed some bogus exemption.

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


David Handschuh, among other others, never saw the plane but saw the explosion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmMZQFRzFY

or are the truthers simply twisting his words? Do you have evidence that he was even in a position to see the plane?

watch the video I linked. He's not a "truther".

There are a couple others like him, though I'd have to take some time to dig them up.

which means he would have had an eye up to the viewfinder...why would you think it odd he didn't see the plane under those circumstances?

Ask the government. But those of us who spend more time reading history than trying to suppress it, know that the government
has a long history of filming its black operations. In addition to all of the films which citizens turned over to
various government and law enforcement authorities immediately after JFK's assassination. The authorities even forced people
to turn over cameras, some of whose owners reported that film was exposed before the cameras were returned to them. Others reported that the government withheld film/photos.

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

You would know these things if you worked the JFK forums, but then you'd just be doing the same thing as what you do here:
"impressing" readers with your truth-suppression tactics and disinformation. Truth is, you most likely DO know these things.

the lack of video evidence is proof that it was all confiscated by the government?Is that really what you think?

In a digital age with wide spread proliferation of recording devices and an event with potentially hundreds of thousands of witnesses, the plotters thought that they could control the imagery of 911? Really?

explosions to erupt at WTC2. It is odd though, that no credible witnesses reported seeing a plane crash into the building EXCEPT
for when they were watching a video on TV. Also strange that TV networks would only show low-resolution videos. Don't they have
high resolution cameras? Or, is it the case that the images became fuzzier as the result of when they were doctored to insert the
CGI planes? Isn't it also possible that after the videos were doctored, the networks realized that they were too clear to fool people into believing they contained real airplanes, so they had to fuzz them up in order to make the lie at least plausible enough
for the few times that the general public would ever see them on network television.

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

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

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

Thanks.

The second impact was only 17 minutes later - wouldn't you have your camcorder out and recording if you were there? And because the towers were so close to each other, can't you see how, by filming WTC1, one would most likely catch the plane hitting WTC2? You do understand this simple logic, don't you?

I have to laugh at your "suspicious bona fides" comments - we all know that in this case that smear encompasses everyone that disagrees with your CT.

hack89, you hack me off. I wish there was some signal you could give to let readers know if one of
your messages has a substantive response to the message you're replying to.

as reciprocity, right? It would be a good thing to keep in mind if you want substantive responses to your posts in the future.

who actually saw the plane strike the second tower in real time are credible? Dude, you are a hoot.

is just a prankster. It is beyond reasonable to believe anyone could seriously believe what he posts.

What is your educational background?

I have a Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering

and

A Masters Degree in Engineering Management.


How about you?

or was that another LARED who posted here?

and that's the sort of thing I would remember.

and he said he was a chemical engineer. In any case, I'd like to hear LARED's response.

Early symptom of old timers?

my question?

What is your educational background?

Our educational backgrounds are to be scrutinized, but not theirs. :eyes:

The issue is credibility and apparently some people are of the opinion that some Untruthers are a little light in that department.
No one really cares what kind of degree, if any, "lared" has - though we know it isn't in English, in spite of the fact that
his posts have far fewer grammatical and punctuation errors than in the past. I know, I know. He uses spell check now. Which is
another reason why his messages don't sound like they were written by someone from across the pond somewhere.

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

Have a rice day.

Well, as you say, the issue is credibility. :eyes:

You've been posting here less than a month.

If his educational background isn't the issue, then why did you ask him what it was? (post #123, in case you forgot)

been able to place a name to him. The style definitely seems familiar.

After reading your post I ran it through the trusted LARED irony meter and it broke by going off scale. Now I have to pay the technician $60 to recalibrate.

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

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

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

So why did you ask?

Also please be aware my spelling sucked long before I become a DU'er. Most likely sucked when you were in diapers. Spell check is my friend for many years, and before spell check a dictionary was my friend. We are on a BB and one one seems to care.

a freshmen in HS could be construed as lacking the experience to "discuss" these matters, so I really can't blame them.

Apparently you're misquoting him. However, he did use the words "I'm," "engineer," and "chemical" in the same sentence -- and someone else called him "Mr. Chemical Engineer." So that may account for your recollection.

Four years ago he said he was a mechanical engineer. Oddly, that exactly matches his response now. :shrug: (I may be violating DU rules by revealing all this; I will leave that to other people's interpretation.)

but perhaps a good lawyer could parse the words used by that particular person in order to try to minimize the damage to his reputation for veracity.

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

Maybe he'll tell us what he recalls from that date 9/11/91.

I worked as a mechanical engineer in Bayonne, NJ. In fact here is a picture I took a few years before 9/11 from the top of the structure with a telephoto lens.



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

As for the coded message about "that particular person," I myself didn't receive it. It might be best to leave it there.

nt

I have worked largely in the Chemical Industry as a Mechanical engineer.

Does that help?

Still Waiting


me- telecomunications

still waiting

debate is "truth-suppression".

I'm just curious. When you're in a mall and you approach one of those mall directories that says "you are here", do you ever wonder how "they" know exactly where you are?

who filmed it all