Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Now, this so-called fuselage coming through.

If that is a fuselage emerging as a largish object, then where did it go to in the subsequent footage? We don't see anything like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhXioCl5AjU

On the other hand, if it is part of the engine, then we do see it continue to exit and follow a ballistic trajectory.

I wonder what would happen if we compared the size of the object exiting, as compared to the known size of the fuselage? I believe we'll find that the exiting object does NOT match the size of the fuselage.

Another NON-ANSWER.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This video clearly shows WTC 1 suffering a buckling and collapse at the impact site, without the need for any demolitions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...41151&q=WTC

Nothing of the sort.

Jack

Then you must be blind. You see the corner buckle inwards and the top collapse.

The CROPPED video shows one corner of the building collapsing, BUT DOES NOT

SHOW WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING. Of course that corner collapsed when the whole

building collapsed, but from this cropped video clip NO CONCLUSIONS MAY BE DRAWN

about what else was happening. The point is irrelevant anyway, since it was impossible

for the entire building to collapse AT FREE FALL SPEED as if there was NO RESISTANCE

from the floors below. That is impossible. This is basic physics.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While there are yet more one could cite, the other main violation of physics in the offiical conspiracy version is there is not enough energy, by far, in the PE (potential energy) of the gravitational collapse, alone, to account for the energy output calculated [by several competant experts] for the ejection or materials, pyroclastic cloud, and pulverization of concrete. The extra energy had to come from somewhere

As far as I know the only person who hás tried to demonstrate this is Jim Hoffman who doesn’t really qualify as a “competent expert” he is a computer programmer. Another computer programmer, Mike King of 911 Myths, has pointed out numerous errors in Hoffman’s work.

He may have underestimated the amount of potential energy (PE) released by the collapses he used an estimate in the FEMA report prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Structural Engineers Association of New York and several other engineering associations for the amount ot PE stored by “Construction of WTC 1” which apparently would not account for the PE added by the building’s contents. The number was 7.5 X lower than an estimate in a draft version of the report.

He over estimated the amount of energy released in several ways most importantly:

1) assuming with out any justification the dust clouds were dispersed by heat and

2) over estimating the degree of pulverization of concrete. He was even contradicted by Dr. Steven Jones on this.

http://911myths.com/html/pulverised_concrete.html

King said “Several people have said” that the PE was insufficient but the only others I’ve seen cite Hoffman or simply state it as a fact. The link to the earlier (higher) ASCE estimate is now “dead” but is on file on the “Wayback Machine”

http://web.archive.org/web/20070531182944/...2/0502feat.html

Dr. Frank Greening a physical chemist who was a whistle blower against the nuclear power plant he worked at and a former member of the “Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven” (a 9/11CT group) and who still seem to suspect MIHOP wrote a paper contradicting Hoffman

http://911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

Other 9/11 papers by Greening and other authors can be found here:

http://911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

pyroclastic cloud

When you can find us someone better qualified than Hoffman to say the could was "pyroclastic" get back to us. If it had been every one who came in to contact with it would have been burnt to a crisp

Jack is correct that the speed of fall is another violation of physics.

1 - The speed of the collapses is a matter of dispute but even Hoffman says it took about 16 seconds, engineers from MIT and Northwestern calculated the buildings structure only have added minimally to the collapse times

The heat generated to melt steel [found in the basements] is yet another.

There is no forensic evidence of molten of once molten steel at the WTC. There are a few eyewitness reports of molten steel but it is quite possible the witnesses saw other types of metal (with lower melting points) they presumed to be steel. Out of the hundreds or thousands of people at GZ during the rescue and clean up about half a dozen said they saw molten steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wood is a complete loon. In this video even a physics PhD who is a member of the "truth movement" isn't buying her nonsense. Here she compares the structure of the WTC to food in a microwave oven and admits she hasn't done any calculations yet.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

Her lawsuit will fail because it is meritless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wood is a complete loon. In this video even a physics PhD who is a member of the "truth movement" isn't buying her nonsense. Here she compares the structure of the WTC to food in a microwave oven and admits she hasn't done any calculations yet.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

Her lawsuit will fail because it is meritless

Apparently the case was ordered as dismissed, without merit, and the dismissal is being appealed.

The motion is worded such that (bolding added) “the NIST report is “fraud” …. “The defendants herein provided millions of dollars of fraudulent expert consulting services to NIST by participating in an investigation that ‘did not investigate the actual collapses’, irrespective of the above quoted title. Not only that, the nature of the scheme consisted primarily in obfuscation through a process of excessive detail, preparation of minutiae so as to deceive the public and the government into thinking NCSTAR 1 was both valid and thorough, when it was not. NCSTAR 1 is so text intense that the defendant Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) required six (6) separate filings simply to download the basic 298 page NCSTAR 1 report into the record in this case. And, that basic report is but the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of subterfuge……….

material which, as will be confirmed hereunder, was intentionally fraudulent and was prepared so as to be fraudulent, deceptive and misleading in the extreme by reliance upon excessive detail of useless information.”

“There are several elements to the defendants’ intentional misuse of the issue of particularity. The complaint herein consists in both the complaint itself, together with its Exhibits A – E. Those exhibits include the detailed Requests for Correction (RFC) that are also Exhibits A – C of plaintiff’s affidavit. The RFCs themselves include other data, such as witness statements in order to provide a valid factual basis for all assertions made in the RFCs and in the complaint (as well as herein). The said exhibits contain the particulars that comprise the nature of the fraud and how it was committed.”

In effect Dr. Judy Wood has declared the NIST report fraudulent by over-use of detail, minutiae, and ‘particularity’ (whatever that is). While her documentation is described as…

In addition, in what can only be described as a masterpiece of informative but nonetheless concise detail, this court is respectfully referred to the annexed Affidavit of Dr. Judy Wood (plaintiff’s affidavit). In it, she confirms why and how the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed and she proves that the use of directed energy weapons was a causal factor and that the after effects of the use of such weapons has resulted in a non-self-quenching process meaning the destructive process continues to the present.”

“Plaintiff’s RFC states why NCSTAR 1 is fraudulent and plaintiff’s RFC details why and how the claim that the Twin Towers were destroyed by directed energy weaponry is substantiated by the evidence that plaintiff has presented. That evidence resulted in a subsequent, specific, rather than general, admission that NIST did not investigate, let alone analyze or make findings with respect to that part of the event, the destructive episode that NIST and the contractors who are defendants herein, were supposed to have reported on.”

“Right at page 6 of plaintiff’s RFC (Exhibit A) she plainly states:”

“1. The Towers did not collapse.”

“2. Tipping top of the south tower falsifies the NIST “inevitable collapse” scenario.”

“3. Particularized destructive effects that NIST ignored, thus rendering NCSTAR 1’s conclusions incomplete, inadequate, misleading and/or fraudulent:

A. Empty Holes indicative of Unusual Energy Impacts.

B. Almost complete lack of rubble that is likewise indicative of Unusual Energy Impacts

C. Evidence of Vehicular burn effects, damages effects and literal Toasting of Cars that are indicative of Unusual and Unexplained by NIST Energy Impacts.

D. Degree of destruction of material that resulted in “Dustification” of the massive Twin Tower and WTC complex structures (other than WTC 7) that are, yet again, indicative of Unusual Energy Impacts that are Unexplained by NIST.”

“And that is merely page 6 of plaintiff’s RFC. Throughout the remainder of her RFC, plaintiff uses data and evidence to demonstrate that those unusual energy impacts are, in fact, consistent with directed energy weaponry.”

Equally important, plaintiff names the defendants herein as having committed fraud by virtue of the following clearly stated declaration in her RFC:”

“…I assert that NIST contractors, as listed in NCSTAR 1, including by way of non-exhaustive example, those listed below, either knew or should have known of the falsity of NCSTAR 1 as it relates to the use of directed energy weapons.”

So,…The defendants are guilty of non-exhaustive example, excessive detail, falsity with respect to deliberate ignorance of directed energy weaponry, obfuscation through extreme reliance on excessive detail of useless information, and preparation of minutiae, so as to deceive…”

While Ms. Woods documentation is, “A masterpiece”.

This case will be dismissed as being without merit, … again.

Where is Ellen Lloyd when you need her?

If nothing else, at least its entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for responding.

It's not like i'm new to the field of research; i'm not anybody important but i am good at it and i've been doing this for over half my life.

I have Mr. Griffin's work, have read "Deep Politics" before "parapolitics" became a household word, i'm working thru "9/11 and American Empire" and i have that roundtable on tape, and of course Paul Thompson's outstanding timeline. My point is, i'm not some guy reading his first book.

Which is why i came here with my question.

Tarpley's list of military ops is fascinating, and i really want to follow up on those.

Aplogies, Mr. Lemkin, but he really slams Ward Churchill on pg. vi, vii; this is not a disagreement, i've seen people argue and this is character assassination.

And insulting people like Goodman and Palast, (pg.xviii)....that just turns me off. One of my "criteria" as i navigate the shadows of hidden truth, private misinformation and secret government disinformation, has been: how does this person treat those whom i've already come to know as true?

It's one of a few and a small one; e.g. if someone says "Well Mr. Scott is a whack job and has no idea what he's talking about." You just lost a lot of credibility in my eyes. Little things like that help me separate the wheat from the chaff. I know it's possible for me to be deceived, therefore i'm very careful about what i accept as true.

Live nuclear bombs ready to be launched? That's the first i've heard of that (pg. xii).

It's been a long, long time since i've read a book that threw me off balance, and with no citations how do i follow up to see if a claim is true?

Regards,

Randy

I hadn't read the new Preface, and yes he does slam Ward Churchill, whom I feel good about. I've been in this kind of research a long time and sadly find this kind of fellow-progressive bashing goes on. I wouldn't find it reason to discount his take on 911. Remember there are also little 'gremlins' about trying to create just this kind of split in the progressive movement [though others are internally generated for a variety of reasons]. [[i have a good researcher friend who will NOT even talk with Peter Dale Scott. I trust both of them, but they have some personal issue there.]]

He does have some citations, but, agreed, not as many as he should. Others have documented most of the war-games he mentions and they can be found on the internet.

Aye, you've a good point there.

Regards,

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm familiar with the... 'most popular' idea that 93 was shot down.

Which obviously contradicts the idea that it landed somewhere, as stated above.

It would seem to me to be a rather simple thing to verify. The statement that the county coroner arrived at the crash site and said "There's nothing for me to do here, there aren't any bodies." Find him and ask him.

Was that airport (that 93 landed at) really evacuated due to a bomb scare for x period of time?

In the end, it's not worth getting divisive over the actual fate of 93, the point is: our government has shown us a patch of basically scorched earth, in a flimsy attempt at an obvious lie -why does the government feel the need to tell a lie about a hijacked airliner? And that, to me is the real point.

(TWA 800)

(KAL 007)

(etc.)

Regards,

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good book to 'catch on to Colby' with is Praise From A Future Generation [about the early JFK researchers and critics of the offical fraud version of the JFK Assassination]. The book covers very well 'Colby-types' in the early days who were either in denial or there to cast doubt and to obscure for the very persons who were complicit in the events. His 'points' above don't even deserve a response - they are so off the mark and false. All have been dealt with on this Forum before and are for anyone on the internet. The excuse-makers for those complicit, like to constantly repeat and repeat the lies [the old canard by propaganda types] In denial or in cahoots? Time will tell.

I notice the same reaction as always: don't try to refute the points, just dodge them and attack the person who makes them.

Blah, blah, blah. Yes Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CROPPED video shows one corner of the building collapsing, BUT DOES NOT

SHOW WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING. Of course that corner collapsed when the whole building collapsed, but from this cropped video clip NO CONCLUSIONS MAY BE DRAWN about what else was happening. The point is irrelevant anyway, since it was impossible for the entire building to collapse AT FREE FALL SPEED as if there was NO RESISTANCE from the floors below. That is impossible. This is basic physics.

Jack

I'll concede that it does not show what else is happening; that much is true. I'm not sure if I would call it 'cropped' though, because the camera was zoomed towards that area at the time. Nothing has been removed from the original image / footage - it simply does not show everything that is going on.

What it does show at least is that the area in question buckled inwards, causing a collapse at that corner. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the collapse continued in the same fashion that it started - especially when we see footage from other angles and see nothing that would lead us to believe the collapse would not have continued.

The claim of "free fall" is by no means supported - in fact, it is widely disputed:

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

The NIST report analyzes the failure mechanism in detail. An early analysis explains that the kinetic energy of the upper portion of the building falling onto the story below exceeded by an order of magnitude the amount of energy that the lower story could absorb,[19] crushing it and adding to the kinetic energy. This scenario repeated with each successive story, crushing the entire tower at near free-fall speed.[20]

[19] http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b.../Papers/405.pdf

[20] http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b.../Papers/466.pdf

Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_t...ld_Trade_Center

Some conspiracy theorists are puzzled about why the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speed on Sept. 11, 2001. They suppose that the speed of collapse is evidence that something or someone must have destroyed the structural integrity of the undamaged lower part of each tower.

After all, they reason, "only the upper floors of the building were damaged, so why did the lower floors collapse, and why did they fall so fast?"

This web page answers those questions, simply enough for even a conspiracy theorist to comprehend (I hope). I do use some simple math and some very basic physics, but even if you don't understand that part you should still be able to comprehend the basic reasons that the towers fell so fast.

http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good book to 'catch on to Colby' with is Praise From A Future Generation [about the early JFK researchers and critics of the offical fraud version of the JFK Assassination]. The book covers very well 'Colby-types' in the early days who were either in denial or there to cast doubt and to obscure for the very persons who were complicit in the events. His 'points' above don't even deserve a response - they are so off the mark and false. All have been dealt with on this Forum before and are for anyone on the internet. The excuse-makers for those complicit, like to constantly repeat and repeat the lies [the old canard by propaganda types] In denial or in cahoots? Time will tell.

I notice the same reaction as always: don't try to refute the points, just dodge them and attack the person who makes them.

Blah, blah, blah. Yes Peter.

Once again when unable to argue the facts Lemkin resorts to personal attacks and changing the subject. His argument seems to be “the CT’s were right about the JFK assassination, therefore they are right about 9/11”. Based on the results of my poll here and the comments of 9/11 CT’s such as “Tink” Thompson, John Simkin, Steve Turner, Martin Shakelford etc here and elsewhere it seems that many or most don’t subscribe to such specious logic.

If my points were really as “off the mark and false” as he pretends he should be able to effortlessly refute them. If he knows of anyone more qualified than Hoffman who claims there was an energy deficit or found errors in 911 Myths debunking why not tell? The goes if I were wrong about the collapse times and moten “steel”. Were Drs. Kausel (MIT) Bazant and Zhou (Northwestern) wrong about the amount of time the structures of the towers would have added to the collapses, perhaps Lemkin would be will to explain this.

He is right that these points “all have been dealt with on this Forum before”, the “truthers” keep bringing them up with little or no evidence and the “debunkers” keep debunking them. The “truthers” don’t refute the rebuttals but keep bring the specious points up as if they hadn’t been previously mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't really clear what is emerging from the south tower, Evan is right that it is unlikely to be the fuselage because it seems to disperse a few frames later.

Another non-answer.

Jack

How is that not an answer? What you, the person who though the engine part was in the garbage can, thinks is the fuselage obviously isn't because it dissipates. My best guess is that it is a mix if smoke, dust and small debris being ejected by the force of the impact.

Riddle me this Batman, if it is the intact fuselage why and how does it dissipate so quickly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't really clear what is emerging from the south tower, Evan is right that it is unlikely to be the fuselage because it seems to disperse a few frames later.

Another non-answer.

Jack

Sorry Jack, but it IS an answer.

(Sorry to hijack your thread, Randy)

If a basically intact fuselage came through the building, then we should be able to see that intact fuselage flying through the air and landing somewhere.... but we don't. Where did it go? Perhaps a better question is - is the assumption of a fuselage correct in the first place, when it is not supported by the visual and physical evidence?

On the other hand, if we we assume it is parts of the fuselage, debris, etc... along with the central core of one of the engines flying through there, does anything support this?

We can see an object consistent with the size of an engine trail away on a ballistic trajectory, and the remains of an engine to be found in the predicted impact area; we can see pieces of fuselage and debris found on buildings, etc.

FEMAAircraftparts-full.jpg

k2-full.jpg

The facts fit the second theory, not the first.

It is an answer, Jack - just one you are unwilling to acknowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm familiar with the... 'most popular' idea that 93 was shot down.

Which obviously contradicts the idea that it landed somewhere, as stated above.

It would seem to me to be a rather simple thing to verify. The statement that the county coroner arrived at the crash site and said "There's nothing for me to do here, there aren't any bodies." Find him and ask him.

If you go back to the original source you’ll see that the coroner was quoted out of context. There were no bodies because the plane they were in hit the ground at over 500 mph. The coroner has spoken repeatedly about how he and others recovered body parts from around the crash scene and how he personally identified many of the victims from fingerprints and dental records.

Steve Turner started a thread about flt 93 that stretched to several pages, rather rehash points that have already been discussed there go over it and see if there are any points you still have doubts about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...