FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Evan Burton]

Thanks Jack. It does look like they were taken at the same time. Do you have any further details about them, specifically where they were taken from? Do they actually contain a time stamp?

Here is another comparison suggestive of CGI. For the anticipated replies of

DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT, there is a 6 degree difference, provably too little to

say the plane is hidden by a building.

Jack

Jack,

Would you mind posting the proof they are taken at the exact same time? I don't think that is correct, so would like to see what evidence there is to say they are.

Thanks.

Here is the evidence. I left out all the frames in bewteen.

Jack

[Len Colby]

Here is another comparison suggestive of CGI. For the anticipated replies of

DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT, there is a 6 degree difference, provably too little to

say the plane is hidden by a building.

Jack

Jack,

Would you mind posting the proof they are taken at the exact same time? I don't think that is correct, so would like to see what evidence there is to say they are.

Thanks.

Here is the evidence. I left out all the frames in bewteen.

Jack

Yes Jack the bottom fromes seem to have been taken at the same time but were the top ones? Please provide a link to the supposed videos so that we can confirm for ourselves that one showed the approch of the 767 and the other didn't. Remember that all of CBS`s coverage September 11 - 12, 2001 is available through the Internet Archive.

[Len Colby]

Boeing engineer wonders "how stupid" people like Greer are"

So are members allowed to call each other stupid now? It it alright to suggest that Mr. White is stupid?

.......

Last year, Morgan Reynolds interviewed Joseph Keith.

"Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer

Thus he is not really qualified to opine on what he does

He also says that the planes would have shaken themselves apart at that altitude at over about 220 mph, and also something to the effect that the thicker air would also have stalled the engines. The government claims that the videos show the North Tower "plane" ("Flight 11") travelling at about 450 mph, and the South Tower "plane" ("Flight 175") travelling at over 500 mph. (...and in a dive of 10,000 feet descent per minute)

Keith asks "how stupid do you think people should be?" to believe this stuff.

Unless he can produce some calculations his claims are rubbish they seem obviously false as 220 mph is not much below approach speed.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Interesting that you are a hundred percent certain that

an aluminum plane can fly through a wall of steel columns

without breaking up or exploding, against all known laws

of physics. Or maybe I misunderstood your phrase..."I'm 100%

certain that planes truck both towers..."

Jack

1) fluids can be used to cut or make holes in steel, how do you explain this?

2) Why in light of your above statements do you believe the smaller 757 that hit a several foot thick bomb proof wall of the Pentagon should have left a hole equal to its wingspan

3) why would you expect the plane to explone before the fuel tanks hit

4) You are aware that the column trees of the WTC facades were joined together and it is probable that those junctions weren't strong enough to withstand the impact of a jetliner flying into it a 400 - 600 mph? Even the engineers who worked on the towers said planes would have penetraded the building just as the B-24 (or whatever it was) entered the Empire State Building. Cory Liddle's and the teenager in Tampa's planes also had little difficuly penetrating the buildings they crashed into

[Evan Burton]

That's something I missed - the bottom two appear to be from a similar / same frame. Jack, as per my previous request, could you provide some timestamp details (or similar) for the two main images you used? Perhaps a source where we can find out for ourselves? Thanks!

Here is another comparison suggestive of CGI. For the anticipated replies of

DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT, there is a 6 degree difference, provably too little to

say the plane is hidden by a building.

Jack

Jack,

Would you mind posting the proof they are taken at the exact same time? I don't think that is correct, so would like to see what evidence there is to say they are.

Thanks.

Here is the evidence. I left out all the frames in bewteen.

Jack

Yes Jack the bottom fromes seem to have been taken at the same time but were the top ones? Please provide a link to the supposed videos so that we can confirm for ourselves that one showed the approch of the 767 and the other didn't. Remember that all of CBS`s coverage September 11 - 12, 2001 is available through the Internet Archive.

[Jack White]

Thanks Jack. It does look like they were taken at the same time. Do you have any further details about them, specifically where they were taken from? Do they actually contain a time stamp?

Here is another comparison suggestive of CGI. For the anticipated replies of

DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT, there is a 6 degree difference, provably too little to

say the plane is hidden by a building.

Jack

Jack,

Would you mind posting the proof they are taken at the exact same time? I don't think that is correct, so would like to see what evidence there is to say they are.

Thanks.

Here is the evidence. I left out all the frames in bewteen.

Jack

I cannot recall the website where I got the photos. "Timestamp" may not be the

correct word. They were from two different CBS cameras and as I recall the

wording may have been "broadcast times". The one without the plane was only

broadcast once, as I recall. I keep no records of every website I read or

collect photos from. It was about a week ago I collected this image.

Jack

PS...This is obviously NOT EVERY FRAME. As I recall, a uniform number of

frames were skipped between each saved frame. Also, I meant to mention

the obvious difference in color balance. The locations are clearly north of the

Empire State building, since it appears in the lefthand sequence.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Jack White

[Matthew Lewis]

There is an FAA imposed speed limit of 250 knots (~288 mph) below 10,000 feet. Why impose such a speed limit when aircraft would supposedly break up 60+ mph below that?

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...49?OpenDocument

Further, from my time in JSTARS, which is based on a 707 but slightly (only slightly and not really noticeable) less structurally sound due to how they had to attach the radar, the pilots often request high speed on approach. This means they ask to go faster than the imposed speed limit. This request is often granted meaning that the aircraft is going in excess of 250 knots (again ~288 mph). I have seen this both in the US and in the middle east and in both locations have heard regular airline traffic make the same request. It would seem that normal airline aircraft can and DO travel in excess of the 220 mph limit that Keith says would cause an aircraft to shake themselves apart and that they do so at low altitude on approach. Notice in the link above that there is also a 200 knot (~230 mph) speed limit near various airports. Still higher than the 220 mph that Keith says will cause an airliner to break up and still often waived when asked.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Jack White]

Boeing engineer wonders "how stupid" people like Greer are"

So are members allowed to call each other stupid now? It it alright to suggest that Mr. White is stupid?

.......

Last year, Morgan Reynolds interviewed Joseph Keith.

"Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer

Thus he is not really qualified to opine on what he does

He also says that the planes would have shaken themselves apart at that altitude at over about 220 mph, and also something to the effect that the thicker air would also have stalled the engines. The government claims that the videos show the North Tower "plane" ("Flight 11") travelling at about 450 mph, and the South Tower "plane" ("Flight 175") travelling at over 500 mph. (...and in a dive of 10,000 feet descent per minute)

Keith asks "how stupid do you think people should be?" to believe this stuff.

Unless he can produce some calculations his claims are rubbish they seem obviously false as 220 mph is not much below approach speed.

Unless Colby can produce some calculations his claims are rubbish. Keith is an authority, Colby is not.

Jack

[Len Colby]

Thanks Jack. It does look like they were taken at the same time. Do you have any further details about them, specifically where they were taken from? Do they actually contain a time stamp?

Here is another comparison suggestive of CGI. For the anticipated replies of

DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT, there is a 6 degree difference, provably too little to

say the plane is hidden by a building.

Jack

Jack,

Would you mind posting the proof they are taken at the exact same time? I don't think that is correct, so would like to see what evidence there is to say they are.

Thanks.

Here is the evidence. I left out all the frames in bewteen.

Jack

I cannot recall the website where I got the photos. "Timestamp" may not be the

correct word. They were from two different CBS cameras and as I recall the

wording may have been "broadcast times". The one without the plane was only

broadcast once, as I recall. I keep no records of every website I read or

collect photos from. It was about a week ago I collected this image.

Jack

PS...This is obviously NOT EVERY FRAME. As I recall, a uniform number of

frames were skipped between each saved frame. Also, I meant to mention

the obvious difference in color balance. The locations are clearly north of the

Empire State building, since it appears in the lefthand sequence.

Jack those thumbnails are too low resolution to make out very well. Do you have the actual frames showing the fireball? I would also like to see evidence both were actually broadcast or at least shot by CBS why would they have two cameras shooting from such similar vantige points so far from the towers?

[Len Colby]

Boeing engineer wonders "how stupid" people like Greer are"

So are members allowed to call each other stupid now? It it alright to suggest that Mr. White is stupid?

.......

Last year, Morgan Reynolds interviewed Joseph Keith.

"Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer

Thus he is not really qualified to opine on what he does

He also says that the planes would have shaken themselves apart at that altitude at over about 220 mph, and also something to the effect that the thicker air would also have stalled the engines. The government claims that the videos show the North Tower "plane" ("Flight 11") travelling at about 450 mph, and the South Tower "plane" ("Flight 175") travelling at over 500 mph. (...and in a dive of 10,000 feet descent per minute)

Keith asks "how stupid do you think people should be?" to believe this stuff.

Unless he can produce some calculations his claims are rubbish they seem obviously false as 220 mph is not much below approach speed.

Unless Colby can produce some calculations his claims are rubbish. Keith is an authority, Colby is not.

Jack

The approach speed of a 767-200 ER is 142 knots which is 163 mph 74% of the speed above which Keith says they would shake apart. The idea that Boeing would have so little of a safety margin is unfathomable. I have made numerous flights in 767 and don’t recall them ever shaking very much upon landing.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/...roachspeeds.pdf

Keith is an authority on software design for the aviation industry. Whether or not that expertise extends to the structural integrity of planes is an open question, when he claims that planes would shake apart slightly above their approach and take off speeds he claims come serious into doubt

Here is the 1st page of a paper about the shaker system, little of it seems relevant to Keith's claims

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1996/PV1996_3718.pdf

ADDED IN EDIT

According to an airline which has 737s and 767-300s in its fleet the take off speeds for those planes are 290 and 300 kph respectively or 180 and 186 mph the latter is only 15% below the speed at which claims the slightly smaller variant would shake apart

http://www.jetairfly.com/pdf_docs/200805_JAF_fleet_S08.pdf

According to this site the 767-300 can take off at up to 330 kph or 205 mph only 7% below Keith’s shake apart speed

http://www.zap16.com/civ%20fact/civ%20Boeing%20767-300.htm

Edited July 29, 2008 by Len Colby

[Craig Lamson]

Here is another comparison suggestive of CGI. For the anticipated replies of

DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT, there is a 6 degree difference, provably too little to

say the plane is hidden by a building.

Jack

Jack,

Would you mind posting the proof they are taken at the exact same time? I don't think that is correct, so would like to see what evidence there is to say they are.

Thanks.

Here is the evidence. I left out all the frames in bewteen.

Jack

Yes Jack the bottom fromes seem to have been taken at the same time but were the top ones? Please provide a link to the supposed videos so that we can confirm for ourselves that one showed the approch of the 767 and the other didn't. Remember that all of CBS`s coverage September 11 - 12, 2001 is available through the Internet Archive.

Why is the plane shown in one image and not the other? Simple. The camera angle is different. In the right (blue) image the plane is hidden behind the tower. To understand Jack, apply the principal of the lever...you remember how that one works...right?

Edited July 29, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

QUOTE...

1) a Boeing 767 can not go over 500 mph at low (700 feet) altitude, whereas the official speed was 545 mph

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

2) the plane was going impossibly fast for a Boeing 767 in the last 4.7 minutes

The official flight 175 flight path report can be downloaded here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_175

Look at the last time "flight 175" was noted-- at "G"-- the official story says the plane went 49 miles in 4.7 minutes before it hit the WTC. This means the plane would have to be going 10.4 miles per minute or 625 mph-- a ridiculous speed, since the maximum speed for a Boeing 767 is 568 mph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

Note that officially the plane was descending 24,000 feet in this last 4.7 minutes-- thus officially going well over the maximum speed in progressively thicker air.

So officially-- we have a plane descending a mile a minute, significantly over the maximum possible speed for the aircraft-- ALL officially done by a pilot who has never flown this type of aircraft before-- and somehow he manages to steer the plane perfectly to hit precisely a very narrow target (the WTC south tower)?

This is simply preposterous!

3) the tail of the plane disappeared as it hit the WTC, without breaking off or making a hole

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/09/trick-o-ta...

[Dave Greer]

Interesting that you are a hundred percent certain that

an aluminum plane can fly through a wall of steel columns

without breaking up or exploding, against all known laws

of physics. Or maybe I misunderstood your phrase..."I'm 100%

certain that planes truck both towers..."

Jack

More strawmen. When did I say the plane didn't break up? When did I say the plane didn't explode?

Wow, I made a typo. Why do you have so much trouble admitting your own errors?

I'm as close to 100% sure as it is possible to be 100% sure about anything.

[Dave Greer]

Why is the plane shown in one image and not the other? Simple. The camera angle is different. In the right (blue) image the plane is hidden behind the tower. To understand Jack, apply the principal of the lever...you remember how that one works...right?

I don't even think it's not visible in the blue image. I think it's visible to thr LHS of the left-most (South) tower. If we had the links to the video feeds it would settle the issue.

[Jack White]

Interesting that you are a hundred percent certain that

an aluminum plane can fly through a wall of steel columns

without breaking up or exploding, against all known laws

of physics. Or maybe I misunderstood your phrase..."I'm 100%

certain that planes truck both towers..."

Jack

More strawmen. When did I say the plane didn't break up? When did I say the plane didn't explode?

Wow, I made a typo. Why do you have so much trouble admitting your own errors?

I'm as close to 100% sure as it is possible to be 100% sure about anything.

Do you or do you not endorse what is seen in this video? Yes or no?

Jack