The video of the plane hitting the south tower on 9/11 violates Newton’s Third Law, and therefore cannot have happened. It does not decelerate on impact, and the building, which has heavier mass, offers no resistance. What that plane did on that video is physically impossible. Therefore, the video, which is under the fold here, is fake. We have lots of technology, and did so then too. It is easily done.
Knowing one true thing does not always lead us to other truths, but does clear the air. Because we know one true thing, we also know that many, many things must be false.
If the video is fake, (so too is the one of the plane hitting the north tower), so too is the idea that these two planes were hijacked. (No plane = no hijackers.) If there were no planes, the explosions in the towers had to have been triggered by some other mechanism. If there were no hijackers, then this was not an Arab conspiracy, as Osama and the hijackers are the only Arab link. If there was no plane and no Arab hijackers, then U.S. attacks on the Arab world are unjustified aggression. If this the case, our leadership has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, including the most serious offense to come out of Nuremberg, aggressive war. If we can establish a link between the faked videos and our government, our leadership is culpable under our own and international law.
We may never know how 9/11 was done. They got away with it. It was a psychological and military operation, and it was skillfully pulled off, probably by a small cadre of well-placed people with many unwitting accomplices who are wisely unwilling to speak up. But by demonstrating one true thing, perhaps experts in the field of international law can bring a case at the Hague for prosecution of our officials at that time and those in office now and currently engaged in aggressive war. The Nuremberg punishment was death. They are certainly worthy of that sentence.
It’s a massive undertaking. The odds against success are enormous. But strutting about arguing over the events of that day, bombs and false witnesses and mini-nukes or directed energy devices, news network complicity and toasted cars and fake witnesses and all of that is academic. We’ll never know. But we do not need to understand the entirety of the crime to understand one true thing, and to judge from that thing that a crime was committed that led to many much worse crimes, and that people should be held accountable, as at Nuremberg.
_________________
PS: The red line in this gif is superimposed to demonstrate that in addition to camera movement, that the building is moving in relation to the aircraft, further evidence that the aircraft is superimposed via CGI.
Piece of Mindful 
Sorry, the Slate article gives you a proper spanking. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/the_theory_vs_the_facts.html
LikeLike
There is no shortage of debunkers, and faced with all of the theories, limited hangouts, psy-ops and false evidence, I decided that I was not qualified and did not know who could be trusted anyway. As Steve says below, a real investigation would be useful, but it won’t happen here in this country.
However, this is not about that, Craig. it is about “one true thing,” Newton’s third law. Deal with that, and don’t come here again with your links that supposedly explain everything. You do that way too much. You’re surface skimming, and it is not useful.
LikeLike
Mark, LNewton’s 3rd law depends upon undisputed facts which you currently fabricate. If you don’t want a realty check just block me and all all others.
LikeLike
The video Is called the “Hezharkhan,” and has been widely shown on American television right after 9/11 and on CNN. Now make sense by answering this question: WTF?
No one is banned here except Bucks, and not because he disagreed with me. I don’t care about that. He just overran this place. You are 0-3 so far.
LikeLike
i notice that article makes not one single mention of the Qui Tam whistle-blowers law suit initiated by Dr Judy Wood against the private subcontractors used to produce the NIST Report. It seems to somehow have missed the rift in the truth movement between Dr Wood and the Joneses and Gage. Sloppy journalism.
Here is Dr Wood presenting her evidence. I hope you check it out Craig. It’s in high definition, it’s 100% conspiracy free, and it’s just the facts. Dr Wood has the education and the background to actually conduct a forensic investigation, which she does.
LikeLike
There is a significant difference between debunking various “conspiracy theories,” and conducting a proper criminal investigation. I adhere to no particular theory, but will probably never forgive Congress, President Bush, and federal public agencies with mandatory duties and means to investigate any and all crimes committed against American citizens relating to events before, during and after 9/11. Still waiting.
LikeLike
Whaaaaaa? How could you possibly discount an investigation conducted by renowned war criminal henry kissassenger? Oh ye of little faith. I suppose that you do NOT even have the Murcan flag flying outside your domicile.
LikeLike
p.s. Even MORE strange is the tale of Building Seven. THAT one violates ALL laws of physics!
LikeLike
Building 7 will be forever shrouded in fog and mystery but oddly, most Americans don’t even know about it.
LikeLike
Larry, even stranger is what happened to buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6. And Bankers Trust across the street.
Bankers Trust had minimal damage. (unlike 3, 4,5, and 6 which diasappeared along with the rest of the WTC) The owners repaired Bankers Trust Building, then they tore it down. Yes, they spent money to repair it and then soon after the repairs were finished, they spent more money to tear it down. Watch Dr. Judy Wood’s presentation “where Did The Towers Go?” to find out more.
By the way, Lee Hamilton and Tom Keane co-chaired the 9/11 commission. If I recall correctly, Kissingers name was floated early on but didn’t fly.
LikeLike
I don’t know ’bout you guys but I’m going with the nuclear bomb theory.
http://www.media-criticism.com/New_York_City_Nuked_2006_911.html
LikeLike
That’s worthy, I’m sure. Quite a few people are invested in that one. But as with JFK, 20 years from now new surprises might change your opinion. For myself, I’ve given up on understanding how they pulled this off, as I am not qualified to judge evidence and don’t know who to trust anyway. False leads, false evidence, false leaders are part of the continuing coverup. Richard Gage, Stephen and Alex Jones are, in my view, ops who are charged with misleading people, Alex in particular seems to merely want to make us all look like freaks.
That’s why I settled on ‘one true thing,’ Newton’s Third Law. It’s all that I am qualified to judge. And anyway, we have to move forward. They got away with it.
LikeLike
My apologies here, Swede, I thought I was addressing Kralj, and so gave a serious answer.
LikeLike
The evidence is against you Swede. There was a lack of ionizing radiation, heat, and sound that would be evidence of a nuclear blast. Where are all the burned people? Where were the Geiger counter readings? though it is a fanciful thought, Swede.
LikeLike
The only way one could possibly believe that no planes crashed into those buildings is if one is 10 years removed from the event and able to selectively remove the parts of their memory that involve actually watching the events of that day. This theory blows my mind more than any of the others.
LikeLike
That is a false statement. That is not the only way that we can believe that no planes crashed into the building. Unless you were there that day, what you and all of us saw was a TV show. Serious people have looked for actual witnesses to planes hitting the buildings. There are maybe a couple. The rest is the power of suggestion. TV is a suggestibility medium, and not reality. You, like me at that time, assumed that because it was on TV, it was real.
I have relived that day, by the way. I see now what I did not see then because I was extremely traumatized and open to suggestion. And, sadly, the explosions and destruction of the buildings was quite real.
But all of this hits people very hard, and so I have reduced it to one true thing, Newton’s Third Law. Every action generates and equal and opposite reaction. The object with greater mass will prevail. An aluminum aircraft hit a steel building, did not decelerate as the building, possessing greater mass, appears to have absorbed it. That is impossible, and therefore did not happen. That’s all I need to know to know what is true to know what is false.
LikeLike
There were countless eyewitnesses interviewed that day, and many more since. It only takes a cursory look through the news reports of the day and interviews since to find these things. I’m sure you’ll chalk them up to the power of suggestion as well. But seriously. Go through and watch the hours of news footage that day. They spent all day talking to people who were there, and who one would have a tough time believing were “in on it.”
Because of this, the prevailing Truther wisdom for most of the past 10 years is that no “passenger” planes hit the towers – that they were military jets. Missiles were another popular theory. Those purporting these theories sport the same self-confidence and faith in their particular brand of science as you do here. And the farther we get away from the actual day of the attack, the more people are able to create new versions of the truth.
And I will note, as usual, that I am only being dismissive here to the point of almost (but not quite) matching the level of derision you clearly possess for those who believe some version of the official story.
LikeLike
Again, “one true thing,” and again, ” Serious people have looked for actual witnesses to planes hitting the buildings. There are maybe a couple.” Do not discount the power of suggestion and of images on TV, which constitute reality. Also, as we get further away, we are understanding not less, but more of what happened that day, as people who are called conspiracy nuts have been poring over details. You might also not be aware that after the first impact, southern Manhattan was evacuated. The milling crowds we saw, again, on TV, were not real, that is, the words spoken by supposed witnesses that day were done in green screen, and the milling crowds of passersby added. TV is extremely powerful.
I just read an interesting tract on conspiracy theory, the gist of which is this: The Manhattan Project took two years, cost $2 billion in 1940’s dollars, and no one in Congress was aware of it. Secrets can be kept. It took Eisenhower until 1960 to get a meeting with the head of SAC to find out the extent of the nuclear arsenal, which lead to his belated whining about the MIC, which had already taken strong hold of government. Our military today acts in secret, as do our major corporations. We are never told the purpose of wars, indeed, even that they exist unless they cannot be hidden. We do not know the extent of military bases, the CIA budget, black ops, space weaponry or secret funding. Theoretically, the President and Congress are in charge of this, but with wiretaps and the in-broad-daylight assassination of JFK with no subsequent investigation, presidents know to keep their head down. We are theoretically a republic and a free society, but are in reality an empire and an oligarchy. No small part of the oligarchy is involved in population and opinion management, including fostering of public myths, of which 9/11 is but one of many.
But secrets do get out. When that happens observant and incredulous people notice that, and wonder, inquire, think, speculate and communicate with one another. For this purpose, the concept of “conspiracy theory,” part of opinion management, serves to make sure that even through secrets do get out, they are not taken seriously, and the people who believe them are properly ridiculed into the margins.
In other words, “conspiracy theory” is a means by which naturally intelligent, curious and incredulous are humiliated by people without those traits, who assume superior posture based on received wisdom.
LikeLike
Steve T, whether there were actual real commercial airliners or fake commercial airliners is kind of beside the point. Neither one would account for the almost complete dusification of the buildings before they hit the ground.
I disagree with your father on the importance of whether real or fake planes hit the Towers. One reason is that I think it’s a diversion away from the most important and elemental questions of what happened. Another reason is I believe this is I have zero way of knowing if the video your father uses to support his points is reliable. He makes the point that video is manipulable. He is correct about that. So how do I know that the video he uses to make his observations about the planes has or hasn’t been manipulated (by someone, not him) to make his points appear to be real? What do i know about the people who are making the no plane arguments and supplying the video to demonstrate what their concerns are? Not much.
However, the ideas that an airliners aluminum wings that won’t support a man walking on it would slice through steel columns sounds dubious to me.
But dubious and proof are not synonymous.
If you haven’t seen Dr Wood’s presentation of her evidence I suggest you take the time. She is certainly qualified to do such a focused forensic investigation on what happened to the towers, and what she has to say fascinating.
LikeLike
And here’s a video of a pumpkin vs. a van, just to show that velocity kinda matters.
LikeLike
You do not notice that the pumpkin is destroyed? There is also pumpkin residue all over the place. In addition, you are making a fundamental error here in assuming that because a pumpkin is soft matter, it has no mass. It has significant mass. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and greater mass prevails. It makes no difference which object has velocity, which does not. What you see above would be exactly the same if the van hit the pumpkin. Newton prevails. That is not arguable.
By the way, as long as you’re viewing this, try a though experiment identical to this: Light posts traveling 500 mph hit the wings of your plane before takeoff, and yet the plane is undamaged. Newton doesn’t buy that either, as it is exactly identical to your pumpkin exhibit. You’ve strengthened my case.
Of course if a jet aircraft hits a building, the building will be damaged. I would imagine in reality it would inflict severe damage on the building, people inside would be killed, jet fuel might ignite, but much of it would be released into the atmosphere, run down the side of the building, evaporating before reaching the ground. In addition, millions of parts of aircraft debris would fall downward to the ground below. There was no debris there or at the Pentagon or Shanksville, where we were told an old mine absorbed the plane.
Again, one true thing. Plane does not decelerate, building possessing more mass absorbs it without any resistance, no part of the plane survives. Impossible, therefore did not happen.
You like videos, try this one, which I don’t know how to embed without doing a post, and do turn off the annoying music. It is what happens to aircraft that hit birds. If a bird (or a pumpkin) can do that, imagine what a steel building would do.
LikeLike
I missed the part where the plane came out intact on the other side. In fact the plane was essentially shredded to bits. I’m not seeing how this runs counter to Newton. And as for the “hollow aluminum tube,” have you ever seen a plane before? Been on one? Do you think they’re light? And do you think they’re made of the same kind of aluminum that soda cans are made of?
And there was plenty of debris from the plane. Again, a cursory look at the evidence would show you this. You don’t need to go to websites designed to debunk this stuff to find it. You just had to be watching the news, like anyone else, in the aftermath of the event. But you’ve blanked that out in your brain thanks to the 12 year window between 9/11 and today. You’ve forgotten any evidence that may run counter to your claims.
I saw it explained thusly: “The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.”
Did you get any of that? Yeah, neither did I. But it’s a science-y way of saying that what happened that day is actually possible. It’s also proof that neither you nor I actually understand Newton’s third law in any detail. So your assertions of “one true fact” hold no weight here. One MUST look at the whole picture of your assertions – including the CGI and the green-screen – and hold them up against the official story or some version of it. And when those two are held side-by-side, I strongly favor the official version based on my total lack of knowledge in science and my personal understanding of how both the media and the government work. You find those understandings to be inferior. Fine. But they aren’t things that I have come by lightly.
In other words, people aren’t stupid for believing the official story. We’re not being duped. We’re looking at the same evidence that you are and are coming to different conclusions. That you’ve managed to twist that into an entire population being blissfully unaware of extensive thought control only speaks to your own strength of conviction. It doesn’t speak to my powers of comprehension or understanding of human nature, which are just as good as yours.
LikeLike
Did I say the plane came out intact on the other side? That’s a bit humorous, as that was an attempt to provide a real-time shot of the “plane” with equipment on a helicopter. The photographer first forgot to zoom in, so in the wide shot there is no plane, but it appears in the zoom shot. They done the math, it should have been in both. To do the CGI, they first shoot the buildings as a matte, and then superimpose the second image over that. In so doing, the helicopter shifted, so the matte moved and so it appeared that the plane went entirely through, nose coming out the other side. NBC or FOX, whichever, blacked out that portion in later shots, but it still exists. Quite funny.
Funnier still, the nose contains sensitive electronic communication equipment, and so cannot be shielded in thick metal. Consequently, the nose of the plane is quite fragile.
Anyway, that’s all beyond me. But yes, planes are very heavy, weigh several tons, but have less mass than a steel-trussed building with 47 columns in the middle. Don’t be silly. I am talking about relative mass, and in that sense, compared to the building, the plane is an aluminum tube. The building should have endured some damage, as did your van, but not have been absorbed, as your pumpkin was not.
The explanation you cited – in Star Trek, when the script called for gobbledygook, the writers would simply say “tech talk” and other people would insert jibberish. That appears to me to be jibberish but it is required. There are countless people out there put on the spot to explain this shit, and under pressure. Those who pulled this psy-op off also knew to plan a coverup, and offical truth always prevails. Even 49 years later, thought thoroughly debunked, no one near power dare say that it was a conspiracy that got JFK. That’s how it works, and is not new. It’s why Galileo got in hot water – not for saying things that were false, but rather for affronting power.
No, there was not one identifialble aircraft part found in the debris – nothing, including black boxes. there is a black box from the Pentagon, and a guy who
decidesdecodes those things say that it could not have crashed in the manner they said. there was no debris at Shanksville. A white van was seen dropping off a jet engine in Manhattan, which was later found not to be from the type of plane that supposedly hit the buildings – 767? This kind of stuff goes down very easy when people are traumatized.Are people deluded? Yes. Stupid? Hard to say, as years of agitprop does take its toll on the intellect. Frghtened people cannot think well. Is it thought control? Absolutely, but at the center of it is TV. That is the central instrument in our indoctrinating system, and it is not words, but images that make us beleive lies are true. Hitler used radio, and so do we, but TV rules.
Even with all of that, Newton rules! That could not happen. Your Star Trek guy forgot to explan why the plane did not decelerate as it whooshed through steel. I hear the Superman theme playing, as nature has been trumped by TV.
LikeLike
And what did you know about Newton’s third law before you started “researching” this issue?
And your Star Trek quote is a from some dude posting on an online forum. He’s quite convincing, though he’s vastly outnumbered on the interwebs by your fellow Truthers, but I’m sure he’s in on it too.
LikeLike
Now that’s cruel! we studied Newton in high school. Like the commandments, we can’t name them on demand, but it is like “a body in motion tends to stay in motion unless interfered with by another body,” and “every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” They are, as I recall, theorems with proofs, and have withstood the test of time. Einstein’s relativity supersedes them for large masses and high speeds, but his calculation differences are too small to measure at this level.
I did not “research” this, but as a citizen it is my duty to hold elected officials accountable, as with all of us. As I am obsessive, I reluctantly dove into this months ago, when you and I had ago-round. I was years and years behind. I also did not know about “limited hangouts,” wherein intelligence ops have infiltrated the “truth” movement to divide and mislead, giving some true information but enough false to discredit any follower. This is where Stephen Jones came in. His nanothermite was a false lead, designed to keep everyone busy, but easily disproven. Other ops, like Alex Jones and John Lear, merely make people look ridiculous for associating with them. In the end it is a house of mirrors and very difficult to know what is true and what is not and who to trust. so I mostly gave it up but came away with the basic understanding that there were no planes that day and that there was CGI and planted witnesses and a very well-thought-out psy-op to traumatized everyone and then plant ideas. In addition, many people were murdered, but not as many as they say, as two of the flights did not even take off and the other two were still in the air over PA after the tower explosions. Many of those names were invented and do not appear in the Social Security death register, where Uncle Tom and Steve are listed. There is no “Todd Beamer.”
Too complicated, too hard for people to swallow, and really, not worth the trouble as official truth will always win out and they got away with it. We’ve attacked what – 7, 10, 11 countries now as a result? so I settled on one true thing.
LikeLike
But you don’t actually know it to be true. You’ve heard enough “serious” people confidently assert it that you’re ready to assume that their math is good despite your complete lack of understanding of physics. There are plenty of people who confidently assert the exact opposite, and there math says differently. Like you, I don’t know shit about physics. But I’m gonna go with the story that doesn’t involve green screens and the CIA infiltrating groups that never mattered in the first place.
LikeLike
That’s an appeal to authority. (Let’s get Kailey in here!) I don’t know nothing about physics. I could immediately see the flaw in the pumpkin experiment, that they had taken a heavy but soft object knowing that we would confuse soft texture with mass. And I do not need a degree in physics to know that aluminum has less mass than steel, that aluminum wings cannot cut through steel beams, that velocity is not an issue (that the plane is going fast (faster than possible, another debate) – Newton says it does not matter which object is moving). [Most importantly, it does not even decelerate as it penetrates the building, a refinement of the CGI software being needed there.]
Consider this: when secrets leak into the public sphere, the government has immense resources that they can bring to bear, including false experts and real experts forced to pretzel-brain. (Jones was involved in “debunking” the Pons Fliechmann cold fusion experiment, peripherally involved here.) This is not a situation where calling on experts is a clean experience. I noted this with Craig earlier, that calling on a degreed expert from MIT, while indeed evidence, is also tainted due to MIT being a hotbed of defense spending, virtually an arm of the Pentagon.
As Lee Harvey Oswald told his brother, “Don’t believe their so-called evidence.” I am not saying that the experts are absolutely wrong, only that what they say also violates Newton’s third law, which is not a suggestion, and should be held to very high standards, including tests involving comparable objects and not pumpkins and vans.
LikeLike
First of all, I made the “serious” people comment because you’ve used that appeal to authority about 100 times. “Serious people have studied this.” I disagree that they are serious, but that’s beside the point. So don’t logic-fallacy me here. Your argument is full of it. The reason is that we A. Weren’t there that day. And B. Don’t know shit about physics. Your “knowledge” here necessitates exactly that appeal to authority in order to assert your “one true fact,” which is neither true nor a fact. Discuss.
Do you really think the side of that building was made of steel? That plane crashed into glass and air, and several steal beams, for that matter. The argument has been made by “serious” people (mockery alert) that the plane could indeed cut through those steel beams because it was quite heavy, made of an aluminum alloy, and was travelling at high speeds. I don’t know much about that, but it strikes me that it wouldn’t need to necessarily cut through the beams to disappear into the building, because more than 90% of what it was hitting was glass and air. Again, this makes a whole lot more sense to me than CGI being placed in multiple news networks, along with fake witnesses and green screens.
And, like you, I don’t know shit about physics. I understand that you’re an overnight expert here, but the only real “one true fact” here is that you don’t know what you’re talking about any more than I do. And it has nothing to do with psyops.
LikeLike
I say “serious people” in this vein: The government has refused to investigate, and so that job has been taken on by private citizens. They do not have the resources of a government agency. But their are doing their duty as citizens, questioning official truth and not accepting the word of the government as final. In this particular case, they found and interviewed all witnesses who could be linked to the 9/11 Commission to find out how many had actually seen a jet hit the buildings. One, as I recall, without some sort of government or DOD connection.
Your inference that they are not serious because they are questioning official truth is not defensible unless you read their work and find out who they are. You should not automatically dismiss them on preconceptions buttressed by establishment demonizing of “conspiracy theorists.” That is prejudicial.
There is a report that quite a large number of fire fighters heard what sounded like an aircraft, enough so as to be taken seriously.
Your points about the plane crashing through “air” is easily refuted merely by seeing pictures of WTC under construction. It is 47 inner columns and steel outer columns with floor trusses running from the vertical columns to the outer shell. The aluminum siding and windows were mounted on this shell. The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707, the largest aircraft in existence at that time. The architectural theory was “spider web” so as to distribute force from impact over a wide area. Many years earlier, an aircraft had hit the Empire State Building, and the architects wanted to be sure that WTC could withstand an even greater disaster.
Your 90% air argument makes no sense, as all buildings are 90% air, otherwise they would not provide much working space. I built a work bench in our garage that sits atop far more air than it has wood, yet will hold many hundred pounds. I think you’re grab-bagging here. The gif presents something physically impossible, and by that we know that many things claimed to be true must be false.
LikeLike
Your confidence in your assertions does not come close to making up for your lack of knowledge here. Really, it doesn’t. You’ve read a whole lot of people who are super confident in their assertions as well, and have supposedly done the math. You believe they are serious. That’s fine. But at the end of the day, you don’t have any idea of what you’re talking about and the physics involved. I’m in the same boat, I’m just smart enough to admit it.
Given that, one must look at the whole picture. And when one takes your assertions to their logical conclusion, the results are absurd. CGI graphics inserted into the news and interviews with actors posing as survivors in front of green screens. A news media that is wholly staffed with people subservient to CIA overlords. I’ll take 9 guys with box knives any day of the week over that hogwash.
Your attempts to simplify this event into one supposedly basic principle of physics falls flat. Seriously flat. And your attempts to use that event to prove that we are all foolish victims of government psy-ops fall even flatter. Truthers face ridicule not because they don’t believe the official story – but because they take their lack of belief in that official story and turn it into some moralistic bullshit where they’re at the center of some Hollywood movie in which they’re surrounded by mindless cyborgs like myself, fighting for freedom and knowledge in the face of a government who is supposedly oppressing them.
LikeLike
What specialized knowledge does a person need to understand that ever action has an equal and opposite reaction?
Given that, one must look at the whole picture. And when one takes your assertions to their logical conclusion, the results are absurd. CGI graphics inserted into the news and interviews with actors posing as survivors in front of green screens. A news media that is wholly staffed with people subservient to CIA overlords. I’ll take 9 guys with box knives any day of the week over that hogwash.
It goes a little deeper than I want to go here. I suggest you read a post I wrote a long time ago called “Psy-op” (https://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/15565/). All that happened that day was not thrust upon us as something new. It’s as old as time. And it does not take a “wholly staffed” news media to pull it off. Most of them are just pretty script readers, hired due to the fact that they look trustworthy and can speak without stuttering. In fact, as it appears, not the news reporters, but the news feeds were seized that day, so that the information coming to those reporters was coming from just a very few sources. On-the-street interviews were indeed green-screened, as one actor was identified. All it takes is a few well-placed people to pull it off, and if you go back to the Church Committee of the late 70’s and early 80’s, you’ll find that the CIA has long had ops in every network and major newspaper. They basically own our perceptions.
Far from simplifying this event, I have simply inserted a hinge. If one thing cannot be true, then many other things cannot be true as well. The mechanics of the operation, as I learned, are dependent on military exercises routinely run that are “flipped live.” There were, it appears, as many as 20 of them that day, and the poor schmucks at air traffic control centers had no clue which blips were real and which were practice exercises, It was very large, very sophisticated, and the part I showed here is but a small clip that using as a portal to move people from the outside looking in to the inside.
Your language about attitudes may indeed be accurate on your end, but not on mine, as I was on your end. And I too thought there were real airplanes until last year, when the logic of “no planes” turned me. But that attitude is understandable. No one wants to be condescended to.
LikeLike
But you have simplified it. Your hinge is based on a complex scientific principal which you don’t understand, and you’ve taken it as an article of faith that the “serious” people you read have gotten it right. You have then used that to bludgeon the rest of us – who have the same limited understanding as you – with your faith as if it is an obvious truth. It’s not. And you know it.
LikeLike
Indeed I have simplified it. The more complicated version is below.
https://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/15565/
LikeLike
PS – this just occurred to me! As long as they are doing the pumpkin-van experiment, they might also try flinging a hollow aluminum tubes with extended wings into a [miniature] steel-trussed building with a vertical core of steel support beams. Might actually be informative.
LikeLike
Your understanding of an aircraft as just a “tube” is woefully wanting.
Click to access Chapter_19.pdf
LikeLike
See above, and also, use your own words some time. links get old
LikeLike
Mark, I suggest you ask Tomato Guy to explain the pictures and wing write-up to you. Keep in mind that the wings are where the fuel is store. Consider a large water jug filled and reinforced with vertical and horizontal bracing supports. As to the body, study this picture. http://i.usatoday.net/money/_photos/2012/01/04/Boeing-to-close-historic-Wichita-factory-T2Q0149-x-large.jpg
LikeLike
Craig, it appears to me that you just showed me a picture of an aluminum tube. Now go get a picture of a steel-truss building with 47 verticle core columns.
LikeLike
Your lack of understanding of this picture sums up the whole sorry mess you find yourself in. No wonder you come into criticism from your own family.
LikeLike
Don’t do that, jackass.
LikeLike
I think you are coming up short. We are talking about relative mass. It does no good to look at only one of the objects. You must compare them. A hollow aluminum plane has far less mass than a steel-truss building with 47 vertical steel columns, and cannot penetrate in the manner shown in the video. It is impossible.
LikeLike
Yeah, Craig. What he said. Steve is a man with a brain who thinks his own thoughts, has wrestled with this as I have, and forms his own opinions without regard to my being his Dad.
LikeLike
You asked: “What specialized knowledge does a person need to understand that every action has an equal and opposite reaction?”
My guess: To really and truly understand it, so that the dictum makes sense of a unique and complex set of circumstances? I said an advanced degree in engineering, at a minimum.
LikeLike
Beyond the reach of ordinary mortals? That would create a mystique in which we all have to bow before mystical power, almost a religion. We can grasp this even if we are willing to forsake received wisdom and think for ourselves.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s just like the mystique of open-heart surgery. Ordinary mortals shouldn’t let a mere lack of training and specialized knowledge prevent them from opening up a loved one’s chest.
LikeLike
It appears to me that you are deliberately trying to put this event beyond the realm of ordinary intelligent people, telling us that because we don’t have engineering degrees, we cannot question what appears to be a violation of the laws of nature. Your underlying message is that we should not question authority. I am sorry to tell you that this,in my opinion, is the problem with American journalists, submission to authority.
My model in this area is Gary Taubes, a science journalist who without accreditation has busted up a few scientific paradigms by mere diligence and a refusal to be cowed by technobabble. There is no way that that plane can hit that building and not decelerate. There is no way that wings can penetrate steel columns and trusses, leaving a roadrunner impression. That is Warner Brothers stuff.
As a journalist, I suggest you go to base sources, analyze the basic physics without regard to so-called experts. Think your own thoughts, draw your own conclusions. That’s all Taubes has ever done, and he has uncovered massive fraud. It’s a daunting undertaking, as you enter a realm where you have no certainty and are prone to huge bouts of
uncertaintyinsecurity. It’s the only way we move forward.LikeLike
No, all I was trying to suggest is that you are hanging your entire belief system on “one true fact” that I don’t think you are capable of calling a fact. Even if it were a fact, it hinges on one video that itself may have been retouched by truthers. On what basis are we to believe that this exact video was shown anywhere on 9/11?
LikeLike
This is the first I’ve heard of anyone suggesting that TV videos from that day have been mucked with by “truthers.” There are about 35 videos, this one is well known as the Hezarkhani video. If you Google that you’ll see it as it was shown on CNN later that evening. This small snippet was cut form the longer video to measure the speed of the “aircraft” as it enters the building to see if it slows down at all once coming in contact with the building. It does not, which is impossible.
And I have not hung my belief system on one true fact, as I mentioned yesterday – that’s a bit misleading. Frankly, nothing of the official story of 9/11 stands up under examination – no evidence of planes, no Arabs on fight manifests, no “Todd Beamer”, buildings in free fall with no resistance, radar tracking of planes over PA after buildings explode, I hang this one out because anyone with any knowledge of physics can look at it and see it is fake, and that can be a transformative moment.
There are two types of people, those who believe the official story, and those who have looked at the evidence. But there is a psychological blockade in place, very clever actually, where people who doubt official truth are “conspiracy theorists”, a negative quality, a sign of defective intellect or mental illness. Interesting. All we are doing is holding our government accountable. If their story is true, no problem, right?
Anyway, I note your bullshit detectors are up and working for skeptics of the official story, but not otherwise.
Here’s what I put up last November: https://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/15565/
LikeLike
See, this is where you are both deeply wrong in addition to being kind of a dick. In the same breath that you ridicule those who believe some version of the official story, you decry being ridiculed as a conspiracy theorist. You can’t have it both ways. Either you take those who disagree with you at face value, or stand up to the ridicule you face as a result of your churlishness towards those who believe the official story.
LikeLike
I don’t thinks so! I seriously disagree. I know Ed, know he’s got a good brain. My question is fair – why are bullshit detectors up against “truthers” but not about government conspiracy theory? It is a fair question. The plain fact is that there is a barrier there that people will not cross, smart people regular people alike – they cannot question official truth. That is thought control.
Here are the three major barriers that stop people from even looking at the evidence: 1: Problem solving ability is not well developed; 2: Group think, and 3, the one I think affects both you and Ed: the implications are terrifying. (Courtesy Dr. Judy Wood – I am not smart enough to boil things down like that.)
LikeLike
The implications would be terrifying only in the sense that they would point to the existence of government agents a thousand times more devious and skillful than anyone dreamed up by Ian Fleming. “M” would be janitor material. The folks who couldn’t see the fall of the Soviet Union coming wouldn’t even pass the urine test. Bay of Pigs planners? Take them out and shoot them.
I don’t “examine the evidence” of 9/11 for the same reason I have not bothered to examine the evidence for allegations that the moon landings were staged. Except that staging the moon landings would have been relatively simple, compared to the unimaginably complex achievement of actually landing on the moon.
In the case of 9/11, the case is reversed. Bunch of guys hijacking some planes and crashing them into buildings vs. government operatives murdering several hundred passengers, disposing of airplanes, wiring two of the largest buildings in the world with magic explosives (and doing so undetected), manufacturing videos and getting the networks to use them, brainwashing or terrorizing some dozens or hundreds of people in on the plot so that not one of them spills the beans, etc., etc., etc.
You always act so knowing about the lives of journalists. Here’s one thing you may not know. In the course of my career I have been begged by intelligent and well-meaning people to tell the “truth” about evolution vs. creationism, the “myth” of the Holocaust and the mortal perils of fluoridated water. In all three cases, true believers can point to mountains of evidence that “prove” evolution is a lie, the Holocaust didn’t happen and fluoride is used by the government for … well, it varies, either simply as poison, for mind control, or a means of disposing of unwanted chemicals. And believe me, the “evidence” is out there, because true believers have been compiling (manufacturing?) it for a lot longer than the truthers have been around. I dare you to dive into any one of those subjects for a couple of months and come out sane.
I have been accused of being a patsy, a sucker and a government stooge. I can live with that, and I can live with that in this discussion.
I know there is not the remotest chance in the world of shaking your inflexible certainties, and I am just as certain that I could never describe to you how it feels to engage with you on this subject. It’s like visiting someone in an insane asylum and trying to convince him that life on the outside is much, much better than being on the inside and imagining oneself to be the king of France. The king won’t listen, but I will always be happier to be outside.
LikeLike
If you don’t think I look at official truth with a critical eye, than you don’t know me. And if you think telling someone that they are a victim of thought-control and too wimpy to be critical doesn’t count as ridicule, than you don’t know yourself – have you ever tried to place yourself on the outside of one of these conversations?
Just because someone has come to different conclusions than you doesn’t mean they haven’t looked at the evidence critically. I’ve told you a hundred times – I understand what you think happened, and I understand the official story. If I hold the two up side by side in all of their complexity, the official story is infinitely more believable. And I don’t need to pretend that I understand physics to come to that conclusion.
LikeLike
As far as I can judge by your words, it appears to me that you have not looked at evidence, and instead rely on debunking sites and sources for your information.
The official story is believable if, on that one day, the laws of physics were suspended.
I love talking about thought control because the key to its if it is working on you, you’re the last to know. How can someone exposed to catholic education not realize how malleable minds are? People need to be in groups and have leaders. No one in leadership seriously imagines that public opinion is anything more than a logistical problem, something to be managed with symbols and emotional appeals. 9/11 was just a way to get the public behind wars, as the leadership saw grave peril to the empire in the fall of the dollar and rise of Arab nationalism. They were scared and needed something big.
And it’s not like it hasn’t happened before.most war s are precede by false flag events. I magine that if this stunt had been pulled off in Asia, you’d have no troubles disbelieving.
LikeLike
Responded at bottom.
LikeLike
Well at least, Ed, you admit that you have not looked at the evidence. That really is the only difference. People who look at the evidence are either turned into skeptics, or turn away, terrified by implications. I suggest that you look at the evidence, and that you withhold judgment on my sanity until such time.
I too have not looked at evidence about moon landings, as even if it was a hoax, it was not used to justify killing hundreds of thousands of people and start all of these godawful wars. That would be one of those national myths that hold us together. Not all conspiracies are imagined, most don’t even amount to much. But this one was very big and has caused immense death and suffering.
You don’t imagine how it could be pulled off? The Manhattan Project lasted two years and cost billions in 1940’s dollars, and was so secret that even congress did to know about it. That would be a model for secrecy. They can keep secrets, and the best part of it is that when secrets do get out, as they have with 9/11, people are conditioned to disbelieve them because someone has a “conspiracy theory”. So at once I am told that secrets cannot be kept, and when they are not kept, we are not to believe them. It’s win-win.
By the way, the buildings were not brought down by explosives. Or planes. And here is something I find a bit humerous: on the twin towers we are told that the wings of the aircraft were so strong that they went through steel like a butter knife, utterly impossible. At the Pentagon we were told that they were so weak they folded and went through a small hole, utterly impossible. I am not the king of France, but man, my credulity does have limits.
LikeLike
“People who look at the evidence are either turned into skeptics, or turn away”
For God’s sake. You might as well go through this thread and delete all of the comments that aren’t your own for all of the attention you’ve given them.
LikeLike
Problem here? Ed says he hasn’t looked at the evidence. You, as far as I can tell, just go to debunking sites, as you just put up three clips that have been at the center of the CGI debate, as if they were brand new. Those dark gray planes with no markings on a sunny day sure don’t look like American Airlines.
LikeLike
By the way, did you read “PSYOP?”
LikeLike
I was researching this stuff long before you decided to jump the Truther shark. I was having this conversation with people as early as 2003. So don’t tell me I haven’t looked at the evidence. And don’t tell me where I’ve found it, either.
And I’ll say again with all of the generousness of spirit that I have in me that you don’t know shit about the laws of physics.
Your reputable people have told you that all of my reputable people are full of shit. Fine. I don’t care. I’m actually willing to admit that neither of us know what we are talking about and are just going with the stories that seem the most plausible based on our understanding of the world. That’s perfectly acceptable to me.
But you can’t get there. You’ll never get there. You’re too busy believing you’re somehow enlightened and that overnight you have learned the laws of physics, become a CGI expert, an airplane pilot, and an engineer all at once.
LikeLike
Steve T, I didn’t see a pumpkin. I ran it many many times. You saw a pumpkin? Your dad saw a pumpkin, i guess, from what he wrote. But I can’t see one. Also, what is the black outline around the van? What’s the cause of that? It reminds me of the line from Cat’s Cradle. “No wonder kids grow up crazy. A cat’s cradle is nothing but a bunch of X’s between somebody’s hands, and little kids look and look and look at all those X’s . . .”
“And?”
“No damn cat, and no damn cradle.”
LikeLike
I did not realize I had not seen a pumpkin until you pointed it out to me. That was the power of suggestion, right?
LikeLike
So, who gets the Oscar? Behind the curtain is immense invisible power that makes the puppets dance. Very little has been done to expose the powerful group of madmen who seized absolute power on 9/11 and created the fiction most of us live each day.
LikeLike
Indeed, 9/11 was coup d’etat, as was 11/22/63 as was Watergate and 3/29/81, and always on the periphery is a Bush. [Which reminds me, there was also an attempted coup d’etat against FDR, exposed by Smedley Butler, and involved was Prescott Bush. How they’ve been sanitized over the years is a credit to remarkable secrecy.]
LikeLike
For your edification:
All completely fake, with some fake interviews to boot.
LikeLike
Yes I’ve seen those. The explosions are very real. The planes are CGI. If you ever feel like looking at evidence, I can show you a guy who duplicates all of this on computer, tells us how it’s done. the twin towers were a perfect backdrop for CGI, as they are monoliths hat make a perfect matte. And yes, paid actors were used, screams and voices “(oh my god a plane hit the building!”)
But if it’s on TV, it’s real.
LikeLike
Mark, I reiterate that I have no interest in arguing about whether there were government lies about 9/11. But Ed Kemmick is exactly right. By claiming your simple fact of physics to prove a government lie, you are ignoring the fact that the physics isn’t that simple.
I’ve worked at MSU, one of the Northwest’s better engineering universities, for a long time now. Most of the students we have employed in my department have been proto-engineers. I have friends (and relatives) who are among the better engineers in the state. They all say the same thing. One of the most difficult courses they take is Materials and Structures. It’s a year long course of applying Newton’s Third Law. One thing that trips many of them up is that F=F is simple. F=ma is simple, except that mass and acceleration are vector forces in and of themselves. The math gets very complicated at that point, because vectors of force are complicated. Again, I urge you to consider that before claiming that your simplistic read of the situation ‘proves’ that the government lied. No, it really doesn’t.
Another thing to consider is this: whether you are correct that ‘no one can claim definitively’ to have seen the planes hit those towers, many many people saw people board those planes and the planes themselves take off. With the exception of an airplane crashed in a Pennsylvania field, the other 3 planes are just ‘gone’. In the densely populated east coast, those planes from Boston were never off radar. It is possible that air traffic control was instructed to lie, but that still leaves a huge question hanging. What happened to the planes and their passengers? If they went to sea and got shot down, is it really so easy to believe that the flight control would sign up for a suicide mission, when Saudi Muslims would not? That is kind of what you’re calling for.
LikeLike
You do realize that you’ve just made a classic appeal to authority, telling me not to believe my lying eyes. No, what happened there is impossible. Just because I did not study physics (nor did you) does not mean that I cannot fathom the basics of Newton. Here we have aircraft,flying faster than they are capable of flying at such low altitude, encountering a greater mass, cutting through it like butter, disappearing, no parts surviving. Righto.
There’s quite a bit of controversy about the planes themselves, as two were not even scheduled to fly, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth has published a radar study that places two of them over western Pennsylvania long after the explosions at the towers. Most of the passengers on those flights did not turn up on the social Security death register.
You guys act like you’re making new discoveries when you are merely walking in footsteps of people years and years ahead of you. Again, two types of people: Those who believe in their government and media, and those who look at the actual evidence. If you are not willing to look at the evidence, why come here?
LikeLike
Items that you are repeating simply because someone “serious” told you they were true:
“Here we have aircraft,flying faster than they are capable of flying at such low altitude”
“encountering a greater mass, cutting through it like butter, disappearing, no parts surviving. Righto.”
“Pilots for 9/11 Truth has published a radar study that places two of them over western Pennsylvania long after the explosions at the towers.”
“Most of the passengers on those flights did not turn up on the social Security death register.”
Quit pretending this stuff is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. It’s not. You simply have a subset of the American population whom you have chosen to believe because they have demonstrated to you the appropriate level of seriousness. You are the same as us. Quit pretending otherwise.
LikeLike
Let’s see then: Jet airliners are designed to fly in excess of 500 mph at 30-35000 feet, where the air is very thin. At low altitude the air is too heavy, the engines act as reverse thrusters as they cannot handle the thick atmosphere. Air Force One that day was under threat and so flew at low altitude, consequently had to go slow and needed to refuel in Louisiana before going to Offutt. You’d think that the plane carrying the president would go really really fast.
On the second one, are your eyes failing? Do you see what I see in the videos? We’re there parts strewn about?
I read the P4911 study at their website. So should you.
Have you ever gone to the SSDR? If not, try it. I have gone there looking for ancestors and Dad’s side, and interesting that Dad and Joe are not there, but Tom and Steve are. it is not definitive, but the people on the planes that day mostly don’t show up. Don’t mock what you don’t know.
First I’ve seen the words “intuitively obvious.” Nothing is easy, but it appears to me that the 19 Arab conspiracy theory is held together by people who have not and will not look at evidence. What stops you?
LikeLike
I actually avoided this subject, and I am glad I did. The really good research has only been coming out since 2006. And it’s a jungle with intel ops and false experts who are part of the continuing coverup. They were good enough to pull it off, and also know how to manage an ongoing coverup. Marginalization is a large part of it, to make people afraid to go there because they are afraid of ridicule. Works.
I have really been on my own to decide who is real and who is fake, and of course don’t have the expertise myself to judge aeronautics and engineering and physics. The best I have read are Webster Tarpley and Judy Wood. There’s a guy in England, Richard Myers who I admire. Dr. Wood is an older gal who decided to merely look at the evidence and let it speak. She works exclusively on the Towers and has drawn sharp crticism from others who want her to name names and point fingers. Given that she’s drawing the ire of people I decided to distrust, I am somewhat comfortable with her.
Tarpley, on the other hand, merely says move on, it’s over,they got away with it. But he did I really good two hour talk on the use of military exercises as subterfuge for false flag operations. Everyone involved thinks they are doing a drill, and then it is flipped live. There were like 20 of those going on on 9/11, which is why we had no air defense response. One of them even had airliners flying at the Pentagon. Contrary to belief, those people are very, very good.
I really think you need to delve I to evidence, see for yourself how the CGI’s were done, try to come to grips with PSYOP. You keep telling me I don’t know anything about physics which is misleading, because people outside that area can understand very general principles. Aluminum does not cut through steel, mass is what matters. I don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that, and no amount of technobabble changes basic scientific theorems.
LikeLike
1. You have no idea how fast that plane was flying, unless you’ve done the calculations yourself. You’ve taken others words for it, As have I.
2. There is not a single pro-offical-story source that says there was no plane debris recovered from the site. So you’re criticizing as ridiculous a claim that’s not been made by anyone. Enjoy that.
3. So half of your dead relatives (whom you know are dead) don’t show up in the SSDR, but you’ll take it as one of your trusted sources. And you’ve put in all of the 3,000 names yourself, I imagine? Oh wait, you haven’t? You’re just taking the word of someone you find “serious?” Well then, you’re just like me. Surprise surprise.
Again, you’ve taken the words of the people you trust on this one, and said that all other sources (official studies and the news media) are simply not to be trusted because they were in on it. I think that’s silly, but fine. You are no different than me. Quit pretending.
LikeLike
Have those paid actors faking the man-on-the-street bullshit been shot? There had to have been many dozens interviewed by all the TV folks out that day. But I suppose they’re buried with the hundreds of passengers, pilots and miscellaneous stooges. God, if we could just find even one of those bodies…
LikeLike