Jump to content

I know what happens in 2012.


titorite
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 417
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

WOW!...I mean WOW!!!..Your sinking to new lows titorite.

 

(Who does that sound like? Hint: He said it in this thread...a couple pages back).

 

Well, it is quite clear my work here is done, because now we see that titorite:

 

a) Cannot stand to address the Pentagon anymore, now that all of his "inconsistencies" have been disproven by scientific inquiry. But what is even worse is...

 

b) Now he presents us a video where he obviously wishes us to believe that the planes hitting the WTC towers were FAKED!?!?!!? Could anyone stoop lower than this?

 

Please take note: Titorite accuses me of insulting him, and perhaps I have...not as if he hasn't insulted me. But in promulgating thoughts and ideas that the planes never hit the WTC, that it was just "faked video", and that NONE of the people in lower Manhattan that day ACTUALLY saw planes hit the WTC towers... he is now taken to insulting the memories of the people who actually died on those airplanes, and the people who actually died in those towers, and he is continuing to insult the families of those who lost loved ones on that day!

 

Can you believe this ignorant, arrogant person? JL, is THIS what you call a "good Joe"? I am amazed and appalled at the level that titorite has sunken to... all because he refuses to admit that these photos he asked me to analyze do not show inconsistencies. If we are seeing the "real RMT" as titorite claims, then clearly now we are seeing the "real titorite".

 

And for the person who loves to apply "rules of disinformation" to anyone who disagrees with him... look how well he has been using Disinfo Tactic #17. Change the subject. Isn't is obvious to others how titorite can't wait to get off the Pentagon subject and move on to other "inconsistencies". We certainly do have someone who is well-versed in the Disinformation Tactics, don't we?

 

Would it be insulting or libelous to remind everyone that this is a person who has done time for drugs? No, it wouldn't since he, himself, told us this. I think he hasn't given up doing drugs, judging by his "critical thinking" skills. Put down the doobie, titorite.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

a) Cannot stand to address the Pentagon anymore, now that all of his "inconsistencies" have been disproven by scientific inquiry. But what is even worse is...

 

The only thing you disproved was that jet exhaust would not burn grass "not even if the engine were 2 inchs off the ground". You said as much and I agreed to as much.

 

As for every other pentagon detail. No my friend ,you haven't proven a thing execpt your willingness to be immature when confronted with data that conflicts with what you want to believe.

 

b) Now he presents us a video where he obviously wishes us to believe that the planes hitting the WTC towers were FAKED!?!?!!? Could anyone stoop lower than this?

 

Certianly. We could have a yo' mama fight. I thought the video did a good job off showing crash physics. You DID push pause to examine the exterior around the plane didn't you?

 

You accuse me of insulting the victims of 911.

 

RMT I argue this stuff in the hopes for justice. I feel you argue this stuff for the fun of shameing people like myself.

 

Which idea is more insulting?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r5fBdUTvzA

 

Above is the video I sent to ruthless in the hopes he would understand what the TV fakery means. To my sadness he found it less than convinceing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

Hey guys,

 

Lastnight - out of curiousity, I paid a visit over to letsroll911.org and spent most of what remained of my evening reading through about 15 pages of a long thread devoted to the plane that hit tower #2. This is the plane that was on video flying into the building from a couple of different angles that we've probably all seen dozens of times.

 

It seems apparent they've come to a determination after some intense examination of the fuselage, tail section, and noting it had no visible windows along the side, and from explosions that resulted from both plane impacts (towers #1 & #2), that the plane was a 767-300ER military tanker jet with a "poor mans" nuke attatched someplace near the front of the plane. (Will wonders ever cease.) :eek:

 

In the first 8 pages, they've got photos of the UA 767-222 jet plane that is alleged to have struck the building up close on a runway, and in flight - and then a picture of this Boeing 767-300ER USAF tanker in flight refueling some fighters. There was some speculation about the wingspan, and shape of the wings too.

 

Although, someone spent some time analyizing frames of the plane as it struck the building, to make this determination - there is one graphic posted, I found troubling and it was of the fuselage. To me one wing and engine seems offset from the other. To me this doesn't seem right. Who would build a plane with wings like that??

 

letsroll911.org, Page 8, Post #5

 

This link above will take you to the page, but you'll have to scroll down until you come to picture that reads "plane that hit tower #2 - Normal boeing 767." Sorry - but I couldn't figure out how to post the picture here :oops:

 

I woke up today thinking about a story entitled: 'The Sign of Four' and in it - Sherlock Holmes famous line: "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? "

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

It seems apparent they've come to a determination after some intense examination of the fuselage, tail section, and noting it had no visible windows along the side, and from explosions that resulted from both plane impacts (towers #1 & #2), that the plane was a 767-300ER military tanker jet with a "poor mans" nuke attatched someplace near the front of the plane. (Will wonders ever cease.)

 

In the first 8 pages, they've got photos of the UA 767-222 jet plane that is alleged to have struck the building up close on a runway, and in flight - and then a picture of this Boeing 767-300ER USAF tanker in flight refueling some fighters. There was some speculation about the wingspan, and shape of the wings too.

That is an interesting conclusion they have come to, considering the US does not have any 767 tankers in its fleet, and even more interesting considering that the 767 never existed in a tanker configuration in 2001 at all!

If you check the news for "USAF tanker contract" you will see that ONLY now is the USAF considering who will build the next refueling tanker aircraft that will begin to replace the KC-135 tankers, and eventually the KC-10 tankers. Here is a link stating that the USAF has delayed its selection from the two teams (Boeing and my company, Northrop-Grumman) until this coming December.

 

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/08/airforce_tankercontract_070819/

 

I think I should know a bit about this subject, given that I have worked on our offering (the KC-30 which is based on the Airbus A330 jet, as they are our primary partner in this competition).

 

What is interesting is that no 767 aircraft was ever configured as a tanker UNTIL after 2002 when Italy became the "launch customer" for this version of the 767. Japan is also in the process of acquiring 767 tankers. And oh, BTW, the 767 variant used for the refueling tanker is the 767-200. There has never even been discussion of making a 767-300 into a tanker.

 

It seems you have stumbled upon some people who come to conclusions without checking their facts. If you can provide me the link to where someone says they saw a 767 tanker, perhaps I can take a look at it and tell you what type of airplane it really is. If it has an engine under each wing it is likely a KC-10 (which is a variant of the DC-10, and has a 3rd engine above its tail).

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

a plane flying at an angle will look like it has offset engines. there goes more fake evidence. this is why im totally giving up on what happened on 911. conspiracy theorists dont want you to believe the truth, they want you to believe their lies, and will do anything to get you to believe so.

 

"frame 37 skipped, so it must be a conspiracy..."

 

"i found this fake evidence, so it must be a conspiracy..."

 

"ooh! ooh! the tape glitched! there were never even any planes! it was all a conspiracy!"

 

in your arguments, you believe the things you want to, and you could care less about the things you dont.

 

yes, i watched the video. and no, it did not impress me. actually it sickened me.

 

now look, i would love to have a magic wand that would tell me the truth about 911, who shot kennedy, ufo's, etc. but theres no magic wand, and you cant go making crap up like you do have one.

 

rmt has proven facts, and taken the time to show how his evidence supports his side of the story. you have done no such thing. you have, however, insulted and ridiculed several people, including me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a quote from titorite:

 

I on the otherhand do my best to answer every question I can that I am asked...

I wonder if he really does answer every question that is put to him? Let's see if he chooses to try to answer this question:

Question for titorite:"How can you continue to claim clean airplane parts are "inconsistent" now that you have been unequivocally shown that there were parts thrown from the impact point that were ALWAYS outside the fireball?"

 

You seem to have ignored this, and so I had to ask this question. If you are a man of honor, you will answer it.

 

Oh yes... and stop trying to change the subject to WTC when you have not finished admitting you can't prove squat about the Pentagon events being anything other than what the official story says they were.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

conspiracy theorists dont want you to believe the truth, they want you to believe their lies, and will do anything to get you to believe so.

That is exactly what is going on, ruthless. I could not have said it better myself.

And with regard to this thought, I suggest we all look at what titorite, himself, wrote about what he is trying to do.

 

I am willing to debate this event because I believe I can change peoples minds...

This is what is known as a Freudian Slip. Take note he did not choose the words "convince people". He selected the specific words that he "can change peoples minds". That is an active phrase, and his subconscious dictated the selection of those words, because it relates exactly what he is trying to do. He is trying to ACTIVELY change (control) YOUR MIND. He is not merely making suggestions, and asking you to consider them valid so that YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR MIND. He is wishing to do it for you. Big, BIG, B-I-G Freudian Slip there, I would say! :eek:

And titorite dares to call my morals and ethics into question? At least I am not saying "I can change your mind." I am simply showing how bad assumptions lead to flawed conclusions in any investigative effort. Unfortunately, titorite "volunteered" to be the guinea pig who would help me prove that bad assumptions lead to flawed conclusions. He has acted true to his part in this regard. He has defined his bad assumptions and shown us how he can come to conclusions based on them, despite other evidence showing the assumptions to be bad.

 

If anyone else reading this takes ANYTHING of value away from this debate that titorite and I have had, take that away... that poor assumptions can lead to flawed conclusions. Learn from it. Learn not to make that mistake in life. Because as my old man (an engineer for AT&T in the 60s) always told me:

 

To ASSUME is to make an A$$ out of U and ME.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

WOW!?!..Now How did I insult or riddicule you ruthless? The only thing I can possibly think of is saying you didn't like a video I shared with you. You didn't like it. How is me stateing that derogatory?

 

Also 1 or two questionable aspects is generaly not enough to suspect something. What we have here with 911 as a MULTITUDE of questionable aspects. Even you can admit something is fishy with WTC7 so why would you gloss over that and just accept it because someone else has an answer everything else?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

"What is interesting is that no 767 aircraft was ever configured as a tanker UNTIL after 2002 when Italy became the "launch customer" for this version of the 767. Japan is also in the process of acquiring 767 tankers. And oh, BTW, the 767 variant used for the refueling tanker is the 767-200. There has never even been discussion of making a 767-300 into a tanker.

 

It seems you have stumbled upon some people who come to conclusions without checking their facts. If you can provide me the link to where someone says they saw a 767 tanker, perhaps I can take a look at it and tell you what type of airplane it really is. If it has an engine under each wing it is likely a KC-10 (which is a variant of the DC-10, and has a 3rd engine above its tail)."

Hmmm... yeah I followed a link to letsroll.org from Youtube.com. On page 3, post 12, same thread shows a picture of a "combi" cargo/tanker that appears to be a 767-200. I wonder what the Canadians on that thread - think they're up to over there?? What a bunch of hoaxters. If anything - the footage of the plane hitting the building must of been reflecting the scene below - off its underbelly which might give it a distorted look. I didn't read the whole thread... to conclusion - so perhaps someone has already pointed out over there, that were no 767-200 "combis" anywhere in a military fleet prior to 2002. Whats laughable though, is these guys over there were discussing 300-ER and and 400-ER configurations ... when they probably don't know what the **** they're even talking about. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question for titorite:"How can you continue to claim clean airplane parts are "inconsistent" now that you have been unequivocally shown that there were parts thrown from the impact point that were ALWAYS outside the fireball?"

RMT, let address this question in your style. Do you have a clear close up photo proveing those are plane parts? Isn't it possible that what you have pointed out could be peices of building or camera distortion?

 

You seem to have ignored this, and so I had to ask this question. If you are a man of honor, you will answer it.

Are you trying to appeal to my emotion with this "man of honor" shinanigan? You have made it quite well known what you think of me. Jerk Off, Arrogant, Put down the doobie...You obviously have a low opinion of me and my "honor". So please, do not to waste your time appealing to a nobelity you do not believe I demonstrait.

As for subject changes and pentagon proof...We were originaly disscussing WTC 1 and 2 (And to a lesser extent WTC7). On page 11 you stoped commenting on the towers and joined in the pentagon disscussion. And as far as any proof is concerned you presented an altered photo, a misrepresentation of the truth, to proove a point. You tried to mislead others by circling a portion of that cab insisting that I COULD NOT KNOW whether or not it was dented when you darn well know strait lines equal no dents. And that car had plenty of polished lines to reference.

 

The quality of my responses to you has been in direct relation to your defamatory style of debate. If your going to call me names,accuse of being other people, present false evidence, etc. etc. I don't see why I should give you serious attention.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RMT, let address this question in your style. Do you have a clear close up photo proveing those are plane parts? Isn't it possible that what you have pointed out could be peices of building or camera distortion?

So in other words, you are not going to answer the question? Fine. Let the record clearly show that titorite is not answering my question, which is in direct opposition to what he claimed he always does. Does that speak of a man of honor? I ask the general audience this question. And note that titorite has not yet answered my question.

 

Do you have a clear close up photo proveing those are plane parts?

Actually, we don't need such photos to come to this conclusion, in much the same way that you didn't need a closer photo to come to the conclusion that the taxi hood was not dented (which you were right about, BTW). Rest assured, the science of collisions can definitely tell us those were airplane parts. No closer photos are needed to establish this fact.

 

Isn't it possible that what you have pointed out could be peices of building or camera distortion?

1) Let me assure you that I can show you scientific principles that will clearly show the pieces you see flying outside the fireball must be aluminum airplane parts, and not stone or concrete parts of the Pentagon. If you want to see this scientific explanation, just let me know. It has to due with the elasticity of the two materials, and it is quite conclusive.

2) Are you saying there could be a camera distortion that PERFECTLY followed a ballistic trajectory in the video frame? Do you even know what a ballistic trajectory is, and how to model it mathematically? Because those objects I pointed out in the video follow a PERFECT ballistic trajectory... and you will recall the camera that took that video was fixed...non-moving. So let me rest your mind that a "camera distortion" that perfectly follows a ballistic trajectory (and does so for MORE THAN ONE FLYING OBJECT) would be exceedingly low probability... like easily less than 1 in 100 billion chance of occurrence.

 

Are you trying to appeal to my emotion with this "man of honor" shinanigan? You have made it quite well known what you think of me. Jerk Off, Arrogant, Put down the doobie...You obviously have a low opinion of me and my "honor". So please, do not to waste your time appealing to a nobelity you do not believe I demonstrait.

Oh don't get me wrong. I certainly do NOT think you are a man of honor. That I will readily admit. But what I WAS pointing out was the generally accepted truth that a "man of honor" is a person who lives up to their promises and assertions. You have previously made the assertion that: "I on the otherhand do my best to answer every question I can that I am asked". So for you to be an honorable man has nothing to do with me... it only has to do with whether YOU are willing to live up to what you have said you "do your best" to do... which is answer every question put to you.

So, you see, it does not matter whether I THINK you are an honorable man. It only matters whether you fulfill the obligations you have set out for yourself. Seeing the quote from you above, it is clear you have not yet answered my question. Did you plan to answer it, or did you prefer to be dishonorable and avoid answering it?

 

The choice is yours... to be honorable or not. My belief has nothing to do with it.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

Considering you appear to have ignored the effects of gravity in one piece of your "critical thinking" I find that a bit hard to believe.

What I do or do not do in arguments does not change my knowledge, thank you.

If I avoided it, it is not a issue or a fallacy that I did so either. If you notice, Critical Thinking only applies to either attacking arguments or presenting arguments. Not presenting anything wasn't a logical flaw by anyone's standards.

 

Also, do realise not everything has to be countered in an argument to show it is flawed.

 

So are you making up your own definitions now? Because you clearly forgot the part that Wikipedia explains which is where the person constructing the strawman tries to infer that the person he is debating with accepts the strawman.

This is a contradictory statement. It is neccessary to construct explainations (if you notice, it's an example) from memory and understanding in order to display knowledge. Knowledge is not inferred by simply copying and pasting from a source, which is quite obviously what I haven't done.

Also, just because I have not mentioned something does not immediately imply I do not know it. Quite clearly, through my critical analysis of your relatively flawed argument I have displayed such an ability of critical thinking.

 

Also, that peice of information is not neccessary as that is the assumption, aka infers.

 

I find it incredibly odd that despite the fact I was clearly trying to help out everyone, you decided to attack me. Given that I hadn't even made an argument in the previous post (I was supplying information, statements - not an argument), this is an Ad Hominem attack.

 

Although you have given me the perfect oppotunity for me to demostrate what I know.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

RMT, let address this question in your style. Do you have a clear close up photo proveing those are plane parts? Isn't it possible that what you have pointed out could be peices of building or camera distortion?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So in other words, you are not going to answer the question? Fine. Let the record clearly show that titorite is not answering my question, which is in direct opposition to what he claimed he always does. Does that speak of a man of honor? I ask the general audience this question. And note that titorite has not yet answered my question.

I don't get it. You present the quote of me answering your question and in the next line you attempt to lie saying I am not gonna answer your question. Then you attack my honor like a true cur. Disgraceful.

 

in much the same way that you didn't need a closer photo to come to the conclusion that the taxi hood was not dented (which you were right about, BTW).

My point made. We both knew I was right before I went and found the large photo. So why did you try to mislead people?

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Isn't it possible that what you have pointed out could be peices of building or camera distortion?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1) Let me assure you that I can show you scientific principles that will clearly show the pieces you see flying outside the fireball must be aluminum airplane parts, and not stone or concrete parts of the Pentagon. If you want to see this scientific explanation, just let me know. It has to due with the elasticity of the two materials, and it is quite conclusive.

Here you are answering my answer. Yes, questions can be answers too. And no I will not let you assure me of anything. You have proven yourself to be quite decietful.

The only dishonor here is yours.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

" Hmmm... yeah I followed a link to letsroll.org from Youtube.com. On page 3, post 12, same thread shows a picture of a "combi" cargo/tanker that appears to be a 767-200. I wonder what the Canadians on that thread - think they're up to over there?? What a bunch of hoaxters. If anything - the footage of the plane hitting the building must of been reflecting the scene below - off its underbelly which might give it a distorted look. I didn't read the whole thread... to conclusion - so perhaps someone has already pointed out over there, that were no 767-200 "combis" anywhere in a military fleet prior to 2002. Whats laughable though, is these guys over there were discussing 300-ER and and 400-ER configurations ... when they probably don't know what the **** they're even talking about. "

***UPDATE***

I knew if I kept poking around over there, I'd come to the place where I'd find what I was looking for - Total thread anarchy... hehe.

 

In the topic "New Photo of 767 Showing 2nd Piece of Equip / Port Engine" a relative of an aircraft mechanic for united airlines, stepped up to the plate and proved RMT is 100% percent on target with regard to the WTC plane that hit tower 2. There was no tanker used with a fuel bomb strapped to its body, as there would be no place to attach it without causing flight instability. There were windows in the plane etc etc etc. Of course the Mod banned the fool after a post pointed out how full of crap most of the people there were. LOL LOL.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

Just adding to this thread.

 

Why not concentrate on subjects such as, why the second plane was allowed to hit tower number two. There was quite a difference in time.Is our air defense so laggardly they need a special invitation to deal with a threat, or were they ordered to "stand down," as reported?

 

There is more in this direction but this makes a start.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

Hi Packer,

 

"Just adding to this thread.

 

Why not concentrate on subjects such as, why the second plane was allowed to hit tower number two. There was quite a difference in time.Is our air defense so laggardly they need a special invitation to deal with a threat, or were they ordered to "stand down," as reported?

 

There is more in this direction but this makes a start."

I've often wondered about this item myself. You would think the Vice President, or SOD Rumsfeld would of given a standing order to shoot the remaining planes down once their locations were verified. I thought I heard someplace that two Air Natl Guard F-16's showed up in NYC airspace, but it was like 8-9 mins after tower 2 was hit. Maybe I'm confusing this with the pentagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

I'm just wondering just what the heck is going on with this thread. It started with "I know what happens in 2012", then on to "The 1998 Titor Faxes" , "Aviation Engineering", "Celestial Mechanics" and now it's "9-11 & WTC".

 

What happened to 2012 and time travel?

 

When a thread gets so OT, especially if it has multiple OT's, many months down the line when someone has a new thought on one of the multiple subjects in the thread...s/he can't find the topic or remember the name of the thread. In the case of the current topic on this thread it would be really difficult to connect the dots between "9-11 WTC Collapse" and "I know what happens in 2012".

 

Just a thought. We do have a Conspiracy forum here (though CigMan is about the only person who ever posts on it).

 

Russell, you seem to have hijacked youir own thread. ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

Yeah... I know..... The subject of 911 is very close to me so when people wanna bring it up I'll go round for round with them till the thing is done. I don't understand how rational educated people can over look the details. I get vilified for trying to point out the finer details and the issues they present(like WTC7,or the lack of any columns showing bending as the plane melts into building, or paper passports and cloth bandannas that survive plane explosions). Nobody seems to understand what conditioning is. The pyschology of repeating a phrase or scene over and over.

 

And your not supposed to use my real name Darby. :eek: Your the first person to publicly broadcast that here. Its all right. Although I am curious if you guessed at my sir name or if you read it somewhere online?

 

911=inside job

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"1) Let me assure you that I can show you scientific principles that will clearly show the pieces you see flying outside the fireball must be aluminum airplane parts, and not stone or concrete parts of the Pentagon. If you want to see this scientific explanation, just let me know. It has to due with the elasticity of the two materials, and it is quite conclusive.

 

2) Are you saying there could be a camera distortion that PERFECTLY followed a ballistic trajectory in the video frame? Do you even know what a ballistic trajectory is, and how to model it mathematically? Because those objects I pointed out in the video follow a PERFECT ballistic trajectory... and you will recall the camera that took that video was fixed...non-moving. So let me rest your mind that a "camera distortion" that perfectly follows a ballistic trajectory (and does so for MORE THAN ONE FLYING OBJECT) would be exceedingly low probability... like easily less than 1 in 100 billion chance of occurrence. "

RMT,

I don't think he understood the posts re: the youtube.com video, and then the govt footage of same crash we discussed a few pages back.

 

Titorite...

 

Camera Distortion is debating ' Minutae ' have you paused to take into consideration that both security point camera feeds had to be converted from one video format to another. Some visual clarity is lost in the process. I believe this may have been touched on in other posts earlier.

 

In the govt film we saw there was completion of planes velocity beyond POI with some distortion (video.) What debris there was left - clearly and visually followed the very same ballistic trajectory as the plane. Thinking about it a moment it would seem the second part of Newtons 2nd law of motion "a body in motion stays in motion" applies. )

 

But I'm betting the principles of it would be the same, regardless of scaling (f4 hitting a cement block) vs. (boeing 757 hitting the pentagon) Sure... different sized targets struck with two different size objects (planes), wings and airframes made to different spec's, but - both acheive virtually the same outcome at and beyond POI. If whats above makes sense, then what was in the check point videos had to be debris from the impact of the plane into the pentagon.

 

Think about this point for a moment: If they had to use Nuclear DNA tests to identify the all the passengers, there wasn't much left of them at all. A good chunk of the plane either burned up, or was blown to bits.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps JustLurking. Perhaps. To be frank I just wanted to use RMTs style of logic for a moment....What I left unsaid was my bewildremnet that I had continued to comment about it. Fact is I didn't. The closest I came to commenting on that subject, after his last post about it, was to mention how carbon sticks to stuff when flame is directly applied. ...

 

So I was watching this japenease film of this right and I saw the grass in thier video and for a moment it looked brown then it faded back into green and I realized that was sunlight makeing it look brown for a moment. So I raced back here for a moment to look at RMTs photo again hopeing I could retract my stament because I'd rather be wrong than be debateing a liar that presents false or misleading evidence. Saddly such was not the case and the photo in question has clearly been doctered....But as I was looking at the other photos I noticed other things I will address now.

 

spacer.png

 

If we look at the out lined box and follow it to its left hand corner we will all notice a patch of green grass. For being a giant fireball it sure did pick a selective path.

 

Those are some amazeing wire spools too. Do you suppose they were already their when the plane exploded into the building or is it more likely the spools were rolled into place after impact?

 

Either way we can use the corner above the spools (also marked column 15) as a reference point aswell as the spools themselves. Also Take note of the chain link fence.

 

spacer.png

 

Now in the above arragement we can see a very strange site indeed. The Corner has not moved but three of the 4 spools have moved. The really REALLY odd thing is that the spools have also been set into nearly the same postion as the first photo, only they are now under Line 17 instead of line 15. and Previously a chain link fence occupied that area. RMT drew lines all over this Jpeg but failed to notice that. NOW THEN Pay attention to the fire truck and the YEILD sign on the left hand side.

 

spacer.png

 

Now this photo was so obviously altered it made me disgusted with RMT. We have a magical triangle shadow that just happens to follow the brown path on the right. It is nearly the same angle, if anything its a wider angle from about the same distance(cop car reference). The fire truck may not of gotten there yet or may of left or may of been edited out BUT WAIT! Look at the FIRE MEN! Same guy holding the hose and the same guy lifting the same leg running toward Hose holding guy Just no truck and where did that YEILD SIGN go? These Firemen are better than david blain. Did you also notice the fireman on the right side of your screen above the corner of the cop car? Same firemen in the same positions in both photos.

 

The following is the worst though.

 

spacer.png

 

RMT would have you believe that an "aerosol stream" applied to the ground for six seconds is HOTTER than the ground level flames of the pentagon...UNfreakingBelieveible. IS your intelligence insulted yet? Anyways, you'll note the bottom windows by the tree are intact too. It is most likely ,The explosion itself did not catch this tree on fire but rather the resulting fires that spread down the halls of the complex. The tree caught fire off the fires burning out of the second story windows. This is to say nothing about smoke soot. Of course I never brought up the trees. I only brought up the green GREEN grass.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Titorite,

 

I've finished my reviews of the link you PM'ed me with. I watched all six parts a couple of times.

 

While there are some nagging questions I have about some of the things that were discussed - I'll agree with you on the whole - clearly something is not adding up. Just one or more items contained in the footages from various sources (Abc,Cnn,Fox,Nbc,Cbs) alone could amount to an indictment of the mainstream Media for its participation in a govt conspiracy and cover up, with its visual manipulation of the events - as they unfolded that morning.

 

Most all of the 'on the scene' correspondents were employees of the five networks. There weren't any average joes being interviewed that I noted.

 

1. The shot of the south tower being hit (shot of scene from a helicopter at distance) something can be clearly seen exiting the building (what the film purports to be the nose section of plane.) I think it was Fox News that caught that shot. Then in subsequent replays it was some how removed from those frames in footage?? Some one (the camera guy ) stuffed up, eh??

 

Seems none of the other networks showed this - from a similar angle (or perhaps maybe they chose not to) for reasons we'll never fully come to hear about.

 

2. This one caught my eye: The two different camera shots of WTC towers 1 & 2. In one - the towers were visible in distance with empire state building on the left. In the other one, we had same view of towers from what was supposed to be a different viewpoint - the empire state building was on the right of the screen, yet - when the images are superimposed over one another - the WTC Towers are appearing to be viewed from exactly the same angle.

 

3. The quality of the various live coverage feeds seemed to have different hues of the same view. (Purple, Yellow, Blue etc,) all seemed to experience a momentary disruption (a black out) at a key point in the coverage. Another segment dealt with network queuing 17 secs prior to the impact of the second plane. My question would be who queued all five networks at exactly the same instant? Additionally, one would think the media's cameras would produce a finer quality image than what is seen again and again in the 'September clues' series.

 

To make a comparison for a moment. Watch any shuttle launch footage - when the launch vehicle is 10 miles downrange from the pad at 165,000 feet. The image is so clear you can read USA on the tail section. I would guess that must be because NASA has better, more sofisticated camera equipment??

 

As I think of more, I'll share it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...