9/11 - Five years ago, the shortest of all BIG LIES (3 seconds) "live"

M

MattMarriott

Guest
Five years ago, the shortest of all BIG LIES (3 seconds) took place.
One of the frames of those three seconds:

attachment.php


Repeated dozens of times during the first hours of CNN "coverage"
http://70.183.191.95/1/1/1/reflector:47743
Since the bigger the lie, the easier it is to expose it.... it takes two minutes to get those three seconds...

9/11 for dummies - The Five Basic Facts,
http://911-for-dummies.blogspot.com/
 
Matt,

Indulge me, I'm not getting the point you're making, though your context suggests it should be self-evident.

What is the "...shortest of BIG LIES" that I am missing from the above frame?

Thanks,
Joshua
 
Ok, so now I get it, no planes hit the WTC. What I don't understand is how you would then account for
the non-CNN footage that showed the second plane? Especially the french documentarians footage?

What can you tell me to substantiate the "no planes hit..." theory? How do you know this to be the case?

I see you're a new poster. What has brought you to this forum, at this time, with this POV?
 
There are also photographs taken by still cameras that capture at least one of the planes hitting one of the buildings, not to mention hundreds, if not thousands, of people on the ground and in the surrounding area who saw the planes. Actually, I think Lisa Guliani and Victor Thorne had one of the still shots up on their website at one point when they were discussing how misleading and distracting the 'no plane theories' are.

Distraction seems to be the point here, but, if you have substantiation, it would be best to present it so all concerned can try to understand your point.
 
Three seconds repeated dozens of times during the first hours of CNN "coverage" - video stream of CNN on 9/11, five years later:

http:(2slsh)70.183.191.95/1/1/1/reflector:47743
It's now almost 6 hours later and the only frames of a plane shown are those three seconds mentioned in first post.

All the other video and photo material was being photoshopped and video assembled at this point...

As far as the "witnesses" and the praticability of not using any planes, let me explain it in a seperate thread.
 
MattMarriott said:
It's now almost 6 hours later and the only frames of a plane shown are those three seconds mentioned in first post.

All the other video and photo material was being photoshopped and video assembled at this point...
Click to expand...
<tears rolling down mirthful visage> A good laugh to brighten an otherwise dreary day. Thank you MM for your humour.

http://www.wingtv.net/thorn2006/noplaners.html

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

wtc1holenew.jpg
 
Matt is just trying to make us all look like the "conspiracy nuts" that the media makes out we are....... ummmm not that you acheieved anything but making yourself look a little silly......

"All the other video and photo material was being photoshopped and video assembled at this point.." ROFL
 
The no-planers have an "explanation" for the entry hole matching the shape of a Boeing 767: explosives were specially rigged beforehand. Presumably, incendiaries were installed to simulate the jet fuel fires, and debris was planted such as the landing gear found in Rector Street.

The no-planers claim that a plane would not have gone through "like a knife through butter". Let's say your knife is moving at 1 mph which is 17.6 inches per second, and it penetrates to a depth of one inch. Hence, the time taken is 1 / 17.6 = 57 ms.

A paper available here...

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00131000010001066000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

...provides details of a finite element analysis of a Boeing 767 striking the WTC exterior. The simulation took four hours to run on a Pentium IV 2.78 GHz PC. They assumed too much fuel in the mass of the wings at 25,370 kg of fuel per wing. It should have been only about 31,000 kg ~ 10,000 gallons in total. However. their result for the minimum velocity to just penetrate the building is 130 m/s ~ 291 mph which is well under the impact velocity of 540 to 590 mph for AA 175. If the impact velocity was 800 fps, the impact decelerated the plane to 600 fps and the mean velocity was 700 fps, the time to penetrate is 159 feet / 700 fps = 227 ms. The knife would have cut to a depth of 4 inches in the butter in this time. Their simulation has the wings cutting through at t = 73 ms, which looks a little low.

The disinformation agents' "no-planes" campaign is a reflection of the desperation felt by the criminals, as scores of academics prove the case for controlled demolition, and evidence such as molten steel found in the ruins and observed pouring from the perimeter columns cannot be denied.
 
And then of course you have the two eye witnesses with the sound of their testimony right on this newly released video while it is happening , saying:
"It was a military jet."
And:
"It was huge".

So I suggest Matt should get up a little earlier in the morning.
 
You know what I find interesting about this picture - the headline says "attacks against targets in New York and Washington", but how would CNN have known about the target in Washington? The second airplane hit the WTC tower at 9:03 am, but the third plane didn't hit the Pentagon until 9:37 am. Interesting, huh?
 
It is interesting. What I remember from the day it happened is that there were rumors on the news about explosions heard in Washington. They even said that the State Department may have been bombed. I can't remember what the timing of that was, though, whether or not it was before the actual Pentagon hit.

Another thing I'll never forget is the normally idiotic Judy Woodruff of CNN interviewing some military official and asking him incredulously, "How could anyone possibly hijack a plane and fly it into the Pentagon? How is this even possible with all the defenses?" He responded, "Judy, now is not the time for these kinds of questions, now is the time to mourn for the dead and pray for the survivors, we will have time later for those kinds of questions..." or some such crap.

Duker said:
You know what I find interesting about this picture - the headline says "attacks against targets in New York and Washington", but how would CNN have known about the target in Washington? The second airplane hit the WTC tower at 9:03 am, but the third plane didn't hit the Pentagon until 9:37 am. Interesting, huh?
Click to expand...
 
Duker said:
You know what I find interesting about this picture - the headline says "attacks against targets in New York and Washington", but how would CNN have known about the target in Washington? The second airplane hit the WTC tower at 9:03 am, but the third plane didn't hit the Pentagon until 9:37 am. Interesting, huh?
Click to expand...
True - IF the screenshot shown initially in this thread was from 9:03 or shortly thereafter - however, it's likely that this screenshot came from later in the morning as they repeated the shots of the planes hitting, while updating their 'headlines' - we can't really know when this headline appeared, but my recollection is that it was all WTC at that point on the 'voice of the government channels' - oh, I mean the main stream media. ;)
 
Good point - hadn't thought of that. Definitely could be a replay.
 
Joshua said:
Ok, so now I get it, no planes hit the WTC. What I don't understand is how you would then account for the non-CNN footage that showed the second plane? Especially the french documentarians footage?

What can you tell me to substantiate the "no planes hit..." theory? How do you know this to be the case?

I see you're a new poster. What has brought you to this forum, at this time, with this POV?
Click to expand...
Probably to 'engage' you? :) :)

The sad and sorry facts are....yes! Planes did hit building of WTC 1 & 2, but this FACT wasn't responsible for any building collapses.... No, no, no! NO!!!

The buildings were rigged to explode.

The buildings were rigged to explode.

The buildings were rigged to explode.

Its kinda weird that this is what exactly happened....!!!

Sheez !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom