9/11 CTs in general

[andreasz]

Hello everyone,

I got to this forum after watching the Zeitgeist movie because I was curious about any opinions and of course discussions related to that matter.

First of all, I've gotta say that I am kind of disappointed, which is why i registered my own account. To all of the 'debunkers' here, this seems to be a great hobby. Instead of discussing theories and certain ideas, people are being mocked and all the replies they get on the things they post into this forum are unnecessary comments like 'Do I really need to watch that crap or are the first 5 minutes sufficient?'

Seriously, if you have anything to say, just do so... But I don't see the point of commenting on things you didn't even take a look at.

So. Anyway, when I read the postings on this website, since it was the first hit on google, I wanted to know what JREF is. Funny fact, it's an educational foundation. Mocking people like that without even taking a look at what the present doesn't sound that educated to me.


So, why am I writing this? I have some questions myself and I don't want any wannabee-educated-debunker replying on this without considering anything I post here.

But well, sorry about the long introduction, I'll cut to the chase now.

Here in germany we don't get too many of those conspiracy theories, because we ignore most of the ones coming from the united states... Most of them are not based on anything but crazy ideas, so most of this gets kind of filtered.

But there are still some things that get through, such as the 'Zeitgeist' movie and 'September Clues'.

1.) Nobody ever gave any reply on the question, as to how it is possible, that the beams of the WTC were cut in a certain way you're only going to find it, if a building was demolished on purpose. I saw the pictures in the newspaper and there is absoutely no way this could be happened by accident.
Let's just say the steel structure was weakend by the intense heat of the 'jet fuel'. It was not entirely weakened all across the building. So how is it possible that the building collapses along it's own axis, where the steel structure is most powerful? Try to break a steel bar. You might be able to bend it with a lot of power. Put try to break it pushing along the axis of the steel bar. All the theories and explanations I read on '911myths' and 'debunking911.com' and similar pages don't seem to have any structural engineer working on that (yes, I did read who it was from, but he is obviously not considering all the details), regardless of the formulas and drawings on those sites... There is no possible way for the columns and beams to fail simultaneously. And lets say it was just one giant physical coincidence... But twice? No way. I read a lot about the tube in a tube design and all those little details that we have to pay attention to. But the structure along its axis with all the concrete would have probably caused the building to tumble and fall at a certain point. But not for it to collapse into its own footprint. I know it didn't exactly do that... But a collapsing building, ALSO one with a tube in a tube design, needs to have structural damage all over it, not only in the top floors. And even under the weight of the top floors this would have looked differently. At least their would be more left of the steel core itself.

So much about that.

2.) Please visit www<dot>brasschecktv<dot>com<slash>page<slash>108<dot>html

(sorry about the format. Forum won't allow me to post links otherwise.)

and watch the first video. This guy is a video editor from Norway with more than 20 years of experience in video editing. Now please, be so kind and answer the following questions to me:

How is it possible, that the plane appears black in the shot? And don't come up with ideas like the sun being behind the object. Take a close look and you'll see that it is supposed to be white. For the people who insist that it is the sun being behind the object, you could explain to me why the plane appears black from both sides.

On one of the other 'authentic' videos, you can see the 'plane' crash into the WTC. The wings appear white, although we're standing right underneath it.

Well... There are several other videos and there's an audio analysis... There's even a nice cover-up for an incoming object that is hard to spot... But I cross-checked all these things shown in the analysis with the tapes I have at home, which are several years old.

There's one very interesting aspect about the undamaged nose of the plane and a probable explanation for that. I really want to see you 'debunk' this.


Watch it and PLEASE, be objective this time. I am not the kind of guy who jumps upon any kind of CT ********, but this stuff is pretty obvious and the images are real. So take a close look and give me an opinion.

Regards from germany.

Andreas

[Revolutionary91]

Welcome to the forum. Not all posters here are pseudo skeptic deniers. We have real skeptics here like Dr Frank Greening aka Apollo20.

I advise that you stay polite and within the rules and that you report the tirade of attacks you are bound to receive.

[Alareth]

Part of the problem, and the basis of the attitude you've seen here is burnout.

While the issues raised in these videos and movies may be new to you, around here they are simply the same recycled claims and arguments that have been discussed ad nausem here.

When they were new claims, they were discussed and analyzed objectively.

I'm not apologizing for the attitude, in fact I've said a few times to several of the regulars here that maybe it's time to take a break for a bit after they have jumped on a newcomer.

[mortimer]

Andreas,

First off, welcome to the forum.

1) Have you read the NIST report?
2) Looking at anomolies in the videos to prove there was no planes is a non-starter. Thousands of eyewitnesses saw the second plane hit.

[Loss Leader]

1.) Nobody ever gave any reply on the question, as to how it is possible, that the beams of the WTC were cut in a certain way you're only going to find it, if a building was demolished on purpose. I saw the pictures in the newspaper and there is absoutely no way this could be happened by accident.
Let's just say the steel structure was weakend by the intense heat of the 'jet fuel'. It was not entirely weakened all across the building. So how is it possible that the building collapses along it's own axis, where the steel structure is most powerful? Try to break a steel bar. You might be able to bend it with a lot of power. Put try to break it pushing along the axis of the steel bar. All the theories and explanations I read on '911myths' and 'debunking911.com' and similar pages don't seem to have any structural engineer working on that (yes, I did read who it was from, but he is obviously not considering all the details), regardless of the formulas and drawings on those sites... There is no possible way for the columns and beams to fail simultaneously. And lets say it was just one giant physical coincidence... But twice? No way. I read a lot about the tube in a tube design and all those little details that we have to pay attention to. But the structure along its axis with all the concrete would have probably caused the building to tumble and fall at a certain point. But not for it to collapse into its own footprint. I know it didn't exactly do that... But a collapsing building, ALSO one with a tube in a tube design, needs to have structural damage all over it, not only in the top floors. And even under the weight of the top floors this would have looked differently. At least their would be more left of the steel core itself.


Welcome to the forum, Andreas. First of all, I would like to direct you to all of the great 9/11 debunking resources linked to at the top of the conspiracy subforum. Many, if not all, of your questions will find their answers there.

Regarding your above question: You state your disappointment that, " I read on '911myths' and 'debunking911.com' and similar pages don't seem to have any structural engineer working on that (yes, I did read who it was from, but he is obviously not considering all the details), regardless of the formulas and drawings on those sites." You then go on to tell us in detail what you think should have happened.

My question to you is what is your structural engineering training? You choose to disbelieve non-experts on debunking sites, so what special education have you had that makes your opinion more valuable? Obviously, you must be a structural engineer if you propose to tell us so definitively what would really have happened if the towers had collapsed because of the airplane colisions.

Otherwise, you are simply arguing from incredulity. The fact that you don't think the collapse would happen in the way it did doesn't change the fact that: a) it did; b) you have read explanations as to why it did; and c) there's no evidence of any other cause. Just because you do not like the answers doesn't mean your questions still remain.

In any case, glad to have you here. You're about to be extensively schooled in structural engineering by some pretty well-informed people. I hope you are able to put aside your disbelief long enough to honestly evaluate their information.

[Minadin]

Hello Andreas. Welcome to the forum.

I can tell you with some degree of certainty, due to daylighting course study that I had to do at the university, that the sky itself, and not just the sun in specific, is a huge source of light. Even if you are on the shady side of a building, and the sun cannot reach you directly, the ambient light that comes from a clear blue sky is on the order of 2,000 footcandles (21,600 lux if you prefer) which is still about 20 times that which is normally required for task lighting when you provide it electrically. (Direct sunlight is usually between 8,000 and 10,000 footcandles - 86,000 and 108,000 lux) My courses in photography and subsequent experience in that area allow me to state that objects which have a light source behind them will tend to sillouette a bit against that background, even if they are also being lit from the front.

I hope that helps.

[A-Train]

Andreas, my advice to you, continue to pursue the evidence that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. The fact that they were is quite obvious. Only a well financed and well connected organization could have had the means to infiltrate security at the WTC complex and planted the explosives. That shows that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by sophisticated conspiracy with some kind of state support (though not necessarily that of the US government.)

As for your ideas regarding the planes, I hope you drop that nonsense as soon as possible. Overwhelming evidence shows that all four planes ended up where the official story says they did.

[Alareth]

As for your ideas regarding the planes, I hope you drop that nonsense as soon as possible. Overwhelming evidence shows that all four planes ended up where the official story says they did.

That's it A-Train, baby steps, but you're getting there.

[andreasz]

Loss Leader: Didn't read the entire report, but most of it.
A few friends and customers of mine are in structural engineering and architecture. Their claims came up right after 9/11 and I just shook my head in disbelief when I first heard what they have to say. But by now I am starting to reconsider. That's where the ideas come from. It's not out of thin air.

This is actually why I didn't post a wave of questions. Just those two.

Burnout is a good explanation. I thought of that already. I can imagine that there is much worse in the world than those theories. I can also imagine that people are sick of some 'new guy' (in that case me), posting some stuff that appears to be the same old same old...

But this video analysis is pretty new and the guy really makes some good points. And regarding the eye-witnesses who actually saw the planes... After all I have read on this matter, all I have seen and everybody I have talked to, I am (by now) convinced, that there were never ever any planes on that day.

You should really watch what this guy has to say about the videos. This has ALL been on TV. Please explain to me WHY the CNN banner just HAPPENS to appear right over the nose of the plane.

Funfact: The fox video material must have been sent to CNN in a certain fashion... Why would it be different in zooming position? Why would CNNs banner cover that? And why has CNN deleted this video from the archive?

Seriously... I am not that easily excited myself. I have come across a lot of crap looking for information, so I can understand you guys being tired of the discussion. But this is really something nobody can deny. This has been on 'live' TV. Those images are not manipulated in any way, I have those on tape myself.

[andreasz]

Minadin: Of course, I understand that... But compare the video images, that are considered authentic. It just doesn't fit. Watch the videos please.

It's not that you guys are talking to a guy who isn't skeptic at all. I am not even religious ;)

But seriously... Take a look at the first video and the comments... I am really amazed by this analysis because this is the first research on this matter I found which is neither completely crazy and unlogical nor fake. As I said before, I find ALL the things he mentions in my own tapes. I am missing two clips, but I can verify the rest. It has been shown on TV exactly like this.

[ref]

Seriously, thousands of people saw the planes live. There is no way faking that. Seriously.

[funk de fino]

Loss Leader: Didn't read the entire report, but most of it.
A few friends and customers of mine are in structural engineering and architecture. Their claims came up right after 9/11 and I just shook my head in disbelief when I first heard what they have to say. But by now I am starting to reconsider. That's where the ideas come from. It's not out of thin air.

This is actually why I didn't post a wave of questions. Just those two.

Burnout is a good explanation. I thought of that already. I can imagine that there is much worse in the world than those theories. I can also imagine that people are sick of some 'new guy' (in that case me), posting some stuff that appears to be the same old same old...

But this video analysis is pretty new and the guy really makes some good points. And regarding the eye-witnesses who actually saw the planes... After all I have read on this matter, all I have seen and everybody I have talked to, I am (by now) convinced, that there were never ever any planes on that day.

You should really watch what this guy has to say about the videos. This has ALL been on TV. Please explain to me WHY the CNN banner just HAPPENS to appear right over the nose of the plane.

Funfact: The fox video material must have been sent to CNN in a certain fashion... Why would it be different in zooming position? Why would CNNs banner cover that? And why has CNN deleted this video from the archive?

Seriously... I am not that easily excited myself. I have come across a lot of crap looking for information, so I can understand you guys being tired of the discussion. But this is really something nobody can deny. This has been on 'live' TV. Those images are not manipulated in any way, I have those on tape myself.

forget the video and look at the actual eye witness from the pentagon and the second tower hit

over a hundred in the pentagon case and much more in the second tower hit

then try and say there were no planes

[Viper Daimao]

Are you trying to say there were no planes?

Which is more likely, thousands of people are lying about seeing the planes and every media network in the world is also lying or some armatures have misanalysed some 6 year old compressed video?

[Alt+F4]

And regarding the eye-witnesses who actually saw the planes... After all I have read on this matter, all I have seen and everybody I have talked to, I am (by now) convinced, that there were never ever any planes on that day.

You are wrong. I am one of those witnesses who saw with my own eyes the second plane hit the south tower. In the almost six years since then I have NEVER heard a fellow eyewitness say that what they saw was not an airplane.

[andreasz]

ref: It is probably likely that they saw a plane but I am convinced that there is nobody in New York who actually saw a plane crash into the World Trade Center.

Call it ridiculous... But considering the fact that there are hundreds of people with cellphones, video cameras and all that equipment in New York, why are there so few authentic(ated) videos? And why did most of them appear after years?

There are several videos from many different angles of people jumping off the WTC, of the towers collapsing... Tons of that... But almost nothing (compared to the amount of other videos) of a plane crashing into there.

Pixel bleed, framerate-conversion problems... There is so much 'wrong' in the newsmedia coverage... The most powerful ones are just tiny little details...

TV reporter: "After making first contact with the Mi-- the plane..."

Watch September clues 6 from the guys livevideo homepage. It's just one week old... The audio analysis is just amazing. This guy really knows what he is doing. And there is really no explanation for that.

Do you guys actually think, everything went the way the media presented it? Planes crashed into the WTC, it collapsed, boo-hoo, patriot act passed rapidly, war in Iraq started...

If anything, this is quite obvious to me.

[philkensebben]

I simply cannot comprehend how you could believe that no planes hit the twin towers. I'm sorry, but this theory is just too silly to entertain.

[Alt+F4]

Call it ridiculous... But considering the fact that there are hundreds of people with cellphones, video cameras and all that equipment in New York, why are there so few authentic(ated) videos? And why did most of them appear after years?

Yes, I'll call it ridiculous. I didn't have a cellphone in 2001, and most people I know didn't. I don't think camera phones were even available then. Why do you think that people going to work on an average Tuesday morning would have video cameras with them?

Again, I and thousands of others saw the plane. You are 100% wrong.

[andreasz]

Alt-F4: It's always hard to prove if somebody says he saw something...

But honestly. Anybody who knows just a LITTLE about people, men, mankind, that this eyewitness thing is worthless. I believe that every single american who has devloped some hatred towards whoever it was who teared down the WTC, is willing to eyewitness the situation for the greater good.

I am not saying that you are lying, don't misunderstand me. I am just saying that I personally don't believe any of this after re-watching those videos. And not the ones presented on the internet but the ones I have at home.

[Minadin]

Minadin: Of course, I understand that... But compare the video images, that are considered authentic. It just doesn't fit. Watch the videos please.

Sorry, Andreas, I was trying to very specifically answer this question you posed:

How is it possible, that the plane appears black in the shot? And don't come up with ideas like the sun being behind the object. Take a close look and you'll see that it is supposed to be white. For the people who insist that it is the sun being behind the object, you could explain to me why the plane appears black from both sides.

In as concise a fashion as I could muster, because I'm on my coffee break at work. I don't have time to watch several 10-minute long videos, though I did attempt to get through the first one and made it about halfway. It seems to be the same sort of recycled nonsense of the type that people such as Ace Baker have been promoting on this site (until quite recently) and others for a while now.

Video fading to black, nose out the other side, etc has all been thoroughly discussed here before. I'm sure others can provide links to those conversations, I simply haven't the time. It also seems to me that the makers of these videos are extremely selective as to which camera angles they are showing the impact from - though I admittedly haven't seen the whole series yet. I seem to recall a fairly clear video of the second airliner entering the building which was shot from behind.

Good luck with your research. Try to remember to stick to actual evidence - physical evidence before witness statements, and not succumb to speculation and innuendo. Keep and open mind, but don't forget to use it, and don't take any grouchiness personally.

[DGM]

Ace gets banned we get Andreasz. Curious.

[funk de fino]

ref: It is probably likely that they saw a plane but I am convinced that there is nobody in New York who actually saw a plane crash into the World Trade Center.
Call it ridiculous... But considering the fact that there are hundreds of people with cellphones, video cameras and all that equipment in New York, why are there so few authentic(ated) videos? And why did most of them appear after years?

There are several videos from many different angles of people jumping off the WTC, of the towers collapsing... Tons of that... But almost nothing (compared to the amount of other videos) of a plane crashing into there.

Pixel bleed, framerate-conversion problems... There is so much 'wrong' in the newsmedia coverage... The most powerful ones are just tiny little details...

TV reporter: "After making first contact with the Mi-- the plane..."

Watch September clues 6 from the guys livevideo homepage. It's just one week old... The audio analysis is just amazing. This guy really knows what he is doing. And there is really no explanation for that.

Do you guys actually think, everything went the way the media presented it? Planes crashed into the WTC, it collapsed, boo-hoo, patriot act passed rapidly, war in Iraq started...

If anything, this is quite obvious to me.


so everyone who did is a liar? and you are right to say that is ridiculous

i believe there are over 40 videos of the plane hitting the tower? how many do you need? i never had a video phone in 2001?

the tiny little details you waffle on about cannot stack up against the thousands of new yorkers who actually saw the plane hit

and the thousands around the world who do not rely on CNN who saw it live also

this is why people like you get ridiculed and called names, you are calling every single person who saw that plane a liar

good on you i hope you are proud

[kookbreaker]

ref: It is probably likely that they saw a plane but I am convinced that there is nobody in New York who actually saw a plane crash into the World Trade Center.


There are people on this forum who saw the planes hit. You are essentially calling them liars. I would dare you to go to NYC and ask around.

Maybe I am burnt out, but why does this seem like Ace's first sock puppet?

[andreasz]

As I said... Watch the videos... And to anybody, who isn't convinced he/she saw the planes himself, reconsider and cross-check with your tapes at home.

There is now way to deny that. And if there is, tell me, how...

[Alferd_Packer]

1.) Nobody ever gave any reply on the question, as to how it is possible, that the beams of the WTC were cut in a certain way you're only going to find it, if a building was demolished on purpose. I saw the pictures in the newspaper and there is absoutely no way this could be happened by accident.

Could you please elaborate on this?

Are you talking about the so-called “angled cut” in the column? (not a beam, BTW)

If you are, then please be aware that this has been thoroughly debunked.

You are right, it didn’t happen by accident, the cut was made on purpose by clean up workers removing the steel with a cutting torch. There are pictures of workers making similar cuts in other columns.

[Björn Toulouse]

Alt-F4: It's always hard to prove if somebody says he saw something...

But honestly. Anybody who knows just a LITTLE about people, men, mankind, that this eyewitness thing is worthless. I believe that every single american who has devloped some hatred towards whoever it was who teared down the WTC, is willing to eyewitness the situation for the greater good.

I am not saying that you are lying, don't misunderstand me. I am just saying that I personally don't believe any of this after re-watching those videos. And not the ones presented on the internet but the ones I have at home.


What videos do you have at home that have not been on the internet, Ace?

[T.A.M.]

Welcome Andreaz

What a shame Andreaz, why just in the last day or two we lost our biggest proponent of the Beam Weapon theory, ACE Baker (TS1234) from this forum. He was BANNED. Must be just real bad timing that you came here just after he was banned, as he could have added insight into your questions....

Have fun.

TAM;)

[TerryUK]

Loss Leader:

I am (by now) convinced, that there were never ever any planes on that day.



Unfortunately for the passengers and their families, this is false.

Your theory just helps to brand all 911 CTs as 'crackpot' theories.

[Alferd_Packer]

Maybe I am burnt out, but why does this seem like Ace's first sock puppet?


Good call.

I wonder if the expression "funfact" is a common term in Germany.

[Viper Daimao]

Is there anything we can say to convince you that there planes did hit the towers? Anything that would change your mind?

[andreasz]

I don't now, who Ace is... But it would be pretty stupid of him to come up with some 'old stuff' as am reincarnation...

But if you think I'm a fake of somebody else, check my IP address. I am german, located in germany, got to this forum after watching the Zeitgeist movie...

I don't want to push anybody to call me names or insult me, ban me, whatever...

Just take a look at the videos... I would like to hear some comments.

[andreasz]

TAM: I came across that beam weapon crap, too... That's what I was in the above referring to as 'crazy'.

[philkensebben]

Beam weapon crap ? And yet your a no planer.........

[Horatius]

You are wrong. I am one of those witnesses who saw with my own eyes the second plane hit the south tower. In the almost six years since then I have NEVER heard a fellow eyewitness say that what they saw was not an airplane.


I am not saying that you are lying, don't misunderstand me. I am just saying that I personally don't believe any of this after re-watching those videos. And not the ones presented on the internet but the ones I have at home.



"I am not saying that you are lying". Actually, that's exactly what you're doing. Alt+F4 has clearly stated that "I am one of those witnesses who saw with my own eyes the second plane hit the south tower". For you to disbelieve that statement is to call Alt+F4 a liar.

Feel free to continue with your delusions, but at least have the guts to actually come out and say what you mean. Don't play these word games. It's disrespectful.

[Newtons Bit]

1.) Nobody ever gave any reply on the question, as to how it is possible, that the beams of the WTC were cut in a certain way you're only going to find it, if a building was demolished on purpose. I saw the pictures in the newspaper and there is absoutely no way this could be happened by accident.
Let's just say the steel structure was weakend by the intense heat of the 'jet fuel'. It was not entirely weakened all across the building. So how is it possible that the building collapses along it's own axis, where the steel structure is most powerful? Try to break a steel bar. You might be able to bend it with a lot of power. Put try to break it pushing along the axis of the steel bar. All the theories and explanations I read on '911myths' and 'debunking911.com' and similar pages don't seem to have any structural engineer working on that (yes, I did read who it was from, but he is obviously not considering all the details), regardless of the formulas and drawings on those sites... There is no possible way for the columns and beams to fail simultaneously. And lets say it was just one giant physical coincidence... But twice? No way. I read a lot about the tube in a tube design and all those little details that we have to pay attention to. But the structure along its axis with all the concrete would have probably caused the building to tumble and fall at a certain point. But not for it to collapse into its own footprint. I know it didn't exactly do that... But a collapsing building, ALSO one with a tube in a tube design, needs to have structural damage all over it, not only in the top floors. And even under the weight of the top floors this would have looked differently. At least their would be more left of the steel core itself.

So much about that.

There were no real beams in a typical floor of WTC1&2. What you're thinking of is the floor trusses. And the floor trusses and the columns did not fail at the same time. Only the columns on a single floor need to fail for global collapse to ensue. Allow me to explain a little more.

The typical CT analogy is to suggest a 4-leg chair in place of the building. If you knock out one of those legs, the "building" tips over. This is probably what you're thinking would happen, however it has two problems: the number of legs (or columns) and the demand-to-capacity ratio of the legs. Unless a chair is built poorly, each individual leg can support many hundreds of pounds.

Let's look at a more appropiate analogy: the 47-leg chair. First thing you need to do, is place a load in the chair such that each leg is loaded to about 25% of the maximum compressive capacity of the chair. Then toe-nail each and every one of the legs down to a fixed base to prevent the chair from turning over. Then grab a sledge hammer and knock out two to five legs and then dent a bunch of others. Next, to simulate the fire weakening the legs, use a hacksaw and start cutting wedges out of the legs. At some point, all of the remaining legs shatter or bend or snap at approximately the same time.

The difference in the two analogies here is stability vs. strength. I know it's difficult for some people to see massive structural shapes loaded to failure, but that's what happened.

By the way, I am a structural engineer.

[Alt+F4]

I don't want to push anybody to call me names or insult me, ban me, whatever...

Yet you call me a liar, quite a double standard you have there.

[kookbreaker]

I don't now, who Ace is... But it would be pretty stupid of him to come up with some 'old stuff' as am reincarnation...

But if you think I'm a fake of somebody else, check my IP address. I am german, located in germany, got to this forum after watching the Zeitgeist movie...

I don't want to push anybody to call me names or insult me, ban me, whatever...

Just take a look at the videos... I would like to hear some comments.

I gave it a glance which was more than it deserved. The section I look at depended on an unfortunate decision by the CNN editor to cut away to a close up of the fire when the second plane hit.

Other TV stations did not cut away, and the impact was seen full on.

The no-planes nonsense is so much crap that even most 911 CTers reject it. Dylan Avery has outright banned its discussion because he thinks it makes the troofer look like idiots.

Around here, no-planer isn't even worth wasting time on. Gravy puts you right on ignore ifyou are a no-planer. Maybe because you're accusing thousands of citizens of his city of being liars from the comfort of your computer chair.

As for your video, I've already given it more time than it deserves. I'm sick to death of you troothers and your 'latest, greatest' video. Each one of them is supposed to be the unbreakable trooth and in fact is just a different layer of stupid. It reminds me of Bullwinkle always trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat.: "This time for sure!"

You ask us to be objective, but it is obvious how you want us to think about it. I do not wish to waste my time on this video and my stomacah can only take so much crap. So I suggest the following: You present what you consider to be its best points raised in the video and tell us in your own words what it is and why it convinces you. Make certain you are conherent in your presentation.

Otherwise, stop wasting our time with your 'latest greatest' video appeal. I for one am sick of the 'just watch this video...no wait this video! No wait...' Stop wasting our time and get down to brass tacks. I'm fed up with being told that because I don't beleive evil NWO agents edited video on the fly that somehow I am not being objective. Its like being told that I'm not being objective becauseI think gravity will cause an object to fall.

In short, get to the point, and stop trying to get a video to do your work for you.

[ref]

Andreasz,

Bist du verrückt? Warum sagst du, dass "beam weapon" absurd ist, aber keine Flugzeug ist nicht?

It's been a long time since I last spoke German :D

[Drudgewire]

Ace gets banned
Man, you just can't miss a day on these forums. :o

[Brainster]

Loss Leader: Didn't read the entire report, but most of it.
A few friends and customers of mine are in structural engineering and architecture. Their claims came up right after 9/11 and I just shook my head in disbelief when I first heard what they have to say. But by now I am starting to reconsider. That's where the ideas come from. It's not out of thin air.

Well, don't hold back, man! Who are these structural engineering friends and customers of yours? This is huge news; one of the big problems the 9-11 "Truth" movement has had is the lack of structural engineers. Your friends and customers are about to become very popular people.

But this video analysis is pretty new and the guy really makes some good points. And regarding the eye-witnesses who actually saw the planes... After all I have read on this matter, all I have seen and everybody I have talked to, I am (by now) convinced, that there were never ever any planes on that day.

Be precise now. You don't really mean there were never ever any planes on 9-11. You mean to say that you don't believe that planes hit the towers or the Pentagon, or that strip mine in Somerset County, right?

You should really watch what this guy has to say about the videos. This has ALL been on TV. Please explain to me WHY the CNN banner just HAPPENS to appear right over the nose of the plane.

Because it just HAPPENS to be placed there? Seriously, this "no planes" stuff is so ridiculous that we tend to ignore it as falling below the Killtown Line. Ooooh, she said "another plane", when she didn't see the first plane? Very suspicious indeed, except that at about 9:03 everybody who had a TV set knew that a plane had hit the North Tower. She had superhuman vision to see the South Tower hit? Why? The towers can be seen from many places in New York and New Jersey; there is nothing really blocking the view from Chelsea.

Funfact: The fox video material must have been sent to CNN in a certain fashion... Why would it be different in zooming position? Why would CNNs banner cover that? And why has CNN deleted this video from the archive?

Seriously... I am not that easily excited myself. I have come across a lot of crap looking for information, so I can understand you guys being tired of the discussion. But this is really something nobody can deny. This has been on 'live' TV. Those images are not manipulated in any way, I have those on tape myself.

The nose did not emerge on the other side; in all probability it was the landing gear that came out. The "micro-precision match" is simply retarded; the director is looking at a grainy video shot from miles away and yet somehow can tell it matches to a micro level?

And what is your explanation as to why a "graphic computer operator" (sic) (presumably in the television studio) would insert a "graphic plane" in the shot? The guy talks about a 17-second delay, but that's not even close to being right; live TV has a seven second or so delay, and that's only in the aftermath of Janet Jackson's famed nipple shot at the Super Bowl.

I am not sure where the fade to black comes from but there are numerous videos of the second hit that do not fade to black at the crucial moment, and the idea that somebody hit the switch in 0.28 seconds is risible.

[Dr Adequate]

Call it ridiculous... But considering the fact that there are hundreds of people with cellphones, video cameras and all that equipment in New York, why are there so few authentic(ated) videos? And why did most of them appear after years? Oh, well, obviously the delay was because the New World Order decided to carry out 9/11 first, and then fake the videos afterwards, which took them years. 'Cos they're not just evil, they're also complete frickin' retards.

There are several videos from many different angles of people jumping off the WTC, of the towers collapsing... Tons of that... But almost nothing (compared to the amount of other videos) of a plane crashing into there. And isn't it funny how when you see reports of a fire on the news, they show it burning so much more often then they show it catching light?

Deeply suspicious.

And in the recent flooding in Britain ... loads of pictures of towns knee-deep in water --- but not one bit of footage of a river breaking its banks.

I reckon Larry Silverstein must have "pulled" the water.

Pixel bleed, framerate-conversion problems... There is so much 'wrong' in the newsmedia coverage... The most powerful ones are just tiny little details...

TV reporter: "After making first contact with the Mi-- the plane..." Ah, well, again there's a perfectly simple explanation. Before the NWO carried out the greatest crime in the history of the USA, they made certain that the press was fully briefed. 'Cos they're retards, remember?

Do you guys actually think, everything went the way the media presented it? No, I think that "the media" is composed entirely of traitors complicit in the greatest crime ever committed on American soil, and that any one of them could, if he chose, break the biggest story since the War of Independence, but that none of them do 'cos they're all evil.

What really worries me about this is that my sister is a journalist --- do you think they've gotten to her already?

[T.A.M.]

Andreaz:

Where did I accuse you of being a fake. I merely said that you just missed him, which was very unlucky for you as a believer in "no planes" as he also believes this, and you would have had someone to back up your ideas on this. Plus, as he is a "Beam Weapon" believer, you could have had discussions with him on this area.

TAM:)

[andreasz]

ref: But still I understand ;) And no, I am not crazy. I just read this weapon theory and thought it was a load of crap.

Well. There is just to much to reply on and I can't reply to all of it in detail, so I'll try to cover most of it. Regarding the video(s):

The shot shown on CNN is different than the one on fox. Look closely. The image is a close-up of the fox-version. It just happens to zoom in on an already existing shot, so the CNN banner covers the nose-out thing? Well... And Fox btw. replaced the shot of the emerging nose of the plane with some different image, but the same audio track.

And the micro-precision match is quite sufficient... Compare the frames for yourself. It's exactly the same object, grainy or not... And comparing this to landing gear is crazy.

One thing in general... I have been reading a lot of stuff and watched a lot of videos and came across this forum, where people got bashed, most likely because people are just sick of the discussion.

I would not call myself a 'troother' or whatever names you have for people who try to see things from a different perspective.

About the no-planes thing: I am sure that people are so convinced of this story that they would never ever doubt that 'fact'. I won't give you a quick walkthrough, because there is just too much information and I wouldn't know how to sum it up in a few sentences. Just too many details...

Whoever wants to watch it, will... And I would be glad to read any kind of criticism on that. The main point of the video is not only the banner... There are numerous things... Whoever took the time to watch it, I'd be glad to read his or her comment.

[CHF]

Why can't we get any half-decent opposition here???

From under which rock do these no-planers originate?

[andreasz]

Take the time to watch the damn video, then you'll know why I registered here. What's so hard about that?

Which is exactly the reason why I want you to take a look.

One question to Mr. Newton: Why are there pictures of the columns being cut? Fake? It was in our newspaper.

[defaultdotxbe]

i never had a video phone in 2001?
http://cellphones.about.com/b/a/044827.htm

things of note in the article:

"Motorola launches first US camera phone"

"Friday November 21, 2003"

ive also read that the Sanyo 8100 was also the first US camera phone, but it was also released in 2003

clearly Andreaz has more research to do before opening his mouth

[andreasz]

Hm. Probably different markets. Japan and germany had those TFT cellphones way earlier.

Anyway, my mistake in that case.

[kookbreaker]

The shot shown on CNN is different than the one on fox. Look closely. The image is a close-up of the fox-version.


Gee, maybe because it was two different cameras on top of the same building? That building gives you the best view of the WTC towers, so it is little surprise that most TV crews would have send crews there for the best shots.

Or do you think all the stations were all working off one feed?

It just happens to zoom in on an already existing shot, so the CNN banner covers the nose-out thing? Well... And Fox btw. replaced the shot of the emerging nose of the plane with some different image, but the same audio track.


And the micro-precision match is quite sufficient... Compare the frames for yourself. It's exactly the same object, grainy or not... And comparing this to landing gear is crazy.


At this point you have no right to call anything 'crazy'.


One thing in general... I have been reading a lot of stuff and watched a lot of videos and came across this forum, where people got bashed, most likely because people are just sick of the discussion.

I would not call myself a 'troother' or whatever names you have for people who try to see things from a different perspective.


'A different perspective' would be one thing, this is out and out complete nonsense. You are accusing thousands of people of being liars, accusing people of altering their videos, accusing every major media center of being in on a plot to kill thousands of their fellow citizens. That's not a different perspective, that's mumbo-jumbo of mixed bag craziness.


About the no-planes thing: I am sure that people are so convinced of this story that they would never ever doubt that 'fact'. I won't give you a quick walkthrough, because there is just too much information and I wouldn't know how to sum it up in a few sentences. Just too many details...


No there aren't. Nothing you can provide will account for the thousands of eyewitnesses. You also are incapable of providing a video showing no plane but still the explosion. If what you claim is true, there should be dozens of videos with no plane. Why is this not the case?

Oh! Because this whole theory is insane!

[andreasz]

One more thing I remember from that Zeitgeist movie... A lot of nonsense, especially the part about german history... But this movie also makes some good points...

Why were Cheney and Bush not under oath? Why weren't there any transcripts allowed? Why was it on there terms, that they appear together?

There are sooo many things that made me doubt the official explanation. Otherwise I wouldn't put myself on the line like this ;) People who are bothered by this discussion don't need to answer...

I was pretty amazed by certain parts of these videos... All I want, is an opinion, or some well-founded criticism.

[A-Train]

There are several videos from many different angles of people jumping off the WTC, of the towers collapsing... Tons of that... But almost nothing (compared to the amount of other videos) of a plane crashing into there.


Here's a video that will cause you to drop the No Plane Theory, and instead embrace the No Human Pilot Theory:

http://investigate911.se/911_United_175_Nose_Dive_Bomber.html

[kookbreaker]

... All I want, is an opinion, or some well-founded criticism.

Here's some criticism: THE VIDEO IS BASICALLY CLAIMING THAT THOUSANDS OF NYC CITIZENS ARE LIARS!

I don't need to do anymore. Anything else is measuring pins with micrometers to determine how many angels can dance on them.

[andreasz]

No there aren't. Nothing you can provide will account for the thousands of eyewitnesses. You also are incapable of providing a video showing no plane but still the explosion. If what you claim is true, there should be dozens of videos with no plane. Why is this not the case?


It actually is the case. There is a video showing exactly that. There is one 'lucky shot' of that hit the WTC. I have to look myself, which one it was. I will get back to you and let you know what video and what time.

Also, there is a video showing some object approach the WTC. Covered up manually with sky background. I was able to find exactly that thing on my tape at home...

I'll just look into it and let you know. Give me a sec.

[DGM]

How did they fake the personal videos. I know of and have watched two that have never been seen on TV or the internet. One was taken from world financial right next to the towers. That's on big ass plane to miss.

[calebprime]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI-RCpdy9tw


I can't find the single YouTube with all 40+ videos, but this has many of them.


andreasz, if you believe that no planes hit the towers, you necessarily believe in a huge, intricate conspiracy, involving the airlines, the U.S. and other governments, and news organizations from many different countries. All these people would have required a compelling motive. There were thousands of people who saw the the second plane. There was DNA evidence, other forensic evidence. Do you believe in a huge conspiracy--involving literally tens of thousands of people?

[Dr Adequate]

The shot shown on CNN is different than the one on fox. Look closely. The image is a close-up of the fox-version. It just happens to zoom in on an already existing shot, so the CNN banner covers the nose-out thing? Well... And Fox btw. replaced the shot of the emerging nose of the plane with some different image, but the same audio track. Well, it's perfectly simple. The New World Order knew that their fake video was no good, so they decided to cover up the defect in the video, but because they're complete frickin' retards, they decided to release the flawed version as well. What you have to remember, you see, is that they're so amazingly dumb that they do everything in the stupidest possible way.

I mean, what you have to remember about these idiots is that they're the kind of people who wanted to deceive the public into thinking that terrorists had flown planes into the Twin Towers, and never hit on the idea of flying planes into the Twin Towers and blaming terrorists.

Evidently they dreamed up the most idiotic conspiracy in the history of the world ... well, either that or the Truth Movement dreamed up the most idiotic conspiracy theory in the history of the world.

[andreasz]

Here's a video that will cause you to drop the No Plane Theory, and instead embrace the No Human Pilot Theory:


Well... This one actually embraces my theory in both ways... Not exactly my theory but the one I adapted.

Please explain:

There were tons of videos showing a straight horizontal approach whereas your video shows a deep dive. How is that possible?

Plane was not controlled at all? Well... Plane wasn't there at all, which would also explain the unbelievable maneuvre...

[Drudgewire]

Take the time to watch the damn video, then you'll know why I registered here. What's so hard about that?
Watched.

Still the only explanation I can come up with as to why twoofers register here is they really enjoy making spectacles of themselves. A simple search will show that these topics have been covered to hell and back, but that doesn't stop a new thread with THE PROOF THAT WILL FINALLY CONVINCE YOU CLOSE-MINDED SKEPTICS from popping up from a new guy before the e-ink on the ban paperwork from the last one has dried.

It's not that it's any easier to rehash the same garbage over and over again, but just reading old threads about the skeptical viewpoint doesn't draw any attention to one's self. Unlike, say, dredging up something and pretending that it's a topic we refuse to acknowledge since we can't answer it.

So go on and continue to tell yourself that watching stupid youtube videos made by those who have predisposed agendas when they make them is more credible than thousands of witnesses and every bit of verifiable scientific evidence that can be applied to the situation. Continue to associate with people who ignore any shred of evidence that might debunk their own personal theory, and whose theories change by the minute in order to put a new mirror over the massive holes in their previous ones. Because that... in a nutshell... is "the truth movement."

But we're the close-minded ones. :rolleyes:

[andreasz]

calebprime: That's what is actually shocking me the most. There are so many people involved in this, that it really gets me scared.

And there's a simple reason why people would do that... 'money'.

But that's by far too complex, and I am really hoping that this situation will resolve itself... There are so many questions unanswered.. Although this has happened 6 years ago.

[ref]

Well... This one actually embraces my theory in both ways... Not exactly my theory but the one I adapted.

Please explain:

There were tons of videos showing a straight horizontal approach whereas your video shows a deep dive. How is that possible?

Plane was not controlled at all? Well... Plane wasn't there at all, which would also explain the unbelievable maneuvre...

Do you believe in other conspiracies, like JFK, Apollo Hoax or AIDS conspiracy?

Just checking.

[andreasz]

I am actually a conspiracy virgin ;) I do believe that there are definitely certain things that are kept from the people and that people don't need to know. For the greater good. But there are also things that are kept from us that shouldn't be.

But about the AIDS conspiracy and JFK... That's guessworking in my opinion

[kookbreaker]

calebprime: That's what is actually shocking me the most. There are so many people involved in this, that it really gets me scared.

And there's a simple reason why people would do that... 'money'.


OK, you figured us out. Here, I'll cut you a check, how much for you to keep quiet about this?

$1000?
$10,000?
$100,000?
$1,000,000?

C'mon man, what's you bribe threshold to keep quiet about this?

Oh, you don't have one? You don't have a money level to keep quiet about the murder of 3,000 people who aren't even citizens of your country?

Then why do you think that thousands of people can be bribed to cover up the deaths of thousands of their fellow citizens? What makes you so 'pure'?

[ref]

I am actually a conspiracy virgin ;) I do believe that there are definitely certain things that are kept from the people and that people don't need to know. For the greater good. But there are also things that are kept from us that shouldn't be.

But about the AIDS conspiracy and JFK... That's guessworking in my opinion

Ok. Then consider this:

1 person in Norway watches videos and claims there were no planes. You choose to believe him.

You choose not to believe these:
-Thousands of eyewitnesses seeing the planes with their own eyes.
-DNA of the passengers and hijackers found at the scene.
-Parts of planes found at the scene.
-Radar records.
-Air traffic controllers.
-Multiple videos showing planes.


Do you see, why your ideas seem so absurd?

[Reheat]

Here's a video that will cause you to drop the No Plane Theory, and instead embrace the No Human Pilot Theory:

http://investigate911.se/911_United_175_Nose_Dive_Bomber.html

I watched your marvelous video and it convinced me that the pilot was inexperienced and determined to crash into a tall building regardless of how many limitations he exceeded on that B-767.

What's really pathetic is that many people died because of that maneuver, yet you ignoramuses expect decent people to watch it over and over again without getting sick to their stomach every time.

I don't believe there are enough words in the English language to describe my contempt for you and your kind.:mad:

[andreasz]

ref: I know all that... But I know for a fact what TV can do. Think about it: Make billions of people believe what happened... How much do a few hundred or thousands count? Who cares?

[defaultdotxbe]

ref: I know all that... But I know for a fact what TV can do. Think about it: Make billions of people believe what happened... How much do a few hundred or thousands count? Who cares?
but those hundreds or thousands are the ones who know what happened without having to see it on TV, youd think theyd be the most important witnesses, but you dismiss them wholesale because they disagree with your preconceived notions

[Par]

ref: I know all that... But I know for a fact what TV can do. Think about it: Make billions of people believe what happened... How much do a few hundred or thousands count? Who cares?


Right. So, where’s your evidence?

[Minadin]

Well... This one actually embraces my theory in both ways... Not exactly my theory but the one I adapted.

Please explain:

There were tons of videos showing a straight horizontal approach whereas your video shows a deep dive. How is that possible?

Plane was not controlled at all? Well... Plane wasn't there at all, which would also explain the unbelievable maneuvre...

1. Obviously, the plane leveled out at the end of its dive. Most videos show a lot less of its approach due to the angle they have. The video shown above is a head-on angle, so the plane stays in the screen area for much longer.

2. If you think you can't fly a commercial airliner like that, check out these videos which Gumboot provided months ago:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76327

You're not supposed to fly an airliner like that, for the sake of the comfort of the passengers. But, just because a particular maneuvre is not standard operation doesn't mean that it's unbelievable.

[andreasz]

Try the second video. That shows an audio comparison and the differences between the videos.

One video shows a steep dive where the other shows a straight and level horizontal approach. There is no way to blame that on the perspective... You can't miss a dive from a horizontal angle, unless the object comes right towards you.

And the plane on the video posted by A-Train definitely IS in a dive. Would it just APPEAR to be in a dive, but actually moving on the same level, we would, if anything, see it move upwards the closer it gets, because the distance gets shorter and therefore the angle steeper.

Please explain that to me. Rationally. Don't you think that I DON'T think that this idea MAY appear crazy to others? Don't you guys think, WHY some guy gets those crazy ideas? Compare the videos for yourself and tell me this is just APPEARING to be this way.

Or, if you want some illustration, watch the 2nd video on the website...

[Anti-sophist]

Instead of discussing theories and certain ideas, people are being mocked and all the replies they get on the things they post into this forum are unnecessary comments like 'Do I really need to watch that crap or are the first 5 minutes sufficient?'


I actually agree with you to some extent. However, most truther posts here are weak and worthy of derision. Sometimes actual substantiative discussion is warranted and the locals sometimes get a little over zealous and "peanut-gallery" the post to the point that we have too much noise and way too little signal.

That being said, I have a general rule of thumb: I will put in roughly equal effort analyzing your "concerns" as you have in expressing them.

I do this for one very simple reason. It takes you 9 seconds to post "LOL DEBUNK THIS VIDEO", and it might take me 4 hours to do so. Then you come along and post a new video. I've been down that road too many times.

People here get sick and tired of being asked to do things and then being ignored by those who asked them. It's a form of argument ad nauseum. Truthers keep making 'challenges' and then ignoring the detailed answers. They keep making more challenges. They are trying to wear people out. They want to keep asking questions and ignoring answers until those answering give up. Then they can declare victory.

This type of truther behavior very quickly spoils otherwise patient people into simply mocking people who make "DEBUNK THIS" posts.

My suggestion to you is create a post that succinctly explains your beliefs with the evidence handy. Show me the picture you are talking about. Annotate it. Show me the frame with the black plane. It's far easier for us to read it at our own pace and digest it. Most importantly, it shows that you care enough to put the time into something meaningful instead of just posting someone elses work. If you care enough to put the time in, I might believe you'll actually read my response if I do the same.

[Gravy]

ref: It is probably likely that they saw a plane but I am convinced that there is nobody in New York who actually saw a plane crash into the World Trade Center.You need to stop this insulting ignorance. Now.

Got it, chief?

Mark Roberts
New York City

[andreasz]

Par: Why re-invent the wheel? Check for yourself on the website...

And if you come to the conclusion, that this is all a load of crap, then do so... But I'd like to see, how you do it. I am skeptic myself... I don't believe everything people feed me... I watched these videos and suspected some video editing. So I checked for random versions of the same shot...

Surprisingly, the things I was suspecting to be fraud, were also in those videos. So later on, I checked my tapes at home... I have several recordings... It was all over the news for days...

This actually is, what shocks me the most. It's not that I don't think, this idea MIGHT surprise people or be considered weird.

[Apollo20]

Andreasz:

Welcome to JREF, although you will probably find it a waste of time talking to the live-free-and-die-hard types that always appear to have the most to say on these conspiracy threads!

Anyway, I can certainly say it's no surprise that you are already getting the typical "treatment" from the usual "experts" that I have seen doled out over and over again to anyone who comes here questioning the official "story". When anyone calls this an "educational" forum, the educational bit mostly refers to a demonstration of the art of the cutting remark!

Oh, and one word of warning Andreasz, better watch out for posters who offer no technical content... I could name them.... but I think you will be able to tell who they are. I would put them on "ignore" immediately.

As for this claim that you are "Calling Thousands of New Yorkers Liars", I don't buy that. Those aircraft/missiles were travelling at very high speeds... in the 800 feet per second range. When those video clips are played in real time the aircraft/missile appears literally out of nowhere and are immediately destroyed in a fraction of a second. Only the SLOW MOTION VIDEOS allow one to see what is going on and I agree that there are some strange anomalies in many of those videos.

I have been in NYC many times and I know that standing on a typical street corner in Lower Manhattan you have a pretty restricted view of the sky. Most of the witnesses said something like "I HEARD a roar, or the SOUND of a jet... and then SAW something hit the tower". And the eyewitnesses were NOT consistent in how they described the "aircraft". Someone said it was a "prop" plane and someone said it was a missile. Does this mean one of these "New Yorkers" was lying?

[ref]

Oh, and one word of warning Andreasz, better watch out for posters who offer no technical content... I could name them.... but I think you will be able to tell who they are. I would put them on "ignore" immediately.

You need to offer technical content in debunking no planers? Give me a break. You didn't offer any technical content in this post either.


As for this claim that you are "Calling Thousands of New Yorkers Liars", I don't buy that. Those aircraft/missiles were travelling at very high speeds... in the 800 feet per second range. When those video clips are played in real time the aircraft/missile appears literally out of nowhere and are immediately destroyed in a fraction of a second. Only the SLOW MOTION VIDEOS allow one to see what is going on and I agree that there are some strange anomalies in many of those videos.

What do you consider being those anomalies?


I have been in NYC many times and I know that standing on a typical street corner in Lower Manhattan you have a pretty restricted view of the sky. Most of the witnesses said something like "I HEARD a roar, or the SOUND of a jet... and then SAW something hit the tower". And the eyewitnesses were NOT consistent in how they described the "aircraft". Someone said it was a "prop" plane and someone said it was a missile. Does this mean one of these "New Yorkers" was lying?

You still believe it was AA11 and UA 175?

[Pardalis]

There is absolutely no point in talking to a no planer.

Hello and goodbye Andreasz.

[DGM]

Andreasz
Did you miss this. Ace didn't like these questions much.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2837453#post2837453

[andreasz]

Apollo20: Thanks for the welcome. It wasn't my intention to call anybody a liar... I am just saying that people might be willing to see what they are told, if it serves a greater good. I won't go into detail on that, I guess everybody knows what I mean.

Anti-Sophist: I will point something out. If the nose-emerging video doesn't seem interesting to you, the 2nd one might. It's in the first 2 minutes of the video. It's not only one NEW revealing video that sends the government to hell in a second... It's an analysis of the newsmedia coverage.

There's nothing in there that you haven't already seen a thousand times. But there's relations between these things, you might have missed. At least I did.

Give it a shot. It'll take 10 minutes of your time. If it seems like an interesting theory to you, go on and watch the rest. It took me way more than 10 minutes being active on this forum and I am not taking this as a one-way-street of discussion. I am replying to everything that has some sense and no unnecessary cynicism in it.

[Gravy]

Now Greening is questioning my friends and neighbors? Some of whom have photos and videos of the second plane hitting? Questioning my girlfriend who saw both planes hit from close range?

What the hell is wrong with these people?

What has turned them into such nasty, ignorant, insulting human beings?

[Corsair 115]

What a shame Andreaz, why just in the last day or two we lost our biggest proponent of the Beam Weapon theory, ACE Baker (TS1234) from this forum. He was BANNED.Pardon the sidetrack, but after having a few, ah, debates with TS over his faked video assertions, I'm curious as to what happened to result in his banning since I apparently missed the event. Did he say something particularly egregious? Too much thread spamming? What was the final straw?


As to Andreaz and the faked video assertions, looks like I might have to break out my standard list of questions/points once again...

[Hyperviolet]

Andreasz:

Welcome to JREF, although you will probably find it a waste of time talking to the live-free-and-die-hard types that always appear to have the most to say on these conspiracy threads!

Anyway, I can certainly say it's no surprise that you are already getting the typical "treatment" from the usual "experts" that I have seen doled out over and over again to anyone who comes here questioning the official "story". When anyone calls this an "educational" forum, the educational bit mostly refers to a demonstration of the art of the cutting remark!

Oh, and one word of warning Andreasz, better watch out for posters who offer no technical content... I could name them.... but I think you will be able to tell who they are. I would put them on "ignore" immediately.

As for this claim that you are "Calling Thousands of New Yorkers Liars", I don't buy that. Those aircraft/missiles were travelling at very high speeds... in the 800 feet per second range. When those video clips are played in real time the aircraft/missile appears literally out of nowhere and are immediately destroyed in a fraction of a second. Only the SLOW MOTION VIDEOS allow one to see what is going on and I agree that there are some strange anomalies in many of those videos.

I have been in NYC many times and I know that standing on a typical street corner in Lower Manhattan you have a pretty restricted view of the sky. Most of the witnesses said something like "I HEARD a roar, or the SOUND of a jet... and then SAW something hit the tower". And the eyewitnesses were NOT consistent in how they described the "aircraft". Someone said it was a "prop" plane and someone said it was a missile. Does this mean one of these "New Yorkers" was lying?

Dr Greening,

Forgive my intrusiveness but would you mind clarifying that?
Do you mean that you are considering the idea that a missile hit the WTC, literally?
Or simply using 'missile' as delineation of the flight path?

[Pardalis]

Hyperviolet, I wouldn't expect a straight answer from Dr. Greening, but kudos for trying.

[kookbreaker]

That's it, I'm outta this thread. The stupid level has risen evn higher with Greening's added gibberish.

[Corsair 115]

Those aircraft/missiles were travelling at very high speeds... in the 800 feet per second range. When those video clips are played in real time the aircraft/missile appears literally out of nowhere... That depends entirely on the viewing angle of a particular video.

Only the SLOW MOTION VIDEOS allow one to see what is going on and I agree that there are some strange anomalies in many of those videos.Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! How many times must I repeat this? IF YOU HAVE A DECENT EYE FOR SPOTTING SPECIAL EFFECTS, YOU CAN SPOT THEM BY WATCHING A VIDEO PLAYED AT NORMAL SPEED. No slow motion, no frame-by-frame analysis needed. Just normal speed viewing repeated as necessary.

ANY shot involving any sort of visual effect should be detectable at normal speed. If you can't spot potential effects in a shot at normal speed, you've got no eye for spotting special effects and any analysis done is highly suspect. Period. It really is that simple.

[JonnyFive]

Wouldn't video need to be shot with a high speed camera to derive any real benefit from slowing it down? Otherwise, you're just prolonging the experience without actually being able to gather additional detail. If something moves too fast to capture properly on a 30 fps recording, slowing the resulting video down will not create additional detail in between the recorded frames.

Was anyone shooting with a high speed camera that day? That seems like it would be exceptionally unusual, and don't digital cameras all shoot between 24 and 30 fps?

[T.A.M.]

Andreaz:

There are dozens, if not hundreds of eyewitness accounts of people witnessing the planes hit, especially the UA175. You are gonna have to do better than "people can be fooled" as an explanation. Provide one piece of evidence, besides your "gut feelings", that there are no witnesses that saw flights AA11 or UA175 crash into the WTCs. thanks.

Apollo20:

Andreasz:

Welcome to JREF, although you will probably find it a waste of time talking to the live-free-and-die-hard types that always appear to have the most to say on these conspiracy threads!

Anyway, I can certainly say it's no surprise that you are already getting the typical "treatment" from the usual "experts" that I have seen doled out over and over again to anyone who comes here questioning the official "story". When anyone calls this an "educational" forum, the educational bit mostly refers to a demonstration of the art of the cutting remark!

I tend to save my CUTTING REMARKS for those who come here presenting the usual, well debunked garbage, and who present it as if we are stupid for not seeing it their way.



Oh, and one word of warning Andreasz, better watch out for posters who offer no technical content... I could name them.... but I think you will be able to tell who they are. I would put them on "ignore" immediately.

Well we can't all be engineers or chemists, now can we. I have done alot of reading on 9/11, and I do have many courses at college level in both Physics, Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Mathematics. Yes I have not used any of it in a long time (Their is no use for Laplace Transforms in assessing Heart Disease), but I would consider my posts here "lacking in content" so much as lacking in technical detail...for the most part.


As for this claim that you are "Calling Thousands of New Yorkers Liars", I don't buy that. Those aircraft/missiles were travelling at very high speeds... in the 800 feet per second range. When those video clips are played in real time the aircraft/missile appears literally out of nowhere and are immediately destroyed in a fraction of a second. Only the SLOW MOTION VIDEOS allow one to see what is going on and I agree that there are some strange anomalies in many of those videos.

I have been in NYC many times and I know that standing on a typical street corner in Lower Manhattan you have a pretty restricted view of the sky. Most of the witnesses said something like "I HEARD a roar, or the SOUND of a jet... and then SAW something hit the tower". And the eyewitnesses were NOT consistent in how they described the "aircraft". Someone said it was a "prop" plane and someone said it was a missile. Does this mean one of these "New Yorkers" was lying?

Well I am sure there were lots of witnesses who saw the explosion, or saw the plane, and didnt turn in time to see the plane actually hit the building, but I am also sure there were lots who did actually see the plane, especially UA175, hit the building.

TAM:)

[Alt+F4]

I have been in NYC many times and I know that standing on a typical street corner in Lower Manhattan you have a pretty restricted view of the sky. Most of the witnesses said something like "I HEARD a roar, or the SOUND of a jet... and then SAW something hit the tower". And the eyewitnesses were NOT consistent in how they described the "aircraft". Someone said it was a "prop" plane and someone said it was a missile. Does this mean one of these "New Yorkers" was lying?

I sir, have lived in New York City my entire 43 years. I saw a large passenger jet hit the south tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Why don't you return to NYC soon and debunk the thousands of others who saw the same thing I did? Your insinuation is disgraceful.

[Revolutionary91]

Now Greening is questioning my friends and neighbors? Some of whom have photos and videos of the second plane hitting? Questioning my girlfriend who saw both planes hit from close range?

What the hell is wrong with these people?

What has turned them into such nasty, ignorant, insulting human beings?


Am I allowed to be skeptical about the bolded part?

Gravy I thought Dr Greening was one of your favourite debunkers. Why did you turn on him? Was it when he showed that he really is a skeptic unlike the pseudo skeptics here?

[HyJinX]

Am I allowed to be skeptical about the bolded part?

Gravy I thought Dr Greening was one of your favourite debunkers. Why did you turn on him? Was it when he showed that he really is a skeptic unlike the pseudo skeptics here?

Hey there, PDoh! How's your sock drawer? Full yet?

[T.A.M.]

Am I allowed to be skeptical about the bolded part?

Gravy I thought Dr Greening was one of your favourite debunkers. Why did you turn on him? Was it when he showed that he really is a skeptic unlike the pseudo skeptics here?

I think Apollo is more inquisitive than truther. I think he is torn between his dedication to honest science, which is strong, and his dislike towards the establishment, which he sees as corrupt and immoral.

The only way I ever see Frank coming to terms with this is if he actually finds some evidence that supports the CTists, which is almost certainly not going to happen. He has done good work, and while I am sure he is proud of it, and should be, I bet he would have rather discovered that the USG "did it", so that his dislike of establishment and love of science would be in harmony...

But this is just my opinion based on my limited encounters with him. I could be totally wrong, in which case, I AM SURE, Dr. Greening will set me straight.

TAM;)

[Apollo20]

This whole site is about conspiracy theories is it not? We come on this site to discuss conspiracy theories ... Yes?

Then why are you guys so touchy about conspiracies! Someone only has to say "missile" and you all go off the deep end!

And while we are on the subject of trick photography, how about those fake Apollo photos.....

Is someone now going to claim that Buzz is their uncle and this is a personal affront!

Anyway, didn't dear old Rummy say a missile hit the Pentagon?

And what happened to the tail section of that "missile" at the Pentagon anyway?

[HyJinX]

<snip> Someone only has to say "missile" and you all go off the deep end!


Anyway, didn't dear old Rummy say a missile hit the Pentagon?

Contradict much?

[Anti-sophist]

And what happened to the tail section of that "missile" at the Pentagon anyway?

I am literally aghast that you can repeat such abject and well-tread nonsense. Maybe next you can mention that the temperatures were too high to melt steel or that the hijackers are still alive?

[Revolutionary91]

I think Apollo is more inquisitive than truther. I think he is torn between his dedication to honest science, which is strong, and his dislike towards the establishment, which he sees as corrupt and immoral.

The only way I ever see Frank coming to terms with this is if he actually finds some evidence that supports the CTists, which is almost certainly not going to happen. He has done good work, and while I am sure he is proud of it, and should be, I bet he would have rather discovered that the USG "did it", so that his dislike of establishment and love of science would be in harmony...

But this is just my opinion based on my limited encounters with him. I could be totally wrong, in which case, I AM SURE, Dr. Greening will set me straight.

TAM;)

Dr Greening is certainly not a truther. He is a real skeptic. He evaluates evidence and searches for more. He doesn't knee jerk react to anyone who dares question the official story. True skeptics must cringe reading this forum.

[Mr. Skinny]

This whole site is about conspiracy theories is it not? We come on this site to discuss conspiracy theories ... Yes?
(snip)
No. This whole site is geared toward promoting critical thinking.

Conspiracy theories is just a sub-forum.

[defaultdotxbe]

Dr Greening is certainly not a truther. He is a real skeptic. He evaluates evidence and searches for more. He doesn't knee jerk react to anyone who dares question the official story. True skeptics must cringe reading this forum.
so will you be evaluating evidence for the official story? or are you not a real skeptic?

[LashL]

Someone only has to say "missile" and you all go off the deep end!

Someone here has gone off the deep end, that much is certain. Guess who.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110346b779be3f208.jpg

[Hyperviolet]

This whole site is about conspiracy theories is it not? We come on this site to discuss conspiracy theories ... Yes?

Then why are you guys so touchy about conspiracies! Someone only has to say "missile" and you all go off the deep end!

And while we are on the subject of trick photography, how about those fake Apollo photos.....

Is someone now going to claim that Buzz is their uncle and this is a personal affront!

Anyway, didn't dear old Rummy say a missile hit the Pentagon?

And what happened to the tail section of that "missile" at the Pentagon anyway?

Dr Greening,

I, personally, am not touchy at all about the idea of missiles. I myself do not believe any of the theories involving them, but most certainly am not touchy as to whether someone chooses to discuss them on a conspiracy (sub) forum.

I respectfully ask again - Do you consider the idea of a missile strike seriously? Or is your wording purely descriptive of the flight path and subsequent impact?

Of course, you are under no obligation to disclose your opinion on this, however, it would be appreciated if you did indeed clarify this.

Thank you.

[Rahne Everson]

This whole site is about conspiracy theories is it not? We come on this site to discuss conspiracy theories ... Yes?

Then why are you guys so touchy about conspiracies! Someone only has to say "missile" and you all go off the deep end!

Dr. Greening, if you're going to play devil's advocate for the conspiracy side, don't do it for the no-planers. Please. It's just nonsense, and everything one says about it that even remotely supports it is nonsense. It's not worth anybody's time.

[Alt+F4]

Then why are you guys so touchy about conspiracies! Someone only has to say "missile" and you all go off the deep end!

Yeah, sometimes I do go off the deep end when discussing this. Almost 3,000 people dead, about 3,000 children lost a parent.

Dr. Greening, have you ever been to a funeral where there is a casket but no body inside? Has your local newspaper ever been filled with pages and pages of obituaries for months on end? Have you ever had to explain to a child that the sound they are hearing is just thunder and not another plane crashing?

[Drudgewire]

Is someone now going to claim that Buzz is their uncle and this is a personal affront!
Of all the reasons these bogus conspiracy theories are maddening, providing people for Buzz Aldrin to punch in the face is not one of them. :D

[Reheat]

Anyway, didn't dear old Rummy say a missile hit the Pentagon?

And what happened to the tail section of that "missile" at the Pentagon anyway?

Well, it was a missile in the shape of a B-767, wasn't it?

I'll bet the "tail" was hidden because of those pedophile members of the NWO! :D

[FatesWebb]

things of note in the article:

"Motorola launches first US camera phone"

"Friday November 21, 2003"

ive also read that the Sanyo 8100 was also the first US camera phone, but it was also released in 2003

clearly Andreaz has more research to do before opening his mouth

hmm... the first commercial deployment in North America of camera phones was in 2002. The Sprint wireless carriers deployed over 1 million camera phone manufactured by Sanyo and launched by the PictureMail infrastructure (Sha-Mail in English) developed and managed by LightSurf.

(who needs to do more research again?)

[mortimer]

Apollo20: Thanks for the welcome. It wasn't my intention to call anybody a liar... I am just saying that people might be willing to see what they are told, if it serves a greater good. I won't go into detail on that, I guess everybody knows what I mean.

No, please go into detail. The thousands of people who saw the second plane hit the tower... please explain how they were convinced to see a plane that was never there, and provide evidence of such.

[Drudgewire]

hmm... the first commercial deployment in North America of camera phones was in 2002. The Sprint wireless carriers deployed over 1 million camera phone manufactured by Sanyo and launched by the PictureMail infrastructure (Sha-Mail in English) developed and managed by LightSurf.

(who needs to do more research again?)
I'm guessing it's still the guy who is asking why there weren't more camera phone shots of the events of 9/11/01. ;)

[kookbreaker]

Dr Greening is certainly not a truther. He is a real skeptic. He evaluates evidence and searches for more.


The implication here is that we have not done so. That could not be further from the truth.


He doesn't knee jerk react to anyone who dares question the official story. True skeptics must cringe reading this forum.

Why is it that every woowoo, from spoonbender to troofer has some ephemeral definition of a 'true skeptic' which always seems to be some kind of fence-sitting intellectual agnosticism that, despite the occasional token booger flung at the believer side, invariably has them landing far more heavily on the kooky side of things?

Seriously, its like the old crank group the Forteans. They would take all kinds of pains to attack skeptics at all levels, but would every now and then make a comment about the zanier side of things, and then blast the skeptics for using genuine information and data that had results they didn't like.

I'd like to know who these 'true skeptics' are and why they don't come in here to lambast us on a regular basis. Because to date the only folks who have come in here to complain about our attitude are troofers and cranks.

Where are they, Revy? Can't you get some to show up here? Surely Greening isn't the only true skeptic.

[FatesWebb]

Wouldn't video need to be shot with a high speed camera to derive any real benefit from slowing it down? Otherwise, you're just prolonging the experience without actually being able to gather additional detail. If something moves too fast to capture properly on a 30 fps recording, slowing the resulting video down will not create additional detail in between the recorded frames.

Was anyone shooting with a high speed camera that day? That seems like it would be exceptionally unusual, and don't digital cameras all shoot between 24 and 30 fps?


actually cameras capture 30 pictures a second, and your eye can only see about 10 a second. so you can actually see more if you slow a video down.

[JonnyFive]

hmm... the first commercial deployment in North America of camera phones was in 2002. The Sprint wireless carriers deployed over 1 million camera phone manufactured by Sanyo and launched by the PictureMail infrastructure (Sha-Mail in English) developed and managed by LightSurf.

(who needs to do more research again?)

Wikipedia couldn't have said it better:

The first commercial deployment in North America of camera phones was in 2002. The Sprint wireless carriers deployed over 1 million camera phone manufactured by Sanyo and launched by the PictureMail infrastructure (Sha-Mail in English) developed and managed by LightSurf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightSurf). (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_phone))

You could have at least paraphrased the information.

[defaultdotxbe]

hmm... the first commercial deployment in North America of camera phones was in 2002. The Sprint wireless carriers deployed over 1 million camera phone manufactured by Sanyo and launched by the PictureMail infrastructure (Sha-Mail in English) developed and managed by LightSurf.

(who needs to do more research again?)
considering i devoted a whole 5 minutes to the subject and never said i had the end-all beat-all answer i will admit to requiring more research

however my point was andreaz pointed to the lack of thousands of cameraphone shots of the planes hitting the towers as evidence that there were no planes, when both your research and mine shows there were no cameraphones available in the US market at the time (im assuming he spent more than 5 minutes researching 911)

[Corsair 115]

actually cameras capture 30 pictures a second, and your eye can only see about 10 a second. so you can actually see more if you slow a video down.Source for this claim? I ask because by that logic animation would need no more than ten frames per second. Ten frames per second would be quite jerky animation. Even 16 or 18 frames per second looks rather jerky.

[Redtail]

No planes? So the Naudet film is fake too?

[kookbreaker]

considering i devoted a whole 5 minutes to the subject and never said i had the end-all beat-all answer i will admit to requiring more research

however my point was andreaz pointed to the lack of thousands of cameraphone shots of the planes hitting the towers as evidence that there were no planes, when both your research and mine shows there were no cameraphones available in the US market at the time (im assuming he spent more than 5 minutes researching 911)

I was half expecting him to complain that more videos should have been uploaded to youtube the evening of the attack. :D

Oh little problem there....

[JonnyFive]

actually cameras capture 30 pictures a second, and your eye can only see about 10 a second. so you can actually see more if you slow a video down.

That depends on a lot of things, actually (http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm). Human perception of motion is complex, and to say that your eye is physically capable of perceiving only 10 fps is incorrect. Another article on refresh rates and flicker (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/TempRate.mspx).

If your assertion were correct, there would be no issue with video games running at 10 fps. Having observed a game running at 10 fps versus, say, 60 fps, I can tell you firsthand that the eye is capable of perceiving more than 10 fps when motion is a factor.

It still doesn't address the issue. If an object is moving fast enough to "skip" at 30 fps, slowing it down will not create data that was not recorded. This is the reason that high speed cameras are used for the recording of very fast-moving objects when precision is important. Such as, say, observing terminal ballistic penetration.

[sts60]

andreasz,

I have a more general question for you.

Suppose you are an evil conspirator who wants to murder thousands of your countrymen, inflict hundreds of billions of dollars of damage on the U.S. economy, and blame it on terrorists who hijacked jets and in particular crashed two of them into towers in one of the more densely populated cities, with one of the greatest concentration of media, on the planet.

In fact, you plan to fake the impact of the second one only after the spectacular first event, which has cued thousands of spectators and who knows how many personal and media camera operators to be looking up.

You know that these events will be endlessly talked about and scrutinized. You know that if the conspiracy is uncovered:
- you and everyone else involved will be subject to the death penalty
- whatever your nefarious aims may be, they will be discredited and ruined
- all your supporters and sponsors - everyone tied to you - will be reviled, investigated, and in general viewed with the greatest suspicion.

You know that you will somehow have to make the airliners and passengers disappear, that you will have to fool all those people and cameras (and you have no idea of who will be looking), that you will have to fool the vast majority of aviation and structural engineering and firefighting and demolition specialists, that you will have to convincingly and inconspicuously provide aircraft and airliner remains at the site, and above all not one of the people involved can ever tell.

Given all that, why would you not simply crash airliners into the towers?

And, given the above, which do you honestly think is more realistic:

- all the eyewitnesses were wrong, all the video and still imagery faked or spoofed, all the physical evidence planted, all the conspirators - and it would take a lot of conspirators - perfectly silent after all these years, and that the designers of the conspiracy chose the most complicated, most difficult way to pull off a massively destructive attack? - or -

- that aircraft really hit WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, and that the analysis in some video is flawed or simply makes inappropriate conclusions?

[NYCEMT86]

Andreasz:

I have been in NYC many times and I know that standing on a typical street corner in Lower Manhattan you have a pretty restricted view of the sky. Most of the witnesses said something like "I HEARD a roar, or the SOUND of a jet... and then SAW something hit the tower". And the eyewitnesses were NOT consistent in how they described the "aircraft". Someone said it was a "prop" plane and someone said it was a missile. Does this mean one of these "New Yorkers" was lying?

You didn't have to be in Lower Manhattan to see the WTC or Planes. Yes those on the tip may have had their views obstructed, but what about those on the BQE headed into the Battery Tunnel? Those on the Staten Island Fairy or at the terminal on Staten Island? Those on the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, or even Queensboro bridge? Not to the mention those who live on the East River in Brooklyn or even on Roosevelt Island. Then you still have the people you live in New Jersey. On a clear day such as Sept 11th, you could see the those towers for miles, you could be on GW Bridge, look towards lower Manhattan and there they were.


*Addition/Edit* - I forgot the hundreds if not thousands of people who took to their roof tops after the first plane hit to see what was going on.

[Alt+F4]

however my point was andreaz pointed to the lack of thousands of cameraphone shots of the planes hitting the towers as evidence that there were no planes, when both your research and mine shows there were no cameraphones available in the US market at the time (im assuming he spent more than 5 minutes researching 911)

Not only were there no camera phones, but as I mentioned, most people like myself didn't even have cell phones in 2001. Didn't matter much though. The whole phone system (cell and land) was seriously overloaded that morning. I wasn't able to get a phone call through until about 11am.

[Gravy]

You didn't have to be in Lower Manhattan to see the WTC or Planes. Yes those on the tip may have had their views obstructed, but what about those on the BQE headed into the Battery Tunnel? Those on the Staten Island Fairy or at the terminal on Staten Island? Those on the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, or even Queensboro bridge? Not to the mention those who live on the East River in Brooklyn or even on Roosevelt Island. Then you still have the people you live in New Jersey. On a clear day such as Sept 11th, you could see the those towers for miles, you could be on GW Bridge, look towards lower Manhattan and there they were.


*Addition/Edit* - I forgot the hundreds if not thousands of people who took to their roof tops after the first plane hit to see what was going on.And thousands upon thousands who were watching the north tower burn from their office windows.

No-planers are ill and need help. Please do not play their game of arguing minutiae.

[Viper Daimao]

My inexpert opinion is that Dr. Greening doesn't believe in half the things he argues here (missiles? Moon landing hoax? come on). He plays devil's advocate with even the most outlandish theories to take the opposite side of most of us here who are convinced we know what happened that day. That he does it in a seemingly childish way that endears him to the conspiracy theorist side is unfortunate.

[HyJinX]

No planes? So the Naudet film is fake too?

Actually Redtail, neither the Naudet brothers or their film actually exists. Cover up?

Ask questions. Demand the answers you want.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Here's the quote for today: No-planers = No-brains!

Peace!

[Brainster]

Mike Swenson, a "Truther", has put up a page (http://www.realinsidenews.com/911trutharticle010.html) demonstrating some deliberate deception and video editing in September Clues. He takes on the "superhuman vision" claim particularly well, noting that what SC doesn't tell you about the woman that Bryant Gumbel was interviewing:

Notice the discrepancies in the two clips. It appears as though the producer(s) of September Clues decided to cut out a major portion of the audio from Theresa Renaud. The audio that was eliminated is significat because, in the original CBS footage, she claims that even though she was in Chelsea, she was in the "tallest building in the area and facing south".

[beachnut]

ref: It is probably likely that they saw a plane but I am convinced that there is nobody in New York who actually saw a plane crash into the World Trade Center.

Call it ridiculous... But considering the fact that there are hundreds of people with cellphones, video cameras and all that equipment in New York, why are there so few authentic(ated) videos? And why did most of them appear after years?

There are several videos from many different angles of people jumping off the WTC, of the towers collapsing... Tons of that... But almost nothing (compared to the amount of other videos) of a plane crashing into there.

Pixel bleed, framerate-conversion problems... There is so much 'wrong' in the newsmedia coverage... The most powerful ones are just tiny little details...

TV reporter: "After making first contact with the Mi-- the plane..."

Watch September clues 6 from the guys livevideo homepage. It's just one week old... The audio analysis is just amazing. This guy really knows what he is doing. And there is really no explanation for that.

Do you guys actually think, everything went the way the media presented it? Planes crashed into the WTC, it collapsed, boo-hoo, patriot act passed rapidly, war in Iraq started...

If anything, this is quite obvious to me.
No plane? Where do you come from making such an idiotic statement? All you have to do is find someone who saw the planes with their eyes. Eyes. Where have you been for 6 years, in a coma?

Why do all these people in 9/11 truth really want to just protest the war in Iraq. Your credibility will go up if you do not make up lies about 9/11 when you really mean to protest the war in Iraq. What has happened to logic and rational thinking?

[Gravy]

Mike Swenson, a "Truther", has put up a page (http://www.realinsidenews.com/911trutharticle010.html) demonstrating some deliberate deception and video editing in September Clues. He takes on the "superhuman vision" claim particularly well, noting that what SC doesn't tell you about the woman that Bryant Gumbel was interviewing:Conspiracists are too busy impotently bleating about video fakery to notice that they're the ones doing all the faking.

[~enigma~]

I would not call myself a 'troother' or whatever names you have for people who try to see things from a different perspective.
The name you are looking for that is given to people who share YOUR warped perspective is WOO. If you don't like the tag, you can always read and apply logic to the situation....really it is veryu easy...try it sometime :)

[David Wong]

OK, you figured us out. Here, I'll cut you a check, how much for you to keep quiet about this?

$1000?
$10,000?
$100,000?
$1,000,000?

C'mon man, what's you bribe threshold to keep quiet about this?

Oh, you don't have one? You don't have a money level to keep quiet about the murder of 3,000 people who aren't even citizens of your country?

Then why do you think that thousands of people can be bribed to cover up the deaths of thousands of their fellow citizens? What makes you so 'pure'?

That's not the amazing part.

The amazing - no, impossible - part is that NOT A SINGLE PERSON TURNED DOWN THE OFFER. Otherwise we'd have heard from them. "The government offered me huge money to keep quiet about 9/11! Give me my book deal!"

Or, taken the cash and come forward anyway. The huge wire transfer from the NWO to their bank account would have been an awesome piece of evidence.

[~enigma~]

Take the time to watch the damn video,
Can't speak for the others but I never watch damn videos. Why is it necessary for us to watch the video? You do understand that a magic trick can fool alot of people when they see it but it isn't successful at all when it is read in a book.

[CHF]

Folks, I think it's pretty obvious that Greening is just having a laugh to see how upset everyone will get.

[Gravy]

Folks, I think it's pretty obvious that Greening is just having a laugh to see how upset everyone will get.If true, that makes him much worse than the people who believe this idiocy. He seems to have completely forgotten how much these events affect real people, in the real world, right this minute. He's playing an extremely nasty game.

[beachnut]

This whole site is about conspiracy theories is it not? We come on this site to discuss conspiracy theories ... Yes?

Then why are you guys so touchy about conspiracies! Someone only has to say "missile" and you all go off the deep end!

And while we are on the subject of trick photography, how about those fake Apollo photos.....

Is someone now going to claim that Buzz is their uncle and this is a personal affront!

Anyway, didn't dear old Rummy say a missile hit the Pentagon?

And what happened to the tail section of that "missile" at the Pentagon anyway?
Fake Apollo photos? You are a trip of tripe. Seems like once chemistry is out of the picture, quibbling and hearsay rule the Greening day. Dr., is your office cluttered with junk stacked 10 to 20 deep in multiple piles, and when asked for something, hiding in a pile, you retrieve it that moment? Have a great day with your missile foray.

[David Wong]

My inexpert opinion is that Dr. Greening doesn't believe in half the things he argues here (missiles? Moon landing hoax? come on). He plays devil's advocate with even the most outlandish theories to take the opposite side of most of us here who are convinced we know what happened that day. That he does it in a seemingly childish way that endears him to the conspiracy theorist side is unfortunate.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and float the theory that Dr. Frank Greening is just a horrible human being.

[~enigma~]

Hey there, PDoh! How's your sock drawer? Full yet?
Rev is a real honest to goodness guy. Just a little odd most times but not a sock of PDOPE.

[~enigma~]

Folks, I think it's pretty obvious that Greening is just having a laugh to see how upset everyone will get.Very possible but his predilection for such shenanigans is one of the major reasons why he has no respect whatsoever from me and I ignore his words. That behavior is not befitting a man of science but i would expect it from a child or a senile old man (or woman).

[Revolutionary91]

If true, that makes him much worse than the people who believe this idiocy. He seems to have completely forgotten how much these events affect real people, in the real world, right this minute. He's playing an extremely nasty game.

Oh how the tide turns.

"I really have to hand it to Dr. Greening -- his willingness to engage those nutballs, not to mention perform actual work just to shut them up, is inspiring." - RMackey 1/5/07

"The idea is to have two competing debate teams, and I'm sure that will happen. Frank Greening had signed on for the South Carolina debate, so I hope he'll stay on board." - Gravy 9/20/06

[Björn Toulouse]

Oh how the tide turns.

"I really have to hand it to Dr. Greening -- his willingness to engage those nutballs, not to mention perform actual work just to shut them up, is inspiring." - RMackey 1/5/07

"The idea is to have two competing debate teams, and I'm sure that will happen. Frank Greening had signed on for the South Carolina debate, so I hope he'll stay on board." - Gravy 9/20/06




I voted for Nixon in '68.

[Redtail]

Oh how the tide turns.

"I really have to hand it to Dr. Greening -- his willingness to engage those nutballs, not to mention perform actual work just to shut them up, is inspiring." - RMackey 1/5/07

"The idea is to have two competing debate teams, and I'm sure that will happen. Frank Greening had signed on for the South Carolina debate, so I hope he'll stay on board." - Gravy 9/20/06

Good lord! You mean that people can change their minds! Oh NOEZ!!!11!

How's Steve Jones doing since his being "outed"?

[Undesired Walrus]

Oh how the tide turns.

"I really have to hand it to Dr. Greening -- his willingness to engage those nutballs, not to mention perform actual work just to shut them up, is inspiring." - RMackey 1/5/07

"The idea is to have two competing debate teams, and I'm sure that will happen. Frank Greening had signed on for the South Carolina debate, so I hope he'll stay on board." - Gravy 9/20/06

It's the school holidays for you Rev isn't it? Trust me, make the most of it.

[~enigma~]

I voted for Nixon in '68.
DUMMY :)

[Gravy]

Oh how the tide turns.Don't be a simpleton. Have you noticed that I often refer people to Greening's papers, because I think they're well-researched and insightful? Because he behaves in a way I disapprove of on this forum doesn't invalidate his past work. When you become an adult you'll hopefully learn to make that distinction.

[T.A.M.]

My inexpert opinion is that Dr. Greening doesn't believe in half the things he argues here (missiles? Moon landing hoax? come on). He plays devil's advocate with even the most outlandish theories to take the opposite side of most of us here who are convinced we know what happened that day. That he does it in a seemingly childish way that endears him to the conspiracy theorist side is unfortunate.

I agree, but he does with such condescension, such contempt. I have no problem with someone playing the D.A., but he is very angry and bitter, and lets it leak into his posts here.

Rev:

Are you that upset about what we post here that you have resorted to whining and complaining, or is that all you know how to do?

TAM:)

[Par]

Don't be a simpleton. Have you noticed that I often refer people to Greening's papers, because I think they're well-researched and insightful? Because he behaves in a way I disapprove of on this forum doesn't invalidate his past work. When you become an adult you'll hopefully learn to make that distinction.



Well, yet another conspiracy theorist who doesn't know this. Lyte Trip (perhaps unsurprisingly) also demonstrated his ignorance of it recently.

[T.A.M.]

Don't be a simpleton. Have you noticed that I often refer people to Greening's papers, because I think they're well-researched and insightful? Because he behaves in a way I disapprove of on this forum doesn't invalidate his past work. When you become an adult you'll hopefully learn to make that distinction.

He is playing "divide and conquer", and not very well...but he is a boy.

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

Don't be a simpleton. Have you noticed that I often refer people to Greening's papers, because I think they're well-researched and insightful? Because he behaves in a way I disapprove of on this forum doesn't invalidate his past work. When you become an adult you'll hopefully learn to make that distinction.

What hypocrisy! You refer people to his papers despite him being so nasty and and an AIDs denier, yet you will dismiss other people based on their affiliation to anti semitic websites etc. You can't pick and choose.

[~enigma~]

Well, yet another conspiracy theorist who doesn't know this. Lyte Trip (perhaps unsurprisingly) also demonstrated his ignorance of it recently.Please...do not call Craig...seriously. Mention his name and the guy appears like a twisted Beetle Juice.

[~enigma~]

What hypocrisy! You refer people to his papers despite him being so nasty and and an AIDs denier, yet you will dismiss other people based on their affiliation to anti semitic websites etc. You can't pick and choose.
OMG he denies AIDs...that's it. He is dead to me :)

[T.A.M.]

What hypocrisy! You refer people to his papers despite him being so nasty and and an AIDs denier, yet you will dismiss other people based on their affiliation to anti semitic websites etc. You can't pick and choose.

There is a difference between dispise and dismiss. I may dispise someone for their Anti-semetism, but if they are an expert in thermodynamics and produce a paper on such, what do I care if they are a horrible human being.

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

How exactly does one deny AIDS? Those drama queens are faking it?

[leftysergeant]

1.) Nobody ever gave any reply on the question, as to how it is possible, that the beams of the WTC were cut in a certain way you're only going to find it, if a building was demolished on purpose. I saw the pictures in the newspaper and there is absoutely no way this could be happened by accident.

They were manufactured in lengths that could be easily transported to the site to assemble the building. Many of them broke free of the structure at the points at which they were attached to other beams. Some were cut with torches during the clean-up of the rubble pile. This would obviousl;y have to be done in order to remove them if they were still attached to other elements of the structure.

How is it possible, that the plane appears black in the shot? And don't come up with ideas like the sun being behind the object. Take a close look and you'll see that it is supposed to be white. For the people who insist that it is the sun being behind the object, you could explain to me why the plane appears black from both sides.

I have noticed that objects other than that on which a camera is focused tend to be darker than the intended subject.

No one was expecting the plane to arrive, and thus would not have already focused on it. In one clip of network news anchors discussing the first strike, a plane is seen coming in, but neither of the anchors notices it, and take the fire ball to be an explosion from inside the tower. This is the source of a lot of the wild theories about no planes. The proponents of these theories expected everyone to see the planes and to adjust focus at once.

They expect too much.

[Redtail]

What hypocrisy! You refer people to his papers despite him being so nasty and and an AIDs denier, yet you will dismiss other people based on their affiliation to anti semitic websites etc. You can't pick and choose.

That's nothing I'm Black and my Fiancee' is related to Adolph Eichmann. Also her ex before me was Jewish!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Someone only has to say "missile" and you all go off the deep end!


It pains me to see you acting like such a gibbering fool here, Greening. Hyperviolet was the only one who specifically addressed your use of the word "missile" and he certainly didn't go off the deep end.

Are you here as a scientist or an emotional human being with an agenda?

[Rahne Everson]

Please...do not call Craig...seriously. Mention his name and the guy appears like a twisted Beetle Juice.

That only works if you mention his name three times, so if one of us said his real name or Lyte, then--

Oh shi--

[Hyperviolet]

What hypocrisy! You refer people to his papers despite him being so nasty and and an AIDs denier, yet you will dismiss other people based on their affiliation to anti semitic websites etc. You can't pick and choose.


What do you suggest then? That Gravy dismiss Dr Greening's scientific papers on the back that he doesn't like his attitude on this forum? That would be rather foolish.

Unlike the 'anti-semitic' websites you are referring to, Dr Greening provides a wealth of facts and solid science in his work. That is undeniable. To do so would simply be foolish. In fact, to dismiss his good work on the notion that he is an "AIDS denier" would be an ad hominem fallacy and illogical.

Anti-semetic sites such as Eric Hufschmid's I Am The Witness are void of any kind of real science or facts. To compare the two is like comparing Apples and Ora..Elephants

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How exactly does one deny AIDS? Those drama queens are faking it?


I've heard a number of "theories". One is that HIV was created by the U.S. government (surprise, surprise!), with a more specific variation being that it was created to wipe out the black population. Another is that it was an accidental side-effect or contamination of an experimental vaccine tested in Africa, which was subsequently covered up.

Stupid and baseless all around, much like the topic of this thread...

[Rahne Everson]

Folks, I think it's pretty obvious that Greening is just having a laugh to see how upset everyone will get.

If so, he gets an "E" for effort, but he needs to do it with more finesse.

[Gravy]

What hypocrisy! You refer people to his papers despite him being so nasty and and an AIDs denier, yet you will dismiss other people based on their affiliation to anti semitic websites etc. You can't pick and choose.Please explain what nastiness and questioning the origin of AIDS has to do with the specifics in Frank Greening's 9/11 papers.

The example of Fritz Zwicky may be instructive to you. His was one of the great astrophysical minds of the 20th century. Dark matter, neutron stars, supernovae: he conceived of these decades before anyone else began to take them seriously. Even people in his own department who were studying the same subjects dismissed his work, because he was such a raging ass.

Isaac Newton, arguably the most brilliant person in history, spent much of his adult life obsessed with the occult and alchemy.

Mental illness, antisocial behavior, drug abuse, and strange beliefs have often gone hand-in-hand with genius and creativity. The list of great artists throughout history who have been thoroughly awful people would be a very long one. Should their work be dismissed because they were unlikeable?

As I said, when you grow up I hope you'll learn to make the distinction between good ideas and bad ideas, between good actions and bad actions, and to understand that everyone produces each of those things.

[Corsair 115]

Never mind, I misread an earlier post.

[Mr. Skinny]

That only works if you mention his name three times, so if one of us said his real name or Lyte, then--

Oh shi--
Well, he won't appear if you say Beetle Juice. However, avoid saying Betelgeuse three times.

[Hokulele]

Well, he won't appear if you say Beetle Juice. However, avoid saying Betelgeuse three times.


Rigel, Rigel, Rigel!

(Isn't that supposed to be the anti-dote?)

[Sabrina]

Please explain what nastiness and questioning the origin of AIDS has to do with the specifics in Frank Greening's 9/11 papers.

The example of Fritz Zwicky may be instructive to you. His was one of the great astrophysical minds of the 20th century. Dark matter, neutron stars, supernovae: he conceived of these decades before anyone else began to take them seriously. Even people in his own department who were studying the same subjects dismissed his work, because he was such a raging ass.

Isaac Newton, arguably the most brilliant person in history, spent much of his adult life obsessed with the occult and alchemy.

Mental illness, antisocial behavior, drug abuse, and strange beliefs have often gone hand-in-hand with genius and creativity. The list of great artists throughout history who have been thoroughly awful people would be a very long one. Should their work be dismissed because they were unlikeable?

As I said, when you grow up I hope you'll learn to make the distinction between good ideas and bad ideas, between good actions and bad actions, and to understand that everyone produces each of those things.

Another example: Van Gogh. The man was certifiably insane (he cut off his own EAR for heaven's sake), and yet his paintings are among the most celebrated in the world. Starry Night is among my favorite paintings.

Edgar Allen Poe, who wrote some of the greatest classics in the history of literature, was depressed most of his life, and notably married his fourteen year old (approximately) cousin.

I think Shakespeare was a drunk or some such; I know he had some kind of social disease, although what it was exactly escapes my memory at the moment.

Joan of Arc was likely schizophrenic, but she led thousands of men to military victories before being denounced and burned as a witch.

Is it sinking in yet, Revvy? If not, do some more research on the greats artists in history and see what was wrong with most of them.

[Unsecured Coins]

hey. hey, HEY... we do NOT speak ill of Edgar Alan Poe in the Powers household.

[Sabrina]

I didn't! I love his work; my absolute favorite poem ever is "Alone". But it is a known fact that he was majorly depressed and married his extremely young cousin. It's not speaking ill if it's the truth! :P

[Unsecured Coins]

I didn't! I love his work; my absolute favorite poem ever is "Alone". But it is a known fact that he was majorly depressed and married his extremely young cousin. It's not speaking ill if it's the truth! :P


stop speaking the ill truth then!! :p

[Rahne Everson]

My favorite would be Nikola Tesla. Brilliant man to be sure, modern technology and society owes a great debt to him, but he categorically rejected Einstein's general relativity in favor of his "dynamic field of gravity," which he never finished.

[Gravy]

My favorite would be Nikola Tesla. Brilliant man to be sure, modern technology and society owes a great debt to him, but he categorically rejected Einstein's general relativity in favor of his "dynamic field of gravity," which he never finished.And he had a fear of round things, especially pearls. :eye-poppi

[Revolutionary91]

Please explain what nastiness and questioning the origin of AIDS has to do with the specifics in Frank Greening's 9/11 papers.

.

It has nothing to do with his 911 papers. Just like Jones' work on Jesus visiting America has nothing to do with his 911 work. Just as AFP being a Nazi paper has nothing to do wih the accuracy of stories within it.

If you don't want to get called on your double standards then drop the bias.

[CHF]

It has nothing to do with his 911 papers. Just like Jones' work on Jesus visiting America has nothing to do with his 911 work. Just as AFP being a Nazi paper has nothing to do wih the accuracy of stories within it.

Doesn't it humiliate you to type that?

[Revolutionary91]

Doesn't it humiliate you to type that?

What did I get wrong?

[Par]

Just as AFP being a Nazi paper has nothing to do wih the accuracy of stories within it.



Well, it does have something to do with it. Granted, it’s not the Nazism itself that directly makes the stories false, but the Nazism causes them to publish false stories.

[Rahne Everson]

And he had a fear of round things, especially pearls. :eye-poppi

He also had this thing for pigeons, which I always thought was really peculiar considering his germaphobia and obessive-compulsions. He ordered special seed for them even.

[Redtail]

It has nothing to do with his 911 papers. Just like Jones' work on Jesus visiting America has nothing to do with his 911 work. Just as AFP being a Nazi paper has nothing to do wih the accuracy of stories within it.

If you don't want to get called on your double standards then drop the bias.

Who has dismissed Jones or AFP based on those things alone?

[NYCEMT86]

Just as AFP being a Nazi paper has nothing to do wih the accuracy of stories within it.

:dl: :dl: :dl:


So going by your logic, that means the following papers are accurate because they are all written by Nazi's....

"Solving the Jewish Question" - Dr. Achim Gercke
"The End of Jewish Migration" - Dr. Johann Von Leers
"Jewish World Plague" - Hermann Esser

Oh and I can't forget this paper,

"The Guilty", by Julius Streicher, the article about how the Jews caused the Reichstag Fire.


I guess you don't understand the word "Propaganda"

[Mr. Skinny]

I think Rev91 is making argument that goes to general credibility.

The difference is that Dr. Greening's theories on 9/11 that Gravy/Mackey/ and some others seem to feel are worthwhile have been published for peer review, unlike some truthers.

Thus, one is able to separate good science from other personal likes and dislikes.

I can see where Rev is coming from, even though I think he's wrong.

[Apollo20]

I am very disappointed at the recent level of feedback to my points. I was hoping for something a little better from the JREFers..., a little more creative.
But I can see you guys need more training. May I suggest you first meditate on this: "Oh death where is thy sting..., grave where is thy victory".
After that I want you all to read "A History of Plenum Cable Fire Safety Issues" by G. Stanitis et al. and submit your comments on this article to this thread... if you would be so kind.... Finally, extra marks will be given to students who solve the mystery of:

Apollo-15 as15-85-11471

P.S. And how about your opinions on this question:

Was Boy George the only ONE who got to see real live footage of an impact on the towers? And did this happen while he was nodding off waiting to hear some billy-goat stories?

[Redtail]

I am very disappointed at the recent level of feedback to my points. I was hoping for something a little better from the JREFers..., a little more creative.
But I can see you guys need more training. May I suggest you first meditate on this: "Oh death where is thy sting..., grave where is thy victory".

"Spartans don't ask how many. They simply ask where they are."


After that I want you all to read "A History of Plenum Cable Fire Safety Issues" by G. Stanitis et al. and submit your comments on this article to this thread... if you would be so kind.... Finally, extra marks will be given to students who solve the mystery of:

Apollo-15 as15-85-11471

*Ripping rubber mask off.* It was old man Rivers!


P.S. And how about your opinions on this question:

Was Boy George the only ONE who got to see real live footage of an impact on the towers? And did this happen while he was nodding off waiting to hear some billy-goat stories?

No, He was working on a remix of Time: Clock of the Heart

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Finally, extra marks will be given to students who solve the mystery of:

Apollo-15 as15-85-11471


Start a new thread.

[~enigma~]

Start a new thread.
Two words more than he would have gotten from me.

[beachnut]

Unfortunately for the passengers and their families, this is false.

Your theory just helps to brand all 911 CTs as 'crackpot' theories.
But you are right; all CTs on 9/11 are crackpot ideas. You have nailed the entire 9/11 truth movement.

This new guy brings the undamaged nose to bear too, but yet, there is only a cone of debris frozen on a single frame of some video. Darn, looks like turns out to be different than was. For the final time, the nose cone of aircraft is fiberglass, it covers the weather radar. There are a bunch of electronics in the nose behind a fiberglass cone.

[Corsair 115]

I am very disappointed at the recent level of feedback to my points.Sorry, Apollo20, but this point of yours...

Only the SLOW MOTION VIDEOS allow one to see what is going on and I agree that there are some strange anomalies in many of those videos....is simply wrong. If you can only spot a problem in a shot by slowing it down or even going one frame at a time, then your eyes are worthless in regards to spotting special effects. There isn't a special effects shot done that is immune from being detected with a sufficient number of normal speed viewings - even ILM itself can't make shots that perfect. There is always something at least a little bit off that can be seen at normal speed, especially if you train your eye as to what to look for.

[LashL]

I am very disappointed at the recent level of feedback to my points.

Your "points" were ludicrous. They got the response they deserved.

[beachnut]

I am very disappointed at the recent level of feedback to my points. I was hoping for something a little better from the JREFers..., a little more creative.
But I can see you guys need more training. May I suggest you first meditate on this: "Oh death where is thy sting..., grave where is thy victory".
After that I want you all to read "A History of Plenum Cable Fire Safety Issues" by G. Stanitis et al. and submit your comments on this article to this thread... if you would be so kind.... Finally, extra marks will be given to students who solve the mystery of:

Apollo-15 as15-85-11471

P.S. And how about your opinions on this question:

Was Boy George the only ONE who got to see real live footage of an impact on the towers? And did this happen while he was nodding off waiting to hear some billy-goat stories?
Bush did not see it live, you have fallen for a lie about 9/11 from 9/11 truth. Read his statement, he left out a word or two. Sorry, Professor you have done well being funny, but it is too easy to see his mistake. So you need to be better at know what Bush said. I understand Bush, he was a pilot and uses pilot talk a lot. Sorry you messed this small point up, it happens.

Time to work on your super assignment.

[Rahne Everson]

I am very disappointed at the recent level of feedback to my points. I was hoping for something a little better from the JREFers..., a little more creative.

If you don't like the advice, fine, but there's no need to smack it back.

But I can see you guys need more training. May I suggest you first meditate on this: "Oh death where is thy sting..., grave where is thy victory".

I guess you'll be the one to do that then.

After that I want you all to read "A History of Plenum Cable Fire Safety Issues" by G. Stanitis et al. and submit your comments on this article to this thread... if you would be so kind....

I'll have to consult my life coach.

Finally, extra marks will be given to students who solve the mystery of:

Apollo-15 as15-85-11471

Seems normal enough to me. You seem to be good at it, you try.

P.S. And how about your opinions on this question:

Was Boy George the only ONE who got to see real live footage of an impact on the towers? And did this happen while he was nodding off waiting to hear some billy-goat stories?

No. False premise.

To be frank (lol puns), I could echo your condesencion and bad sarcasm right back at you, and I could be just as annoying as you apparently try so hard to be here for whatever reason, as devil's advocate or you just get a kick out of it, but, given your work which I personally find incredibly fascinating and informative, I find that fighting fire with fire with you is unwarranted. I save that for the true idiots, people like Ace and Lyte, whose bullcrap nonsense insults the intelligence of 6-year-olds.

To be fair, I do like to try to figure out why people think and say the crap they do, which has lead me down the pathways of no-planers, Icke followers, and other such wacko-jacko WTF ideas. In attempting to get behind their thought processes, I do see why they think this, but then I have to take a step back and see what's wrong with it. The glaring logic holes appear instantly, and that's that for entertaining them for me. Admittedly it took me a while to hone my critical thinking skills, but, in entertaining them, I'd like to think that it's gotten better. Though, no plane theories are like 3-pound weight at the gym, it doesn't take much to demolish those. Some LIHOP theories are heavier, and require a lot more knowledge of sociology, psychology, and bureaucracy, and by the end you get a lot more out of researching them.

I'm leveling with you here Dr. Greening. If you're asking questions and playing the thought experiment game aloud, then fine. If you're being devil's advocate, okay, but please don't do it with no-planers, they aren't worth it. If you're just yanking the regs' leashes, pulling on the chains of the conspiracy dolts are much more entertaining.

[T.A.M.]

I am very disappointed at the recent level of feedback to my points. I was hoping for something a little better from the JREFers..., a little more creative.
But I can see you guys need more training. May I suggest you first meditate on this: "Oh death where is thy sting..., grave where is thy victory".
After that I want you all to read "A History of Plenum Cable Fire Safety Issues" by G. Stanitis et al. and submit your comments on this article to this thread... if you would be so kind.... Finally, extra marks will be given to students who solve the mystery of:

Apollo-15 as15-85-11471

P.S. And how about your opinions on this question:

Was Boy George the only ONE who got to see real live footage of an impact on the towers? And did this happen while he was nodding off waiting to hear some billy-goat stories?

Disappointments are part of life Frank...

Another useless post brought to you by:

TAM:)

[Dave Rogers]

My inexpert opinion is that Dr. Greening doesn't believe in half the things he argues here (missiles? Moon landing hoax? come on). He plays devil's advocate with even the most outlandish theories to take the opposite side of most of us here who are convinced we know what happened that day. That he does it in a seemingly childish way that endears him to the conspiracy theorist side is unfortunate.

I suspect that Dr. Greening would dearly love to find evidence of some conspiracy surrounding the events of 9/11, and has set out to do so by engaging in serious scientific study of the events of the day. What sets him apart from the truth movement is that, when his investigations reveal that the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction, his response is not to suppress his conclusions but to publish them. The fact that he has yet to find any physical evidence that doesn't tend to disprove the possibility of a conspiracy is, to my mind, in itself a telling piece of evidence against the conspiracy. In this respect, I think he is a great asset to the debunking movement, irksome though he may find the fact.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

It has nothing to do with his 911 papers. Just like Jones' work on Jesus visiting America has nothing to do with his 911 work.

I have to say, I agree with this bit. I found enough internal inconsistencies, fallacious appeals to authority and indefensible assertions in Jones's 9/11 paper by itself to make it clear it was complete rubbish. I've never had to resort to looking at any of the other rubbish he's published.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Was Boy George the only ONE who got to see real live footage of an impact on the towers? And did this happen while he was nodding off waiting to hear some billy-goat stories?

Curse you, Greening! I just spent half an hour trying to figure out what on earth George O'Dowd had to do with 9/11! Must get my metaphor detector checked.

Seriously, if anything can be explained by the premise that George W. Bush is intellectually lazy and can't be bothered to try and remember things correctly, I don't think there's much point looking for a more parsimonious explanation.

Dave

[gumboot]

Hello everyone,

I got to this forum after watching the Zeitgeist movie because I was curious about any opinions and of course discussions related to that matter.


Hi there Andreasz.

I tried to watch Zeitgeist but didn't fare too well. After about 10 minutes, in a desperate final effort to prevent my IQ falling below levels at which automatic body functions would operate, my tongue leaped out of my mouth, strangled my eyeballs, and shoved them down my ear canals.

Regarding the notion of no planes at the WTC, I'd like to take you on a journey with you imagination.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are an adult, and have a job.

Imagine going to work every day for years and years and years. Imagine all of the people you work with. Imagine their faces. You see these people more often than your own family. Some of them are your closest friends.

Now imagine you're Stanley Praimnath and you work for Fuji Bank on the 81st floor of WTC2. Imagine sitting at your desk one day and seeing a jumbo jet ram into your building 20ft from where you are sitting. Imagine pieces of that aircraft being embedded in your door. Imagine, if you can, your work colleagues being killed by that airliner. But not just killed, obliterated. Try, if you can, imagine the inhumanity of familiar human beings being turned into indistinguishable pieces of meat. Like the stir-fry pork you had for dinner. Only it's your secretary. That young intern down the hall. Your boss. Your golf buddy.

Then try imagine someone sitting on the internet, and watching videos taken a mile away, which depict the last horrific moments of those people's lives. Imagine that internet "detective" announcing that there were no aircraft on 9/11. Imagine them claiming you're a liar who was "in on it" or that you were fooled by the media.

Just think on that. Imagine what might be going through your head, as you read these theories, and remember again, your friends being reduced to pulpy messes of blood and gore in the blink of an eye.

Can you imagine?

I tell you what, I have a pretty incredible memory, and I can't imagine what would go through such a person's mind. Hate? Revulsion? Pity? I don't know.

But I know one thing. There are many conspiracy theories relating to 9/11. Each, in their way, has it's own flaws and lunacy. Some are laughable. Some are illogical. But the "no planes at the WTC" theory is by far and away, the most hideous, distasteful, untrue, bile-inducing, immoral, and utterly unfounded theory.

Two Boeing 767 airliners hit the WTC towers on 9/11. In the blink of an eye hundreds of lives were annihilated utterly and completely. To even suggest otherwise is to relinquish one's humanity utterly.

-Gumboot

[Cuddles]

How exactly does one deny AIDS? Those drama queens are faking it?

Like this. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87321)

[Normal Dude]

Gumboot,

Completely agreed. Nice post.

::Runs out of CT forum as fast as possible::

[Hyperviolet]

Hi there Andreasz.

I tried to watch Zeitgeist but didn't fare too well. After about 10 minutes, in a desperate final effort to prevent my IQ falling below levels at which automatic body functions would operate, my tongue leaped out of my mouth, strangled my eyeballs, and shoved them down my ear canals.

Regarding the notion of no planes at the WTC, I'd like to take you on a journey with you imagination.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are an adult, and have a job.

Imagine going to work every day for years and years and years. Imagine all of the people you work with. Imagine their faces. You see these people more often than your own family. Some of them are your closest friends.

Now imagine you're Stanley Praimnath and you work for Fuji Bank on the 81st floor of WTC2. Imagine sitting at your desk one day and seeing a jumbo jet ram into your building 20ft from where you are sitting. Imagine pieces of that aircraft being embedded in your door. Imagine, if you can, your work colleagues being killed by that airliner. But not just killed, obliterated. Try, if you can, imagine the inhumanity of familiar human beings being turned into indistinguishable pieces of meat. Like the stir-fry pork you had for dinner. Only it's your secretary. That young intern down the hall. Your boss. Your golf buddy.

Then try imagine someone sitting on the internet, and watching videos taken a mile away, which depict the last horrific moments of those people's lives. Imagine that internet "detective" announcing that there were no aircraft on 9/11. Imagine them claiming you're a liar who was "in on it" or that you were fooled by the media.

Just think on that. Imagine what might be going through your head, as you read these theories, and remember again, your friends being reduced to pulpy messes of blood and gore in the blink of an eye.

Can you imagine?

I tell you what, I have a pretty incredible memory, and I can't imagine what would go through such a person's mind. Hate? Revulsion? Pity? I don't know.

But I know one thing. There are many conspiracy theories relating to 9/11. Each, in their way, has it's own flaws and lunacy. Some are laughable. Some are illogical. But the "no planes at the WTC" theory is by far and away, the most hideous, distasteful, untrue, bile-inducing, immoral, and utterly unfounded theory.

Two Boeing 767 airliners hit the WTC towers on 9/11. In the blink of an eye hundreds of lives were annihilated utterly and completely. To even suggest otherwise is to relinquish one's humanity utterly.

-Gumboot


QFE

[Dave Rogers]

Hi there Andreasz.

I tried to watch Zeitgeist but didn't fare too well. After about 10 minutes, in a desperate final effort to prevent my IQ falling below levels at which automatic body functions would operate, my tongue leaped out of my mouth, strangled my eyeballs, and shoved them down my ear canals.

Regarding the notion of no planes at the WTC, I'd like to take you on a journey with you imagination.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are an adult, and have a job.

Imagine going to work every day for years and years and years. Imagine all of the people you work with. Imagine their faces. You see these people more often than your own family. Some of them are your closest friends.

Now imagine you're Stanley Praimnath and you work for Fuji Bank on the 81st floor of WTC2. Imagine sitting at your desk one day and seeing a jumbo jet ram into your building 20ft from where you are sitting. Imagine pieces of that aircraft being embedded in your door. Imagine, if you can, your work colleagues being killed by that airliner. But not just killed, obliterated. Try, if you can, imagine the inhumanity of familiar human beings being turned into indistinguishable pieces of meat. Like the stir-fry pork you had for dinner. Only it's your secretary. That young intern down the hall. Your boss. Your golf buddy.

Then try imagine someone sitting on the internet, and watching videos taken a mile away, which depict the last horrific moments of those people's lives. Imagine that internet "detective" announcing that there were no aircraft on 9/11. Imagine them claiming you're a liar who was "in on it" or that you were fooled by the media.

Just think on that. Imagine what might be going through your head, as you read these theories, and remember again, your friends being reduced to pulpy messes of blood and gore in the blink of an eye.

Can you imagine?

I tell you what, I have a pretty incredible memory, and I can't imagine what would go through such a person's mind. Hate? Revulsion? Pity? I don't know.

But I know one thing. There are many conspiracy theories relating to 9/11. Each, in their way, has it's own flaws and lunacy. Some are laughable. Some are illogical. But the "no planes at the WTC" theory is by far and away, the most hideous, distasteful, untrue, bile-inducing, immoral, and utterly unfounded theory.

Two Boeing 767 airliners hit the WTC towers on 9/11. In the blink of an eye hundreds of lives were annihilated utterly and completely. To even suggest otherwise is to relinquish one's humanity utterly.

-Gumboot

Nominated.

Dave

[sts60]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91: Just as AFP being a Nazi paper has nothing to do wih the accuracy of stories within it.

NYCEMT86:So going by your logic, that means the following papers are accurate because they are all written by Nazi's....

If I can be excused for some wannabe-logician pedantry here, I don't think either claim is correct. As Par pointed out, their ideology does promote the publication of things that simply aren't true... "propaganda" in the worst sense. But NYCEMT86 is ascribing to Rev the claim that anything they print must be true; to be fair, Rev didn't say that either

No offense intended, NYCEMT86, but we need to be as critical of our own claims as we are of the CTs. (And yes, while I'm pretty new here, I've been called by fellow skeptics myself plenty of times on other boards.)

[Drudgewire]

I am very disappointed at the recent level of feedback to my points. I was hoping for something a little better from the JREFers..., a little more creative.
We could try singing them. :p

[NYCEMT86]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91: Just as AFP being a Nazi paper has nothing to do wih the accuracy of stories within it.

NYCEMT86:So going by your logic, that means the following papers are accurate because they are all written by Nazi's....

If I can be excused for some wannabe-logician pedantry here, I don't think either claim is correct. As Par pointed out, their ideology does promote the publication of things that simply aren't true... "propaganda" in the worst sense. But NYCEMT86 is ascribing to Rev the claim that anything they print must be true; to be fair, Rev didn't say that either

No offense intended, NYCEMT86, but we need to be as critical of our own claims as we are of the CTs. (And yes, while I'm pretty new here, I've been called by fellow skeptics myself plenty of times on other boards.)



No offense taken and I retract that statement.

[Apollo20]

What I don't get is why questioning issues like 9/11, Waco, JFK, etc, etc, generates so much ANGER and HATE from the hard-core JREFERs!

You know, Fundamentalist Christians produce and peddle literature that claims that the world is going to end as in The Book of Revelations. Now I think this is a crazy notion, but I am not particularly concerned that some folks believe this. Creationists dispute Darwin's Theory of Evolution... well, good for them!

So if someone believes the US government was involved in some way in 9/11, why go off the deep end about it? And to claim that saying the USG was involved in 9/11 shows disrespect for the victims, their families and friends is nonsense any more than if I claim that Edward VIII and Prescott Bush were Nazi sympathizers shows disrespect for WWII victims.

If the "Truthers" are wrong... time and history will prove them to be wrong. To say they are dangerous or pernicious is absurd, as long as they promote their ideas non-violently. If they are "snake-oil salesmen" then I just put them in there with Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, Jim Bakker et al.

But you cannot FORCE someone to give up an idea by abusing them, by calling them idiots and liars. Try that on a Fundamentalist Christian and see how far you get!

[Drudgewire]

What I don't get is why questioning issues like 9/11, Waco, JFK, etc, etc, generates so much ANGER and HATE from the hard-core JREFERs!
I know. Why can't members of a board dedicated to science and skepticism be more open to paranoid fantasy, faulty science, and vitriolic anger and blanket accusations at those who use real, tangible evidence to debunk their nonsense?

Jerks. :mad:

[ref]

So if someone believes the US government was involved in some way in 9/11, why go off the deep end about it? And to claim that saying the USG was involved in 9/11 shows disrespect for the victims, their families and friends is nonsense any more than if I claim that Edward VIII and Prescott Bush were Nazi sympathizers shows disrespect for WWII victims.


But why do you fuel their fire? You were making statements that actually cherished the thought of a missile hitting the WTC instead of two planes. What is your own opinion on what hit the WTC, because I kind of lost track with you?

[Apollo20]

I believe two aircraft hit the Twin Towers.

As for the Pentagon?

Not sure.......

[HyJinX]

I believe two aircraft hit the Twin Towers.

As for the Pentagon?

Not sure.......

The answer would be one aircraft

[Newtons Bit]

I believe two aircraft hit the Twin Towers.

As for the Pentagon?

Not sure.......

You're not sure that two aircraft hit the pentagon???

Yes, I know that I had to misread that, but it was fun!

[Drudgewire]

Were the conspirators flying the planes, or did they just have the incredible good fortune to have happened to plan an attack on the Pentagon at the exact same time that a real terrorist attack was occurring? :boggled:

[Pardalis]

What I don't get is why questioning issues like 9/11, Waco, JFK, etc, etc, generates so much ANGER and HATE from the hard-core JREFERs!

It's the bolden part that bothers me, personally.

I don't think anyone hates you here, but some are annoyed by your antagonistic behavior and your willingness to believe every damned conspiracy theory out there. A man of science should know better.

[boloboffin]

What I don't get is why questioning issues like 9/11, Waco, JFK, etc, etc, generates so much ANGER and HATE from the hard-core JREFERs!

Gumboot did a really great job of explaining that, Apollo20.

You also say that two "aircraft" hit the World Trade Center. Great! Could you further qualify that and say that Flights 11 and 175 hit those towers?

[chillzero]

A civility reminder. Can we get back to the topic please, and no more personal issues.

Discuss and attack the posts, not the posters.

[T.A.M.]

I believe two aircraft hit the Twin Towers.

As for the Pentagon?

Not sure.......

Do you believe the USG was involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks, and in carrying them out? Yes, No, Not sure but I suspect so, which??

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

I was talking about the JREFers opinion of "Truthers". I am not a "Truther" but I do see a few JREFers who apparently think I am...

[T.A.M.]

Do you believe the USG was involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks, and in carrying them out? Yes, No, Not sure but I suspect so, which??

In case you missed it (it was the last post on the previous page)

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

TAM:

I think it is absurd to believe that the USG as a whole was behind the 9/11 attacks, but I do not preclude the possibility of covert deals by rogue agents. Try reading "Dollars for Terror" by Richard Labeviere, "The War Against America" by Laurie Mylroie and "Triple Cross" by Peter Lance for information on how the USG has aided and abetted violent Muslim movements over the past 25 years.

[T.A.M.]

TAM:

I think it is absurd to believe that the USG as a whole was behind the 9/11 attacks, but I do not preclude the possibility of covert deals by rogue agents. Try reading "Dollars for Terror" by Richard Labeviere, "The War Against America" by Laurie Mylroie and "Triple Cross" by Peter Lance for information on how the USG has aided and abetted violent Muslim movements over the past 25 years.

I can accept the above, as it is fairly vague, and does not disagree with how I see the world, but could you be more specific...for instance...

Do you think there were elements of the USG (rogue or otherwise) who actually conspired, knowingly, to assist in the 9/11 attacks?

TAM:)

[gumboot]

What I don't get is why questioning issues like 9/11, Waco, JFK, etc, etc, generates so much ANGER and HATE from the hard-core JREFERs!

You know, Fundamentalist Christians produce and peddle literature that claims that the world is going to end as in The Book of Revelations. Now I think this is a crazy notion, but I am not particularly concerned that some folks believe this. Creationists dispute Darwin's Theory of Evolution... well, good for them!

So if someone believes the US government was involved in some way in 9/11, why go off the deep end about it? And to claim that saying the USG was involved in 9/11 shows disrespect for the victims, their families and friends is nonsense any more than if I claim that Edward VIII and Prescott Bush were Nazi sympathizers shows disrespect for WWII victims.

If the "Truthers" are wrong... time and history will prove them to be wrong. To say they are dangerous or pernicious is absurd, as long as they promote their ideas non-violently. If they are "snake-oil salesmen" then I just put them in there with Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, Jim Bakker et al.

But you cannot FORCE someone to give up an idea by abusing them, by calling them idiots and liars. Try that on a Fundamentalist Christian and see how far you get!



Frankly, I'd like you to provide some evidence that any regular "debunker" poster in this forum feels hate for any conspiracy theorists. Quite the contrary, perhaps you should be asking yourself why it is that our differences of opinions generate so much antagonism, hate, anger, and even violence from Conspiracy Theorists. I've yet to see anyone here threaten to kill or injure a Conspiracy Theorist. Yet Conspiracy Theorists threaten to injure or kill "debunkers" on a regular basis, and the hate towards the JREF at sites like the Loose Change Forums is nothing short of pathological. You need to get your rose-tinted glasses checked Apollo20.

-Gumboot

[westprog]

ref: It is probably likely that they saw a plane but I am convinced that there is nobody in New York who actually saw a plane crash into the World Trade Center.Call it ridiculous...

It is ridiculous. It's an event with thousands of eye-witnesses. To claim that they are all mistaken is an absurdity.

But it's always open to an investigator to go and talk to some of them. Something the doubters never, never do.

But considering the fact that there are hundreds of people with cellphones, video cameras and all that equipment in New York, why are there so few authentic(ated) videos? And why did most of them appear after years?

Is it really that strange that only a small number of people would have their cameras pointed straight up in the air while a plane flew over at high speed? I find it amazing that so many videos exist.

Why should they all emerge at once? There is no central record of personally held videos. There's no requirement for anyone to hand such videos over.


If anything, this is quite obvious to me.

That is quite worrying.

[Cuddles]

Creationists dispute Darwin's Theory of Evolution... well, good for them!

So you don't believe in education then? Do you think it is perfectly OK to teach lies in school? Or is it just possible that responsible people would want education to actually teach people about the world and how to deal with it rather than about magical sky fairies?

If the "Truthers" are wrong... time and history will prove them to be wrong.

How exactly will this happen? Are "history" and "time" going to write books? Or take jobs as teachers? Nothing happens all by itself. If you want to show that something is wrong then you have to show it is wrong. You can't just stand around hoping people will suddenly realise it one day.

[andreasz]

phew. I didn't expect that much feedback. It still took me a while to read it all.

I am still missing the replies on why Bush and Cheney didn't 'need to be' under oath and why no transcript was handed out by the 9/11 commission.

I also read the 'debunking' thingy on 'september clues'. That's one big problem with conspiracy theorists... They try to make a point but fail miserably, because they tune their story to fit entirely. That Theresa Renauld, or whatever the hell her name was, said, doesn't seem interesting to me in any way... If she lied, so f..ing what? I don't care about some fake interview. What I do care about is that the videos simply don't fit.

The color of the plane, the audio blips on the TV stations... There are so many things to mention.

And one thing in general... The Zeitgeist Movie and the points they make in this film... Why is everybody so concerned about 'debunking' everything? The movie has a really good intention. RFID chips and world government are things nobody on this planet needs. I don't care about some redneck opinion who needs to be taken care of. I want to be in charge of my own life without being bullsh...ed by the system.

Even if there is only one tiny thing that is true about this movie, it still makes some good points everybody should be concerned about. And being a sceptic also means being sceptic towards a government and similar institutions.

And still... I read this too many times by now. I am not calling anybody a liar. But I am convinced, that people, under certain circumstances, are willing to see what seems convenient to them.

How many people do we know, that claim that they saw Jesus? How many people claim, that they were obducted by aliens or some similar crap? Nobody calls these people liars. Though nobody believes them.

This matter made so many people 'eye-witness' something that is, from my point of view, still not proven. From a moral perspective, many people will call that ignorant or ridiculous. But after watching my own home videos (VHS), showing the same weird details, such as something wandering across the screen which has obviously been covered up, this makes me feel really skeptic about wether this actually happened or if I was just duped.

I am still waiting for things to happen, as soon as the first part of this breaks apart.

Thanks for the replies, especially the ones which were actually arguing and not just unnecessary cynicism.

So what about this matter of Bush and Cheney refusing to be under oath? Any clues on that? Anything reasonable?

[AMTMAN]

Andreas, my advice to you, continue to pursue the evidence that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. The fact that they were is quite obvious. Only a well financed and well connected organization could have had the means to infiltrate security at the WTC complex and planted the explosives. That shows that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by sophisticated conspiracy with some kind of state support (though not necessarily that of the US government.)

As for your ideas regarding the planes, I hope you drop that nonsense as soon as possible. Overwhelming evidence shows that all four planes ended up where the official story says they did.

This coming from the same guy who tried to use the boeing website to support one of his claims by saying the nose gear doors were an avenue of escape. Not knowing of course that they were just that, the nose gear doors, and not a route of escape.

[andreasz]

sts60: Good point. But I think it would have cost lives of the people involved, considering that you can not remote control a plane like that for a hit like that. I am not too sure about that, but I considering the concept of ILS and plane navigation, it would be really hard to develop something that could actually FAIL-SAFE crash that plane into their remotely. Far too risky. What if you miss? But as I said, not sure about that.

FatesWebb: The human eye is capable of much more than just 10 frames a second. Imagine your images stuttering like that. The truth is a little more complex. Your brain fills in the gaps of what you are supposed to see and gathers additional information from the nervs to complete the image. You can't break that down to actual frames per second.

However, having something run with 24 frames per second, the human eye (and brain) can't tell that this is just a series of images. It appears to be real motion.

So. Still about the question, what the point of slowing videos down is... You don't need a high-speed camera for that. If you take a look at each frame (1/30 second), that will give you a really close look on the video.

There is also a very interesting thing about the second plane hit and the framerate the plane appears to be moving in. I don't know if the plane appears to be skipping across the screen in slow motion (yes, that's the point of slowing it down) due to framerate conversions inbetween PAL/SECAM/NTSC. PAL has something like 25 fps, NTSC has 29.97 or 23,96, depending on some factors I don't know ;)

That might be a reason for the plane appearing to skip across the screen (4th or 5th video of september clues), but that's hard to say because there's not really much in motion except for the plane. So it's really not easy to figure out if it is the entire video that is dropping frames or if it is just the (possibly inserted?) plane.

Take a look and tell me what you think.

[T.A.M.]

Andreaz:

with regards to 9/11 CT films in general, I personally debunk them because I do not want innocent people, gullible people to stumble upon them, watch them, and then think they are the truth, because there is no rebuttal to them. Providing a rebuttal to the films (a debunking) allows someone to see ALL the evidence.

TAM:)

[andreasz]

It was not 4 and not 5, it was in the beginning of the 6th.

Have a look here. http://livevideo.com/video/socialservice/C69E733A247346FE94FCA7A0EC01945F/september-clues-part6.aspx

[gambling_cruiser]

Andreas, tens of thousand people watching the first tower burning saw live (not on tv) the second plane hit. And you have a converted video that looks strange as proof that something is wrong?

Edited for civility

[andreasz]

T.A.M.: Well. But not all of it can be 'debunked'. I think, one big problem of conspiracy theorists is, that they fix some (unnecessary) glitches in their sources to make their point.

Such as cutting out the part of the interview with the girl in chelsea. Or the nonsense about WW2 in the Zeitgeist movies.

Regardless of what you think of the movie and the contents, they _do_ make some good points. I am not talking about that star wars laser weapon crap and similar 'ideas'. I tend to focus on those who actually make a political point and come up with a reasonable theory.

The idea of terror in general is presented very well in the Zeitgeist movie. Men were not meant to live in peace. You can tell by every country, every dialect, every sector. 'neighbors' are most likely in a competition or at their own personal war. For instance, we germans, who live close to the dutch border are sick of the dutch. We hate their language, the way they drive a car, the kinds of food they have, and so on. It's just natural, not personal at all.

But this kind of competition and 'war' in a metaphorical sense is not sufficient to keep a society under full control and obedience. So what happened after 9/11 was the introduction of the patriot act and the war in afghanistan and iraq. People would never go for that without being properly motivated.

Real terrorism, for instance, doesn't occur very often. In germany we had the RAF, don't know if you heard of it. In short: Back in the 1970s, these people tried to make a point by planting explosives, assassinating 'capitalists', robbing banks (irony?) to protest against US-like imperialism and capitalism in general.

This was real. The founders of this group killed themself in 1976 and 1977. They were both in prison at the time. Some people doubt the suicide, but that's not too important. The point is that this actually happened. As a result, after years of terror, an anti-terror law was passed in germany. But nothing even close to the patriot act. Many people died, millions of german Marks (german currency at that time) were stolen, buildings destroyed and people had to live in fear of terror.

Germany made this experience and it is proven to be sufficient to allow the government to control this one tiny part of your personal life. Keep track of which country you're traveling to and where you're living. Social security, taxes, ... There are so many things that let you keep track of people. And from a US government perspective, it is still not enough. I don't want to be chipped, like my dog. There is absolutely no need to have a dark vision of the future, where I can be held responsible for everything I do that might be considered out of line.

It's not of anyones business, where I am, who's with me in the same room, same place, whatever. And no 'act' should have the power to change that. Did anyone of you READ the patriot act? The bottomline is pretty obvious... But americans don't seem to be bothered about it. Anything like this in germany and we'd have a civil war.

The law that was passed in germany was introduced to identify people who actually come out of our own families, groups, etc. What's the point of the patriot act?

Despite all the laws we have got, all the police, border control, and so on, yesterday the italian mafia killed 6 people, less than a mile away from the place where I live. In this area, something like that didn't happen in over 40 years. And still they managed to smuggle automatic weapons from italy into germany , slaughter the people that they were assigned to and disappear.

You have got to see, that this is exceptional. This doesn't happen in everyday life. History has shown, that events like these make people call for justice. And that's, imho, exactly, what is being exploited by governments like the current US administration.

[andreasz]

Andreas, tens of thousand people watching the first tower burning saw live (not on tv) the second plane hit. And you have a converted video that looks strange as proof that something is wrong?

Edited for civility

I didn't say that. I said that I don't know (you know... NOT KNOWING and stuff), if this is the entire video that looks like this, as a natural effect of framerate conversion, OR if there is a glitch in a POSSIBLE forgery.

Read. Think. Reply. How about that?

[gambling_cruiser]

Enormous amounts of eyewitnesses saw the second plane live with their eyes - not on tv! How can there be any question about the existence of it?

[andreasz]

Enormous amounts of people saw Jesus Christ... So what?

Do you honestly believe, that what flies by in less than five seconds and explodes, as it hits the WTC, will be what people actually saw or what everybody tells them it was?

I don't care about the eye-witnesses. There are also hundreds of claims of people who saw a missile. So what? People don't give a damn about what an eye-witness saw, unless he's got it on tape. Millions saw it on TV, 'witnessed' it. What do you think people care about?

And now take a bunch of rednecks who don't know anything but the damn TV... What do you think, counts to them? And unfortunately, what do you think, these guys opinions are worth?

You'll find the worth of their voice in the previous two presidential elections.

[Dumb All Over]

...There are also hundreds of claims of people who saw a missile.
On the morning of 9/11, I watched my television in horror as a missile blasted into the south tower. The missile came in the form of a hijacked commercial airliner.

[T.A.M.]

I know I am not american, so my opinion may not count for much, but I am getting real tired of all the BITCHING and WHINING about the Patriot Act. Please, anyone, name one person who they personally know who has been effected in a significant and deleterious way by the Patriot Act since its inception?

TAM:)

[twinstead]

Enormous amounts of people saw Jesus Christ... So what?

Do you honestly believe, that what flies by in less than five seconds and explodes, as it hits the WTC, will be what people actually saw or what everybody tells them it was?

I don't care about the eye-witnesses. There are also hundreds of claims of people who saw a missile. So what? People don't give a damn about what an eye-witness saw, unless he's got it on tape. Millions saw it on TV, 'witnessed' it. What do you think people care about?

And now take a bunch of rednecks who don't know anything but the damn TV... What do you think, counts to them? And unfortunately, what do you think, these guys opinions are worth?

You'll find the worth of their voice in the previous two presidential elections.

This sounds suspiciously like somebody trying to rationalize their summary dismissal of any evidence that doesn't support their conclusion, right down to the gratuitous off-topic political barb at the end.

Is there anybody in the truth movement not motivated by ideology or politics?

[Alt+F4]

I know I am not american, so my opinion may not count for much, but I am getting real tired of all the BITCHING and WHINING about the Patriot Act. Please, anyone, name one person who they personally know who has been effected in a significant and deleterious way by the Patriot Act since its inception?

TAM:)

Well I had my boobs assaulted by a rather unpleasant female TSA employee during a shakedown at O'Hare.

But you're right TAM, the Bush administration is doing a lousy job at destroying the Constitution, declaring martial law, taking over the world...yada, yada, yada. Gosh, we're getting less oil from Iraq now then we did before the war started.

If the NSA wants to listen in on my telephone conversations then they deserve what they get: me going "yeah Ma" as she goes on and on about the evils of Ambien.

[Sabrina]

Well, let's see here.

Censorship of my letters, emails, or calls: None.
Limitations on my conversations with friends: Except as regards keeping classified information classified, nope, and that's only because I have a security clearance.
Limitations on my daily activities: None.
Harrassment by the police: I haven't even gotten so much as a SPEEDING ticket in the past... almost twelve years. Last ticket I got was for making a right turn in the wrong lane (I had missed the sign posted saying not to turn in that lane), and even that was about five years ago.
Harrassment by any government agency: Unless you count the IRS insisting I pay that pesky income tax, nope.
Availability of help when I need it: Well when my car got broken into and my credit card stolen by some little punk, my credit card agency was very helpful, as were the police. I just wish they'd managed to catch the little [rule8] who broke my window, but there weren't any fingerprints. *sigh*


I'm going to go with the Patriot Act has not limited my daily activities in any way, shape, or form; I've never even been reprimanded for speaking my mind as regards the government while I was on active duty, AFTER 9/11 I might add.

Anyone else?

[andreasz]

Alt-F4: You really don't get it, do you?

Why, do you think, do soooooo many people encrypt their mail with GPG/PGP? Why do people use services with client authentication SSL via certificates?

It's not about "Yeah ma, thanks, love you too..."

And the Bush administration is embarassing for the entire united states. Back here in germany, I always get into arguments with people, who have never ever been to the united states, but know from TV, that americans are fat, stupid, and so on... As Michael Moore already pointed out... And they don't know anything about foreign countries or politics, geographics whatsoever. And of course, they re-elected Bush...

This makes it really hard to tell people, that not all americans are as stupid as they may think.

But an "I don't give a damn" attitude will just prove their point.

[Sabrina]

I don't encrypt my personal email with anything. Only place where my email might be encrypted is at work, and considering I work for a contracting company that does contracts for the government, I'd say that's understandable.

Honestly, if someone wants to read my boring personal emails, I could care less.

[andreasz]

Encryption is understandable for anybody. How can people be so naive and unaware of the power of information?

Think of this from a veeeeeery simple perspective. Simple example: Imagine some guy sitting in your ISPs office and watching your traffic. By accident, he reads in an email that you wrote, that you have had an affair. Years ago, never happened again, but this one time it happened.

Now let's say you earn quite a bit of money. And by your name, phone number, personal information included in that message, that guy finds out that you are not exactly poor.

Now. Since sooo many americans are completely paranoid about personal info on the internet... How would you like your personal information being opened up like this to anybody with the right access and the necessary technical understanding? How would you like these people being able to blackmail you?

And this is just one simple example... If you are about to reply something like "I don't have affairs and I wouldn't write that in an email" you simply didn't get my point.

Think about it.

[dudalb]

So what about this matter of Bush and Cheney refusing to be under oath? Any clues on that? Anything reasonable?

I know this is not a new point but.....
Are you saying the Bush and CHeney are capable of murdering thousands of their fellow citizens but unwilling to lie under Oath????????????

And you gotta love the way the OP drags in every Anti American stereotype he can.

[twinstead]

And the Bush administration is embarassing for the entire united states. Back here in germany, I always get into arguments with people, who have never ever been to the united states, but know from TV, that americans are fat, stupid, and so on... As Michael Moore already pointed out... And they don't know anything about foreign countries or politics, geographics whatsoever. And of course, they re-elected Bush...

This makes it really hard to tell people, that not all americans are as stupid as they may think.

But an "I don't give a damn" attitude will just prove their point.

There are millions of people who agree that Bush is embarrassing the US right here in the US who still don't think the US is any more of a police state than Germany is for example.

The problem is people who view the world through ideological goggles tend to look at things black and white. You're either afraid of the police state, or you love the government. You're either anti-globalist, or you are in bed with the industrial monsters. You're either a total Green Party lover or don't care about the environment, etc

To you it appears IMO that it's impossible to NOT believe the US is heading towards a police state and also NOT like Bush's administration.

[andreasz]

Well... I only know very few people, who are in favor of Bush and not skeptic about heading towards a police state. Those are most likely the ones who consider the administrations way from an economically 'useful' perspective.

Most of the people I know, who are not in favor of Bush, made that decisions because they find him embarassing as a representative of the united states. It's hard to tell wether he is just stupid or playing a damn good role. I wouldn't judge that easily.

I agree with you on the other points. People tend to decide "absolutely". The big problem is, that they try to keep things in balance but they don't realize that there's no way to take the arguments seriously as long as they are all radical.

It's very rare, that somebody tries to walk inbetween opinions. I am called a "troother", though I never heard of that before until I joined this forum. Then there's a skeptic and some other nicknames and categories.

Anyway... Now here's Sabrina and Alt-F4, claiming that they don't give a damn if someone reads there private messages... Now I am bringing up certain arguments that they PROBABLY should. You think, any of the two will give me some credit?

They will stick to 'white' ;) Moving towards 'grey' and telling me that after reconsidering, it sounds reasonable to encrypt messages. But no! Giving me credit would result in becoming 'black'. And that's JUST what I want, you know ;)

[twinstead]

It's all about the balancing of personal freedoms against combating a threat. If one doesn't think global terrorism is a threat, then I would imagine one would tolerate very little in the way of eavesdropping and other such domestic spying.

If on the other hand one thinks global terrorism is a real threat, a personal threat, then I would imagine one would be a little more tolerant.

My grandfather tells a lot of stories about what it was like living on the home front during WWII. It could be a very paranoid place with German and Japanese spies real and imagined seen everywhere. Personal liberties took a second seat to the war effort, for better or worse.

He actually finds some of the whining going on today to be quite humorous.

So. Where exactly is this balance? Do you believe we are under threat?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

It's funny when Andreasz drops his pretense of being just a curious fellow and rants like a full blown truther discounting eye-witness accounts unless they can be twisted to agree with his stubborn opinion.

So Andreaz: If you have such contempt for Americans, why do you care about the Patriot Act? Name ONE person who's been unfairly affected by the Patriot Act.

[Sabrina]

Encryption is understandable for anybody. How can people be so naive and unaware of the power of information?

Think of this from a veeeeeery simple perspective. Simple example: Imagine some guy sitting in your ISPs office and watching your traffic. By accident, he reads in an email that you wrote, that you have had an affair. Years ago, never happened again, but this one time it happened.

Now let's say you earn quite a bit of money. And by your name, phone number, personal information included in that message, that guy finds out that you are not exactly poor.

Now. Since sooo many americans are completely paranoid about personal info on the internet... How would you like your personal information being opened up like this to anybody with the right access and the necessary technical understanding? How would you like these people being able to blackmail you?

And this is just one simple example... If you are about to reply something like "I don't have affairs and I wouldn't write that in an email" you simply didn't get my point.

Think about it.

*arches a brow* andreas, I work in the intelligence community. I am VERY aware of the power of information. And as the majority of your posts seem to be against the current Patriot Act, from an admittedly cursory inspection, I will tell you this. If the government wants to read my personal email, they are welcome to, because I am one of those people who dislikes breaking the law and would never consider sending an email that, upon a cursory inspection, would seem to be intimating I intended harm, either physical or psychological to others.

The information I deal with on a semi-daily basis is orders of magnitude more important than the trivial details of my life, which the government knows all about anyway due to the exhaustive background investigation they conducted to give me my clearance.

That being said, if I simply stick to your example, I can see your point; I just don't agree with it. You seem to be intimating that I should encrypt all of my correspondence, regardless of how trivial, and I view that as the beginnings of acute paranoia. Quite simply, if I don't want information to be splattered all over the internet, I don't post it, either via email, blog, or forum. There are easier ways of safeguarding your information besides encrypting your entire life, the main one of which is simply don't say or do anything in a public manner you wouldn't want splashed everywhere. It's a matter of self control versus "protection of your information" that the majority of people I know do tend to practice instead of encrypting everything. I find my way of "protecting my information" infinitely less complicated than the way you are advocating, and as I have yet to have my identity stolen or to have anyone blackmail me, I would say it seems to be working. Should one or the other of those happen, I would take whatever steps I felt necessary to prevent it from happening again, but I rather doubt I would include encrypting all of my correspondence into it. Just my two cents.

[slyjoe]

Alt-F4: You really don't get it, do you?

Why, do you think, do soooooo many people encrypt their mail with GPG/PGP? Why do people use services with client authentication SSL via certificates?

It's not about "Yeah ma, thanks, love you too..."



Just curious - do you think that using GPG/PGP prevents the government from reading your email?

[Alt+F4]

My grandfather tells a lot of stories about what it was like living on the home front during WWII. It could be a very paranoid place with German and Japanese spies real and imagined seen everywhere. Personal liberties took a second seat to the war effort, for better or worse.

You're right. The history of the United States is full of examples of how certain personal freedoms have been limited in time of war. Here's a few examples:

Civil War - Lincoln suspends habeas corpus (thousands jailed)
World War I - Schenck v. United States (free speech restricted)
World War II - six German spies executed after secret military trial

The United States didn't become a police state then, and I doubt it will now.

[Corsair 115]

So. Still about the question, what the point of slowing videos down is... You don't need a high-speed camera for that. If you take a look at each frame (1/30 second), that will give you a really close look on the video. Except for one thing: if the object is moving fast, then each of those individual frames is going to show a blurred object since it would have been in motion when each frame was exposed. The faster the object, the more it's blurred in each frame.

There is also a very interesting thing about the second plane hit and the framerate the plane appears to be moving in. I don't know if the plane appears to be skipping across the screen in slow motion (yes, that's the point of slowing it down) due to framerate conversions inbetween PAL/SECAM/NTSC. PAL has something like 25 fps, NTSC has 29.97 or 23,96, depending on some factors I don't know. Don't forget about possible compression issues arising from MPEG or other online video formats. Unless you can verify that the video you're seeing is a direct copy of the original broadcast-quality videotape, you can't discount conversion and/or compression issues causing apparent visual anomalies.

You also have to account for the many numerous (over forty) different camera angles of the aircraft impacts along with all the still photos taken of the events.

[andreasz]

slyjoe: of course it does. Without a private key to that, it would take years to decrypt it with guessworking, even with the most powerful machine.

There is no almighty decryption weapon to do that. Without the private key, the information in the message is worthless.

[andreasz]

Corsair: As I said, it is very hard to say, since there is no way to figure out what happened to the video. The source is some video from a japanese TV station... I guess it's conversion related.

The point was, to figure out, if the entire video drops frames or if it is really just the plane that is skipping across the screen due to sloppy manufacturing. But that's close to impossible

[T.A.M.]

Encryption is understandable for anybody. How can people be so naive and unaware of the power of information?

Think of this from a veeeeeery simple perspective. Simple example: Imagine some guy sitting in your ISPs office and watching your traffic. By accident, he reads in an email that you wrote, that you have had an affair. Years ago, never happened again, but this one time it happened.

Now let's say you earn quite a bit of money. And by your name, phone number, personal information included in that message, that guy finds out that you are not exactly poor.

Now. Since sooo many americans are completely paranoid about personal info on the internet... How would you like your personal information being opened up like this to anybody with the right access and the necessary technical understanding? How would you like these people being able to blackmail you?

And this is just one simple example... If you are about to reply something like "I don't have affairs and I wouldn't write that in an email" you simply didn't get my point.

Think about it.


My opinion...you cheated on your spouse and didnt have the gonads to confess, but rather left it to be forgotten like a coward...you get what you deserve.

That said...

your case is an extreme case....and if you want to live your life based on extremes, than you will never cross the road, never climb a mountain, never take a trip on a plane or a train.

I do not encrypt my email. I do keep my name and personal info guarded wrt 9/11 kooks, but that is because they have proven to me to be deranged enough to harrass me personally were they to find it out.

TAM:)

[AMTMAN]

Here's a video that will cause you to drop the No Plane Theory, and instead embrace the No Human Pilot Theory:

http://investigate911.se/911_United_175_Nose_Dive_Bomber.html

The no human pilot theory being about as asinine as the no plane theory.

[slyjoe]

slyjoe: of course it does. Without a private key to that, it would take years to decrypt it with guessworking, even with the most powerful machine.

There is no almighty decryption weapon to do that. Without the private key, the information in the message is worthless.

You are assuming only a brute force attack. Try to think of other forms of attack, including how your private key may be compromised.

[Sabrina]

Any reason my response to you was completely skipped over, andreas?

[Minadin]

And now take a bunch of rednecks who don't know anything but the damn TV... What do you think, counts to them?

Your assertion here seems to suggest that many Germans have something in common with "rednecks:"

Back here in germany, I always get into arguments with people, who have never ever been to the united states, but know from TV, that americans are fat, stupid, and so on... As Michael Moore already pointed out... And they don't know anything about foreign countries or politics, geographics whatsoever.

Of course, you know, real everyday life is exactly as it is depicted on our television programs and movies and news shows that are viewed overseas. Seems like every day I'm dodging driveby shootings in my "hood" while trying to avoid the size-2 flawless skinned supermodel hookers who proposition me on my way to work.

News shows are sensationalist, just as fictional TV programs and movies are fictional. They need to be out of the ordinary or they wouldn't be entertaining, they would not sell. Watch one of those un-edited bits of video from the Loose Change Boys showing one of their trips to NY and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

And, while I'll certainly admit that there are some ignorant people about, the stereotype that Americans are fat & stupid is insulting. I don't know where they find these people who can't find Iraq on a map, or have no idea who the president of Mexico is, or any number of those questions you see published in the polls, but they're not anyone I know. I've lived on 3 continents and I speak 2 foreign languages (one fluently, one passably). I live in an area where I can walk to work every day, keep up with world news fairly well, and would take on anyone from any country in a geography contest. So don't paint us all with the same brush.

Also, I don't feel that it's as important to know as much about as many different countries here in the States, compared to a place like Germany, because we don't have so many different neighboring countries with people speaking different languages that we have to deal with on a daily basis. Even between our 2 bordering countries, one of them speaks (mostly) the same language as we do.

ETA: I know Andreasz was arguing against those types of arguments, so this isn't directed specifically at him, but the sort of statements he was relaying, like the nonsense Oliver posts sometimes, aggravate me to no end.

[AMTMAN]

Real terrorism, for instance, doesn't occur very often. In germany we had the RAF, don't know if you heard of it. In short: Back in the 1970s, these people tried to make a point by planting explosives, assassinating 'capitalists', robbing banks (irony?) to protest against US-like imperialism and capitalism in general.

This was real. The founders of this group killed themself in 1976 and 1977. They were both in prison at the time. Some people doubt the suicide, but that's not too important. The point is that this actually happened. As a result, after years of terror, an anti-terror law was passed in germany. But nothing even close to the patriot act. Many people died, millions of german Marks (german currency at that time) were stolen, buildings destroyed and people had to live in fear of terror.

.

It was not real, it was all a plot by the West German government as an excuse to tighten their control over the country. The "terrorists" were in reality members of GSG9 who were ordered to carry out the attacks.

[dudalb]

Is there anybody in the truth movement not motivated by ideology or politics?

If depends on how you define ideology.
A great many of them,as has been pointed out,seem to be people in the 15 to 20 year old age group going through a intense "F--k All Authority" stage. I have a feeling that if a Liberal Democrat would have been in office when 9/11 happened a lot of these would still buy into the Conspiracy crap simply because they would hate ANYBODY in a position of authority. If you define that as an real ideology,yeah,almost all CTers have a ideological basis.

The Twoofers are a mixed lot....some Hate Dubya so much they would beleive anything bad about him, some are the Hardcore Cters who will buy into any wack theory (the large crossover between 9/11 CTs and the Moonbats shows that), and some are just going through a "Hate All Authority and Fight The MAN" stage.
THe ones I really dislike are some on the extreme political Left who probably know what a bunch of crap the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories are but push them anyway. That I find reprehesible.

[AMTMAN]

Alt-F4: You really don't get it, do you?

Why, do you think, do soooooo many people encrypt their mail with GPG/PGP? Why do people use services with client authentication SSL via certificates?

It's not about "Yeah ma, thanks, love you too..."

And the Bush administration is embarassing for the entire united states. Back here in germany, I always get into arguments with people, who have never ever been to the united states, but know from TV, that americans are fat, stupid, and so on... As Michael Moore already pointed out... And they don't know anything about foreign countries or politics, geographics whatsoever. And of course, they re-elected Bush...

This makes it really hard to tell people, that not all americans are as stupid as they may think.

But an "I don't give a damn" attitude will just prove their point.

Thinking that someone is fat and stupid from what they see on TV is, well stupid. As for Michael Moore I find it puzzling how some europeans fawn over him. To me I find it ironic that he has made himself very rich attacking the very system that has made him so.

[andreasz]

Any reason my response to you was completely skipped over, andreas?

Nope. Just working. You'll get a reply, but I'll take more time for that.

[andreasz]

You are assuming only a brute force attack. Try to think of other forms of attack, including how your private key may be compromised.

Name one. I can't think of any.

The key was generated by myself. So it is nothing but a random hash noone else has access to.

I don't use any crap like Windows and the key is in a protected environment. There is really no way for anybody to gain access to my e-mail.

Of course, I don't encrypt everything of it, because it requires the other party to offer a public key that I can use to encrypt the message to him/her. But the important messages I write are all encrypted.

I pay a lot of attention to the information I offer about myself and how I deal with it. There was a german law, after 9/11, that allows the government, on suspicion, to look into your private mail if you use a freemail provider. I don't do that, but if I did, I would certainly encrypt all of my messages.

[andreasz]

Thinking that someone is fat and stupid from what they see on TV is, well stupid. As for Michael Moore I find it puzzling how some europeans fawn over him. To me I find it ironic that he has made himself very rich attacking the very system that has made him so.


Moore is just a populist. No better than Bush or anybody else. I got some smiles out of his two movies, but I don't take him seriously in any way.

[andreasz]

It was not real, it was all a plot by the West German government as an excuse to tighten their control over the country. The "terrorists" were in reality members of GSG9 who were ordered to carry out the attacks.

...very funny ;)

[AMTMAN]

Moore is just a populist. No better than Bush or anybody else. I got some smiles out of his two movies, but I don't take him seriously in any way.

Add hypocrite to that.

[andreasz]

Your assertion here seems to suggest that many Germans have something in common with "rednecks:"


That is most likely due to anti-USA-propaganda on german television a few years ago. Now they're pro-US again, god knows why... But I have to agree with you on that... There are many narrow minded people in germany, acting like rednecks from that perspective. But usually they achieve something in life anyway. German TV is different from the one in the US.


And, while I'll certainly admit that there are some ignorant people about, the stereotype that Americans are fat & stupid is insulting. I don't know where they find these people who can't find Iraq on a map, or have no idea who the president of Mexico is, or any number of those questions you see published in the polls, but they're not anyone I know. I've lived on 3 continents and I speak 2 foreign languages (one fluently, one passably). I live in an area where I can walk to work every day, keep up with world news fairly well, and would take on anyone from any country in a geography contest. So don't paint us all with the same brush.


I guess you find them on the streets in Virginia, Texas and so on ;) But seriously... You already made your point. 'Sensational'. They pick 3.000 people and you see the top20 most stupid on TV ;)



Also, I don't feel that it's as important to know as much about as many different countries here in the States, compared to a place like Germany, because we don't have so many different neighboring countries with people speaking different languages that we have to deal with on a daily basis. Even between our 2 bordering countries, one of them speaks (mostly) the same language as we do.


Yupp. That's exactly my point in discussions with ignorant germans. You get stuff like 'They don't even know where Austria is...'. My reply to that is most likely: 'Well... Do you know where Texas is?' - You can imagine the rest of the conversation. I always tell them that there's no need for an american to know where austria is, as long as a german doesn't know where giant TX is.

Anyway... double-standards, nothing new. In germany you also get along quite well with your own language only... Even the movies are dubbed here. Disgusting. But they have english at schools here. Unfortunately, most germans consider 'english' at school as a school subject and not as a language.