Debunking NPT (No Planes Theory) isn't my hobby-horse. I do it more as a community service. I had been duped 2009-2012 by NPT as provided by September Clues and its crafty Parts 1 thru 9 and A thru H. But I was open-minded and objective with regards to further analysis and research, such that I acknowledged when pillars of my NPT beliefs were destroyed and I had to recant and apologize.
"Doing unto others, as I would have them do to me...". I did not relish having my "open-minded and objective" nature (e.g., super powers of being naive and trusting, until given reason not to) be taken advantage of. I want to spare my fellow yeomen in the 9/11 Truth Movement similar embarrassment for having been duped. So I've had more spins than necessary trying to set the record straight.
"And I would have succeeded to, were it not for those pesky [agents & bots]". This work contains NPT rounds 5 through 7. For completeness, the following has links to previous NPT rounds.
- Round 1 (2014-03): NPT with Norma Rae and FB "All Theories Welcome"
- Round 2 (2015-01: NPT with Rosalee Grable
- Round 3 (2016-01): NPT with Shiela Casey
- Round 4 (2016-06): NPT with Dr. James Fetzer
- Round 5 (2019-05): NPT with Art Olivier, Thomas Digan
- Round 6 (2019-12): NPT with Chukwudi Onugha
- Round 7 (2020-01): NPT with Michael Rose
The "no planes theory" (NPT) suggests that the aircraft, which appeared in videos to have hit each WTC tower, were faked using CGI and/or holograms, and controlled explosives in the towers. A lot of effort was expended in this NPT ruse, from its earlier champions Nico Haupt, Rosalee Grable, and Ace Baker, to prolific September Clues (Simon Shack) and its Parts 1 thru 9 and A thru H.
We can speculate for a long time as to the goals and purposes of NPT and why the disinfo was spun up. At the top of the list, NPT was needed to distract and shutdown valid cases of insufficient evidence of real aircraft involvement at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.
Not that long ago, the internet was aflame with "Flat Earth" (FE) nonsense, which seemed to get inserted quite frequently into discussions under conspiracy Facebook groups. Like most disinfo, it doesn't have to convince that many people; muddying the waters and pushing emotional buttons is sufficient (1) to derail discussions on other topics and (2) to discredit other theories in a "guilt-by-association" manner. It was very much in line with the "Fake News", "Fake Science", "Fake Internet", and "Trump Lies".
Normally, you would have to give FE (NPT, Woodsian DEW) proponents credit for being open-minded and objective enough to consider FE (NPT, Woodsian DEW) and make arguments for FE (NPT, Woodsian DEW), this "being open-minded and objective" did not extend to counter-arguments to FE (NPT, Woodsian DEW) that debunked them.
Based on my internet experience, my addition to the speculation is that these were field exercise for Artificial Intelligence, or bots.
AI vs. AI. Two chatbots talking to each other
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnzlbyTZsQY
Expand All Chapters / Hide All Chapters
Expand All Subsections / Hide All Subsections
Chapter 12: NPT Round 5 with Art Olivier, Thomas Digan
Another tedious spin on the NPT carousel.
x467 Maxwell C. Bridges : F4 video is very instructive
2019-05-23
2019-05-22
Dear Mr. Enver Masud, this is one of those situations where they can't have their cake and eat it too. Hear me out when I say that the F4 crash video and the MythBuster's video rocket-wedge are indeed instrumental in understanding the Pentagon and the WTC, ~BUT~ not for the reasons implied by Chandler et al.
Here's the take-away: when velocities are very large, this gets squared in the physics equation for energy that can be much greater than the internal structural strength / energy of the materials in question causing them to shatter, as opposed to bouncing off as a cohesive whole.
The F4 video DEBUNKS a real plane crashing into the Pentagon and the official alleged flight path, because poles hitting wings at high velocities would have resulted in significant damage to the wings to the point of shattering at impact point and making the plane un-flight-worthy to make the final distance into the ground level of the Pentagon so precisely. Didn't happen to that precise plane path.
And as a bonus, the F4 video DEBUNKS the notion of "no planes at the WTC" (NPT @ WTC), where they claim the "wings sliced the steel wall assemblies in a cartoonish manner." First, only the aluminum cladding was sliced wing-tip to wing-tip in a cartoon fashion. The wall assemblies, however, were only breached by the fuselage and engine. [The NPTers get knocked for not describing the damage accurately.]
Second, the NPTers go farther and claim the wings should have broken off the plane and bounced off the building, as if it were a fender-bender at city speeds.
But as already explained, the high velocities resulted in the wings shattering on impact -- the portion of the wings that didn't get sliced and enter through the near-zero resistance windows -- and therefore weren't a cohesive whole any more to bounce in such a fashion. It was not video fakery that the wings disappeared, but high velocity physics with energy that overwhelmed and shattered the wings.
Third, the NPTers like to say that the plane flew through its own length entering the building in the same number of frames it flew through thin air. While somewhat true within a certain error tolerance, the fast aircraft speed coupled with slow camera frame rates would result in a range of velocity (e.g., "deceleration" or slowing on impact) that are valid. This is masked in their lame explanation. Further, they imply that the resistance to a mass entering the structure would be constant for the entire length of the aircraft. The reality is that once an entrance hole was breached in the towers (by plowing a wall assembly out of the way), the amount of structure or content that could impede further penetration was minimal.
Bottom-line is that the F4 video is very instructive, but you have to apply it properly to the situation, and doing so debunks both the Pentagon plane but the WTC disinfo no-planes.
//
x468 Art Olivier : fuselage penetrated the exoskeletons
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges
What was in the fuselage that penetrated the exoskeletons of the Twin Towers?
x469 Maxwell C. Bridges : hot-tub landing gear
2019-05-23
The heavy metal landing gear... 10 pieces of landing gear were located outside the towers, including in someone's hot-tub.
My favorite is the one embedded between hollow box columns of a wall assembly that it ripped off the backside of WTC-1 to land in a parking lot.
https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
//
x470 Art Olivier : bent the column
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges What was in the wing that bent this column 90°?
x471 Maxwell C. Bridges : hollow box column
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Art Olivier, based on the hollow box column immediately to the right of the box column in question, we can see that this was close to the top of the wall assembly. The bolts connecting it to the assembly above was sheared. (The column to the left is part of a different wall assembly with a different bolting point. Refer to the article.)
As mentioned, the box columns were hollow. (The thickness of the four sheets making a single column varied depending on where it was in the tower, thicker lower, thinner higher.) It isn't solid steel for the entire thickness of the box column.
I see the floor acting as a convenient fulcrum for a high velocity wing to bend it over.
Physics says equal and opposite. So while the velocity squared term in the energy equation can shatter the light materials of the wings, that same energy is transferred into the structure, sufficient to shear some bolts and bent the top of a hollow box column at the juncture with a floor.
I'm not sure the profile of the plane is drawn correctly.
//
x472 Art Olivier : Newton's third law
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges The column is 14"x14", 3/8" thick, made out of structural steel. The wing is 1/10" thick aluminum. Are you saying an aluminum wing could bend over a steel column that was 14" deep?
Newton's third law indicates that a steel building traveling at 500 mph into an aluminum plane would have the same effect as an aluminum plane hitting a steel framed building at 500 mph. Either way, the plane would be crushed.
x473 Maxwell C. Bridges : shattered wing imparted energy
2019-05-23
The plane wing was shattered, correct. But that doesn't mean it had no energy to impart upon the building.
There are lots high-speed videos of bullets hitting steel. Here's one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvUBjmuR2E0
Of note is that the bullet completely shatters on the impact face and its fragments mostly go 360 degrees in plane of plate. Energy impacted upon the plate though, sends in the profile of the bullet a plug of steel out the backside.
As with this an many videos, the bullet does not technically pierce through the steel plate, but nonetheless a whole in the shape of the bullet is created.
Same principle with the towers. Even in the wings getting decimated upon impact with the hollow box columns, energy was transferred into the hollow box columns and did cause reasonable and expected damage.
//
x474 Art Olivier : one bent column
2019-05-23
If the metal plate is thin enough, a lead-tipped bullet will go through a steel plate but an aluminum bullet would not, which is why lead is used on bullets and depleted uranium is used on bunker-busting bombs.
Just concentrating on the one bent column pointed out in my picture, it is not hard to imagine what would happen if that column were to hit a wing of a 767, the wing would be destroyed and the column would not bend in the slightest.
This is the point of Newton's Third Law. The aluminum and the steel don't know which one is going 500 mph, the result will be the same.
x475 Maxwell C. Bridges : low frame-rate of a camera
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Art Olivier, don't get hung up in the weeds of thin steel versus thick steel, aluminum bullets verus lead... The salient point is the physics of high velocity impacts and their effects on materials.
When the low frame-rate of a camera at quite some distance seems to depict a plane disappearing into a tower with what seems like a tiny puff of dust followed later by an explosive gas cloud, it does not mean that video fakery happened or that there weren't any planes.
It means that the energy of the high velocity impact was sufficient to shatter the wings (while also inflicting damage to the wall assemblies), and the "tiny puff of dust" is really when closer up much more significant as wing shatter & slice.
You wrote: "Just concentrating on the one bent column pointed out in my picture, it is not hard to imagine what would happen if that column were to hit a wing of a 767, the wing would be destroyed and the column would not bend in the slightest."
I was with you after the last "and the column would not bend in the slightest."
Complete bullshit.
(a) The box column in question was hollow and not a solid block of steel.
(b) As can be seen, the bent happened just below near the juncture of two wall assemblies. The bolts failed first and were severed, and allowed the torque on top portion of this hallow box column to get bent over at the junction with the floor by the energy of the wing that was destroyed.
Accurate physical descriptions of the wall assemblies, of the WTC structure, of the plane wings, of the damage to the wall assemblies versus aluminum cladding, of the nature of the wall assemblies and bolt-in failure points, and of reduced penetrating resistance once breached make clear that there was nothing physics defying about a hollow box column getting bent.
The strength of those connecting bolts? Remember that some landing gear helped plow through the first set of wall assemblies and exited through a second set of wall assemblies by severing its connecting bolts, ripping it off the building, and ejecting it some distance into a parking lot.
Let this realization impress upon you the relative weakness of the connecting bolts in general and the great amount of energy that high velocity physics brings into play.
That Sandia F4 and MythBuster's rocket-wedge are instrumental in helping us discover the deceit in 9/11. It debunks NPT @ WTC, but also proves no planes at the Pentagon (e.g., real aircraft hitting light poles would have been crippled and spewing debris and not had the accuracy exhibited.)
//
x476 Art Olivier : bullets would be made out of aluminum
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges
“don't get hung up in the weeds of thin steel versus thick steel, aluminum bullets verus lead... The salient point is the physics of high velocity impacts and their effects on materials.”
If what you are saying was true, bullets would be made out of aluminum instead of lead. Aluminum bullets have a higher velocity because they are lighter but they won’t penetrate steel plate because aluminum is not as dense as steel. It is also why the military uses the most dense material they can for bunker busting bombs. You can’t change the laws of physics to match your theory. How would the metals know which one is stationary and which one is in motion? Unless you can prove that Newton was wrong when he wrote his Third Law, your velocity theory has no merit.
“The box column in question was hollow and not a solid block of steel”
Do you really think that there are columns in high-rise buildings that are solid blocks of steel?
The nose-in nose-out video is clearly CGI.
x477 Maxwell C. Bridges : mass is one of the factors in the energy equation
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Art Olivier, I am ~not~ "changing the laws of physics to match [my] theory." You are ~not~ understanding the laws of physics.
A more dense bullet means more mass, and mass is one of the factors in the energy equation along with velocity squared. Can't always increase the speed of a bullet through air, but you can mess with the projectile.
But that isn't the point. The point is energy transfer. And what I demonstrated with this particular bullet-against-steel video, is that even if the vehicle (bullet) completely fails and gets splattered to smithereens with fragments sent every which way, energy is transferred into the target. In the bullet example, a plug of steel with the profile of the bullet gets blown out the backside. Bullet didn't actually pierce it, but a hole was made, and that plug of steel can be like a (slower) bullet if it hit you. If the steel were any thicker, the steel would probably deform with the outlines of the bullet. Again, demonstrates energy transfer.
Relating this to 9/11 and planes hitting towers, yes, it is perfectly physics compliant to observe after-effects of bent columns as one form of deformation from having energy of high-velocity wings impacting and shattering.
Regarding your comment: "The nose-in nose-out video is clearly CGI."
I was duped mightily by September Clues for several years, but kept my mind and research open to different conclusions.
I can definitively state that CGI and imagery manipulation did happen with 9/11, and certainly the media was complicit. But I don't think "nose-in nose-out" is CGI. I think it is a case of coincidence that the expelled gas cloud resembled the front of the plane for a frame or two and was deceitfully used to make the disinfo case of no planes. For all I know, maybe they used CGI to enhance it after the fact to make sure the resemblance to the nose was there, which would then prove you right. Maybe CGI helped fudge truly distinguishing details of the aircraft.
CGI doesn't take away from the fact real aircraft were involved.
//
x478 Gaylord Campbell : 14 had Saudi passports
2019-05-23
2019-05-22
This doesn’t make sense since out of the 19 hijackers 14 had Saudi passports.
x479 Maxwell C. Bridges : patsy hijackers
2019-05-23
The patsy hijackers were groomed and monitored by Israeli agents. //
x480 Daniel Coble : no passenger planes were hijacked
2019-05-23
Gaylord: Bin Laden and the 18 flight-school-dropout patsies had as much to do with the destruction on 9/11 as Oswald had to do with killing JFK.... No passenger planes were hijacked or crashed into buildings on 9/11.... Turns out that too much propaganda has blinded you to the facts....
x481 Maxwell C. Bridges : plenty of evidence of aircraft
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Daniel Coble, I agree that the Saudi's were patsies, and even to the comment that no passenger planes were hijacked. I could even agree that no planes crashed at Shanksville and the Pentagon. However, real planes (maybe not the alleged commercial aircraft) did crash into the towers.
NPT at the WTC was spun up to discredit the truth movement and distract from the real NPT.
Plenty of evidence of aircraft. Here's a starter.
https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
//
x482 Thomas Digan : alleged plane parts
2019-05-23
Planted. Same as all the other alleged plane parts. Impossible manoeuvres impossible speeds impossible physics. Didn't happen.
x483 Maxwell C. Bridges : physics was not impossible
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Thomas Digan, the physics was not impossible. When the towers are characterized properly (e.g., resistance to penetration went way down after wall assemblies were breached or pushed out of the way), when the high velocity physics is properly explained (e.g., energy goes way up and exceeds structural strength of materials in question, like wings that shatter), and when the damage is properly described (e.g., the aluminum cladding showed wing-tip to wing-tip damage, but not so for the wall assemblies behind them.)
I've debunked NPT at the WTC several times. I'll save you my copy-and-paste here, and you can read some of my discussions against NPT trolls.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html
x484 Thomas Digan : A plane didn't hit shit that day
2019-05-23
Don't bother m8. A plane didn't hit shit that day.
x485 Maxwell C. Bridges : planes swapped doesn't mean no airplanes were involved
2019-05-23
P.S. "Impossible speeds" at low altitude might be true for the alleged commercial aircraft. But the many large pieces were never serial-numbered matched to the alleged commercial aircraft, and they did turn off transponders and even go off radar around an air force base. I don't mind the argument that the planes were swapped, but that doesn't mean no airplanes were involved. //
Dear Mr. Thomas Digan, if you aren't going to defend your accusation of no planes (at the WTC, because I agree no planes crashed at the Pentagon or Shanksville) and if you aren't going to address the valid evidence of real aircraft already posted a few times here in this thread, then you are in a very weak debate position.
I've ridden the NPT carousel many times. See above. You can either do the right thing and find the errors in my analysis in the hopes that we'll find common ground, or you can continue with your hypnotic suggestion and get called out for such agenda-toting things.
NPT at the WTC is disinformation.
//
x486 Sam Lock : dress up as Arabs
2019-05-23
Gaylord Campbell why do you buy the perpetrators conspiracy theory but ignore the facts before your eyes. They dress up as Arabs, trying to pass the blame onto them,,, but they were caught dressed as Arabs.
x487 Maxwell C. Bridges : dancing Mossad agents
2019-05-23
Dear Mr. Sam Lock, the patsies were Arabs, but is was dancing Mossad agents who were on the van filming the event.
//
x488 Paul Donnelly : ghosted back to Israel at the behest of Michael Chertoff
2019-05-23
Maxwell Bridges
Not true. The dancing Israelis were arrested but released and ghosted back to Israel at the behest of Michael Chertoff. The footage is still on YouTube.
x489 Maxwell C. Bridges : Israeli TV
2019-05-23
Yes true, Mr. Paul Donnelly, because after they were ghosted back to Israel, they went on Israeli TV and admitted they were Mossad agents tasked with filming the event. //
x490 Gaylord Campbell : Loose Change
2019-05-23
Paul Donnelly I remember when the first film on 911 came out, Loose Change and everyone attending the premier of it were Republicans from San Diego where the CIA has about 80 buildings under the Titan Corporation a front company. You do realize that do…See More
x491 Daniel Coble : check your work before you turn it in
2019-05-23
Cuz wood fires can get hot enough to melt steel.... Is that your final answer, Gaylord, or would you like to check your work before you turn it in and make a fool of yourself?
Chapter 13: NPT Round 6 with Chukwudi Onugha
My debate opponent -- Mr. Chukwudi Onugha -- may be a non-native English speaker and for this reason might be entitled to some slack.
Or Mr. Chukwudi Onugha might be a bot.
Mr. Chukwudi Onugha didn't seem all that capable of following my links to the WTC punchout hole created by aircraft landing gear. He had no comments on it.
An objective and sincere person would be able to consider this physical evidence captured on camera before either tower fell, and maybe re-consider and modify beliefs that hinge on CGI and no actual aircraft.
The only bright spot of this NPT carousel ride was being to engage Mr. Wayne Coste.
x493 Chukwudi Onugha : NO PLANE HIT ANYWHERE ON 9-11
2019-12-06
2019-12-06
https://www.facebook.com/groups/492431491294435/632507603953489/?comment_id=643527659518150&reply_comment_id=644459576091625¬if_id=1575856971184026
Chukwudi Onugha
Chukwudi Onugha NO PLANE HIT ANYWHERE ON 9-11....
x494 Marc Douglas Vogt : completely governed mental retard
2019-12-06
Marc Douglas Vogt
Marc Douglas Vogt You're an total truther fail by design. -marc27
Marc Douglas Vogt
Marc Douglas Vogt Why are you laughing you know nothing completely governed mental retard and want to easily Prove it?
Marc Douglas Vogt
Marc Douglas Vogt Spell your real family name right and Anti-Correct. -marc27
x495 Maxwell C. Bridges : pretty conclusive that real aircraft were involved at the WTC
2019-12-06
Dear Mr. Chukwudi Onugha, please don't be so obstinate and un-objective in your conjecture! Yes, the two events at the Pentagon and Shanksville probably had no real aircraft crashing. No, the two events at the WTC did have real aircraft, although quite possibly not the exact make-and-model as the alleged commercial airliners, but that is a different rabbit-hole.
I was a no-planer (at the WTC) for several years many years ago, but then I saw the light.
This piece of evidence should be pretty conclusive that real aircraft were involved at the WTC. If you follow this link and look at the pictures, you'll find a wheel from an aircraft embedded between two box columns of a wall assembly that was ripped out of the backside of WTC-1 (1st aircraft) and landed in a parking lot. It was photographed from at least two angles before either tower was destroyed.
Consider this a test of whether or not you are an agenda-toting agent.
A real person (or non-agent) would be able to go into this simple webpage, read the analysis, study the pictures, think independently, and come to the conclusion that this evidence is conclusive in favor of real aircraft at the WTC ... AND THEN, that same real person -- if they had been championing NPT -- would be able to recant and apologize for having led others astray with the misinformation that they did not previously recognize as such.
https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
In my cyber-experience, an agent will not be able to do even a fraction of what a real person could / would / should do. They get tripped up on even following the link and reading. Forget about them changing their minds and issuing apologies.
//
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
CRYPTOME.ORG
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
x496 Wayne Coste : impressed with the detail
2019-12-06
Wayne Coste
Maxwell Bridges Maxwell: Thanks for pointing this out. I've not paid any attentions to this part of the event and I am very impressed with the detail that is present in this CRYPTOME.ORG analysis. Kudos for posting this.
Cryptome
CRYPTOME.ORG
Cryptome
Cryptome
x497 Chukwudi Onugha : may have been CGI or a hologram
2019-12-06
Chukwudi Onugha
Chukwudi Onugha Maxwell Bridges , I REPEAT NO PLANE HIT ANYWHERE ON 9-11....
It may have been CGI or a hologram.
However, it is practically impossible for a plane to slip into a mass of steel & reinforced concrete like hot knife through butter.
The science and physics says so and to believe otherwise what should be obvious to a teenager with a good grasp of elementary physics is disgraceful.
Hide or report this
Image may contain: text
x498 Wayne Coste : impact and tower sway
2019-12-06
Wayne Coste
Chukwudi Onugha Chukwudi: I agree with your comment: "obvious to a teenager with a good grasp of elementary physics is disgraceful."
Momentum transfer from a collision of a large high velocity object into the tower will cause it to sway.
https://www.911tap.org/.../770-plane-impact-and-tower...
Plane impact and tower sway at the WTC on 9/11–Examining momentum transfer on the towers.
911TAP.ORG
Plane impact and tower sway at the WTC on 9/11–Examining…
Plane impact and tower sway at the WTC on 9/11–Examining momentum transfer on the towers.
x499 Maxwell C. Bridges : steel & reinforced concrete BLOCKS throughout their entire length, width, and height
2019-12-06
Dear Mr. Chukwudi Onugha, you write about the towers as if they were steel & reinforced concrete BLOCKS throughout their entire length, width, and height. They were not.
50% of the faces of the towers were window slits whose resistance would not have stopped the penetrating planes. The wall assemblies were each composed of three box-columns that were hollow and of varying thickness. The wall assemblies had built-in points of failure: the bolts connecting them together.
If you study the damage closely, you'll see the aluminum cladding (over the wall assemblies) sustained damage wingtip to wingtip, but not the wall assemblies themselves, which were damaged mostly at the fuselage and engine areas, where some wall assemblies were pushed completely out of the way, others had bent hollow box columns, and only a small number of box columns were actually severed.
The concrete that you wrote about was at 12' (or so) spacing, which translates into a lot of air. Once the fuselage had breached the initial impacted wall assemblies, there was not a lot of structure to resist the continued forward penetration of the aircraft...
High velocity physics also needs to be factored in when considering the planes' wings and tail assemblies not "bouncing off the structure as cohesive wholes". The velocity squared term of the energy equation at high velocities has energy sufficiently high to shatter the material of wings (while also inflicting damage on the wall assembly box columns). Point is, wings would not have been cohesive whole structures; fragments penetrated windows, fragments bounced (visible in the videos), fragments were found on the ground. The tail itself entered the hole plowed by the fuselage.
As for your "hot knife through butter" comment? Probably relates to common disinformation that the "aircraft traveled its length through air in the same number of frames as its tail entered the towers." Although the statement is factually correct, it hides the fact that the 24 frames/second of the camera makes this statement true for a range of velocities -- meaning, sufficient to hide deceleration. The engine that rocketed out of the corner, flew some distance, bounced off a roof, and landed / rolled under scaffolding at Church & Murray achieved this with a physics-compliant exit velocity of 122 mph, which is less than the 500 mph entrance velocity.
At any rate, you made no comments about the physical evidence of aircraft given at the Crytome links, and you've been duped by poor explanations of physics.
I've been on this carousel several times before. Good thing I saved my work and can issue you a "GOTO" statement.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../debunking-nptwtc.html
//
Debunking NPT@WTC
MAXWELLBRIDGES.BLOGSPOT.COM
Debunking NPT@WTC
Debunking NPT@WTC
x500 Maxwell C. Bridges : If holograms were all that
2019-12-06
As for your holograms comment. If holograms were all that, we'd have holo-Santa and holo-Elvis at the malls by today. Two sets of radar data were co-linear (within tolerances) of one another, and with flight path of several dozen amateur videos overlaid on a 3D model of the city.
When I studied holograms, the technology wasn't available on the scale it need to be. Those championing holograms deceitfully mis-represented the radar data and went into the weeds about cloaked planes projecting the hologram (on what?).
Imagery manipulation did happen on and after 9/11. We only have to turn to the images from the Pentagon and to 4 different versions of the helicopter shot of the 2nd WTC plane to prove this.
But that doesn't mean that everything was fake and CGI, and nothing was real.
You are avoiding the physical evidence of real aircraft involvement at the WTC. It is a completely different argument to say that the aircraft were not the alleged commercial aircraft -- no matching of serial numbered parts to the planes. But to say there were "no planes" falls into the hands of you being a duped useful idiot. No planes at the WTC was concocted to deceitfully distract and confuse from real instances of no plane crashes at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
Time for you to prove your truther credentials by being open-minded and objective and acknowledging that WTC physical evidence.
//
Chapter 14: NPT Round 7 with Michael Rose
Debunking NPT isn't my hobby-horse; championing Truth is. I had been duped for a few years many years ago by the No Planes Theory (NPT) as provided by September Clues and its crafty Parts 1 thru 9 and A thru H. I understood Mr. Michael Rose's mindset. Therefore I figure that if I could present the few items of evidence and analysis that convinced me otherwise, those nuggets of truth might also persuade Mr. Rose.
Alas, I have detected a trend in defenders of certain theories. They won't acknowledge weaknesses in their premises. Objective participants would; those promoting agendas of others can't.
x502 Michael Rose : manifestation of thefireball was NOT accompanied by ANY visible airplane or airplane image
2020-01-09
https://www.facebook.com/hommedespoir/posts/10221098184714331
2020-01-07
Michael Rose
The Twin Towers shot just seconds after a airplane-shaped image appeared to emerge from the other side of the200-foot wide buidling, nose unscathed. The FACT that the very next TV screen was "FADE TO BLACK" indicates that Authority ws aware of the video blunder which they tried in vain to cover up.
See "September Clues Part A" by Simon Shack for many more "impossible" blunders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT4wljY7fjM
This is just one of MANY lies inherent in the 9/11 Movie as originally seen on Telly. More anon....
There are (at least) 5 IMPOSSIBILITIES contained within just a few minutesOf the video that purports to show a jetliner plunging into WTC2:
* One airliner image is seen moving across the scene at what can readily be timed as 580MPH
(this velocity is technically impossible on account of (a) grossly insufficient horsepower, and
(b) an airframe that risks total collapse at VNe of approx 360 MPH
* The exact-same supposed airline image is seen in an adjacent view moving at a timed 230MPH, less than HALF the velocity of the same airplane in the previous view
* The same airplane image is completely absent from WTC2 scenes shot after the fireball effect
* The same airplane image is totally absent in a long shot into which the camera zooms withouta break to a close-up from which close-up we were presented with an airplane image which
in turn proceeded to appear to enter the building. Because the image was not visible in thepreceding long shot, the image can reasonably be assumed to have been inserted either duringor after the filming.
* The airplane image that enters WTC2 via a fireball, then proceeds through the 200-foot-wide floorof the building, and a nose of the airplane image projects beyond the far side of the tower:
a lightweight aluminum airfram cannot possibly penetrate in the way we were shown.
* In another view, the airplane image is shown as if DISSOLVING harmlessly into the glass facadeof the building. No broken glass is seen, and no damaged or broken airplane componentsare shown, which is to be expected when the object concerned is in fact a digital image and nota real airplane.... or for that matter, a real building.
* The airplane image is seen in one shot, where a "wing" passes directly through a tower buildingin the distance. This is a (not uncommon) error in video compositing.
* There were video shots of both WTC1 and WTC2 showing a fireball effect bursting out of eachtower in a location directly relating to the eventual position of an artificial airplane-cutout opening
which was not seen in either building before that morning. In each case, the manifestation of thefireball was NOT accompanied by ANY visible airplane or airplane image. This latter gives riseto the concept of airplane images and associated big media stories, were all fabricated for
reasons totally unrelated to the explosive appearance of the fireballs and holles referred to here.
x503 Maxwell C. Bridges : 9/11 imagery manipulation did happen
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, 9/11 imagery manipulation did happen; media outlets were coordinated in their live streams and complicit. One could even argue that the alleged commercial aircraft never took off or were swapped mid-flight.
However, these are different issues from whether the WTC involved real aircraft.
I was an ardent believer of September Clues for several years, until I studied beyond their premise to all of the evidence.
I've already debunked in years past (and saved my work) most of the bullet points you bring up. Many of them malframe the nature of the towers, the physics, etc.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/debunking-nptwtc.html
//
Debunking NPT@WTC
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
Debunking NPT@WTC
Debunking NPT@WTC
x504 Michael Rose : individual points which I claimed are IMPOSSIBILITIES
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
Maxwell Bridges If you woulld care to comment on the individual points which I claimed are IMPOSSIBILITIES re the 4 Faked Boeings, we could find some common ground to cover assiduously.
Your learned text fills rather too much of blogspot for the non-academic reader that I thought it would be useful for NPTheorists to concentrate perhaps on the more objectively non-controversial aspects of NPT
Thanks a mill,
x505 Maxwell C. Bridges : re-canted my NPT@WTC beliefs
2020-01-09
FTR, here is where I recanted my NPT@WTC beliefs, and links to what convinced me to change my mind.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/05/i-concede-point-and-will-no-longer-be.html
//
I will no longer advocate NPT; I concede
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
I will no longer advocate NPT; I concede
I will no longer advocate NPT; I concede
x506 Maxwell C. Bridges : R. I. P. - No Plane Theory
2020-01-09
Here is the link to lots of information. I think the 3D video is here somewhere.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=f5c869cd40d5aa18e72ebf1662fc2f62&showtopic=21992&st=0&p=10804770
R. I. P. - No Plane Theory - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum
pilotsfor911truth.org
R. I. P. - No Plane Theory - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum
R. I. P. - No Plane Theory - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum
x507 Michael Rose : dyed nin the wool myopes
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
I was/still am a Pilot 4 911 Truther.... not all, not many? pilots have a crypit clue about the fundaMENTALS of the pereps' staging of the Hollywood-directed" 9/11 Movie
Michael Rose
Sheesh... PilotsFor911Truth are so dyed nin the wool myopes they think chemtrails are caused by faulty airplane design.
x508 Maxwell C. Bridges : Up your game
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, such dismissive comments without actually going and reading the page, studying the videos? And you try the same brush-off down below with the link to cryptome?
Up your game, because otherwise it doesn't bode well with your premise or your reputation.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
//
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
cryptome.org
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
x509 Maxwell C. Bridges : Bullet point 1: videos with two different speeds
2020-01-09
Bullet point 1: "One airliner image is seen moving across the scene at what can readily be timed as 580MPH (this velocity is technically impossible on account of (a) grossly insufficient horsepower, and (b) an airframe that risks total collapse at VNe of approx 360 MPH"
I could be convinced that the aircraft were swapped and were not the alleged commercial aircraft. The whole circus about the turning off the transponders and then portions of their flight path where they were off radar (and close to an airport) points to a swap. None of the parts found were serial numbered identified and matched to the alleged commercial aircraft.
Therefore, this bullet point is a dubious argument against any type of aircraft. Such limitations don't need to apply to "hardened" military aircraft.
Plus, the aircraft was descending without any cause or need for the landing to be soft. Thus, the velocity isn't necessarily a limiting factor.
On to the next bullet.
//
x510 Michael Rose : 101% EASIER, CHEAPER AND MORE EFFECTIVE TO SIMPLY INTRODUCE A CGI
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
iS IT NOT 101% EASIER, CHEAPER AND MORE EFFECTIVE TO SIMPLY INTRODUCE A CGI?
x511 Maxwell C. Bridges : real aircraft to do real damage as a ruse for the thorough destruction needed
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, NO!. They needed real aircraft to do real damage as a ruse for the thorough destruction needed. With the $2.3 trillion in missing pentagon spending, they had the money to spend on throw-away aircraft. They needed people to see it and be witness to it.
//
x512 Michael Rose : without deploying real aircraft
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
So how did they manage to fool so many of US for so many years withoutn deployting real aircraft (with the ?hhonorable exception of the Pentagon plane which was the only real Boeing, albeit a military aircraft (if you were to check the tail number etc)
x513 Maxwell C. Bridges : you misconstrue my words
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, you misconstrue my words. WTC-1 and WTC-2 had real aircraft, but not necessarily the alleged commercial aircraft.
Pentagon had a fly-over but no airplane crash.
Shanksville had no airplane crash.
The validated cases of "no aircraft (crashes)" at those two locations led to the fake NPT@WTC meme of September Clues.
//
x514 Michael Rose : don't expect any imtel from me on so called missliles
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
The USAF was the ONLY real Boeing that day.... (except the shanksville event which is total ddistra ctiuon best ignored
Michael Rose
...oh, and don't expect any imtel from me on so called missliles.... I suspect they were invented over various keyboards....but still total distractions to this topic IMHO
x515 Maxwell C. Bridges : addressed errors and distractions in the video analysis
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, to recap this thread under your posting, I addressed errors and distractions in the video analysis that try to misconstrue measured velocity from two different perspective videos. You have not addressed any counter argument to the points brought up.
//
x516 Maxwell C. Bridges : Bullet 2: perspective
2020-01-09
Bullet 2: "The exact-same supposed airline image is seen in an adjacent view moving at a timed 230MPH, less than HALF the velocity of the same airplane in the previous view".
PERSPECTIVE answers this question. What was the angle of the aircraft's path with respect to the viewing location?
One of the strongest pieces of evidence against the NPT@WTC argument for me (and convinced me to change my tune) was an overlay of a few dozen amateur videos onto a 3D model of NYC that showed all of their flight paths co-linear with each other as well as two sets of radar data (within each radar's tolerance.)
PilotsFor9/11Truth (or whatever their name was) had a great takedown of this.
At any rate, you brought up the references of two videos with two seemingly different velocities, therefore the onus is on you to provide them. I already know that camera perspective is going to play a role to make this bullet invalid.
//
x517 Maxwell C. Bridges : my methods did NOT depend on perspective
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
I could go over this in detail.... but my methods did NOT depend on perspective.... and all I was doing was illustrating yet another way the perps made another cock-up.... an error hich even a person with little aviation intuition would have observed.
Idd need to revisit YT to quote specifics, lets leave that till later, its the principle that counts now
x518 Maxwell C. Bridges : V(observed) = V(in air) * cos (theta)
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, if you don't take into consideration perspective, then your analysis is wrong.
Imagine that I am looking at the towers from a position that is a right angle Theta to flight path. The velocity that I measure is
V(observed) = V(in air) * cos (theta)
At a right angle, V(observed) = V(in air)
However, if my perspective is on the other side of the tower and at an angle theta to the flight path, the cosine of theta term reduces the velocity observed by that factor.
//
x519 Maxwell C. Bridges : Bullet 3: missing from scenes
2020-01-09
Bullet 3: "The same airplane image is completely absent from WTC2 scenes shot after the fireball effect".
Yes, imagery manipulation did happen before and after 9/11. I recall four different version of the helicopter shot of the WTC-2 fireball. 1) shows aircraft, 2) shows nothing, 3) shows an orb, 4) same perspective of building but changes the background and aircraft entry.
But proven imagery manipulation alone does not prove no real planes.
Bullet: "The same airplane image is totally absent in a long shot into which the camera zooms withouta break to a close-up from which close-up we were presented with an airplane image which
in turn proceeded to appear to enter the building. Because the image was not visible in thepreceding long shot, the image can reasonably be assumed to have been inserted either duringor after the filming."
This demonstrates media culpibility in knowing where to aim and zoom the camera. Advanced notice. In on the crime.
//
x520 Michael Rose : very first images omitted the airplanes
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
The images referred to here were those which were shown starting 8.02 am,.... the very first images omitted the airplanes....but those were images which were not repeated in later broadcasts, for obvious reasons
x521 Maxwell C. Bridges : proof of imagery manipulation doesn't mean that real aircraft were not involved
2020-01-09
Again, proof of imagery manipulation (probably after the fact) doesn't mean that real aircraft were not involved. Again, if the planes were swapped, then manipulation to hide the exact details of the plane might be needed.
//
x522 Michael Rose : Movie Director didn't NEED airplane swaps
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
Maxwell Bridges The 9/11 Movie Director didn't NEED airplane swaps... not when His special effects were so crack-compete nt at getting the actual CAMERA to insert a CGI ....and in real time (minus the 17 seconds...)
x523 Maxwell C. Bridges : swallowed too much Kool-aid from September Clues disinformation
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, the perpetrators needed the public to see and record real planes at the WTC. Real plane impacts needed give a plausible explanation for the tower destruction. They wanted amateur videos to capture it. The "dancing Arabs" were really "dancing Israeli Mossad agents" with the task of filming the event that they knew would take place. They admitted as much a year later on Israeli TV. No need for a crew to record this if there were not real planes involved.
Plus, focus is all on the WTC, so it is easier to mask the staged aircraft impacts (real instances of no planes) at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
Faking everything would be hard.
You have swallowed too much Kool-aid from September Clues disinformation. You need to go back and mine for nuggets of truth. Lots of disinformation and dubious conclusions they do present.
//
x524 Maxwell C. Bridges : Bullet whatever: nose-in, nose-out
2020-01-09
Bullet whatever: "The airplane image that enters WTC2 via a fireball, then proceeds through the 200-foot-wide floorof the building, and a nose of the airplane image projects beyond the far side of the tower:
a lightweight aluminum airfram cannot possibly penetrate in the way we were shown."
Nose-in, nose-out wasn't. It was a stupid fireball that September Clues and others have purposely misconstrue.
It was not the nose of the plane coming out, or even a CGI image thereof.
Case of bad and dubious interpretation of the images.
//
x525 Michael Rose : Ace Baker and chopper drift
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
To avoid cross purposes.... what I refer to is the procedure where SS (and Ace Baker?) refer to as chopper drift.....whereby the helicopter in wind-drift moves such that the nose of the CGI is penetrating past the left hand side of the building.... and this got "covered up" by an infamous "Fade To Black" which in my lingo is an admission of failure (or guitlt if you prefer)
Michael Rose
BTW You get 100 kudos for dealing with my unedited green copy of a para I wrote for Craig McKee (yet to bte delivered) so I muchly appreciate yoour crit ;-0
Michael Rose
FYI My final copy would of course contain the video clips so necessary for clarifying what I type here from my ancient necktop memory
x526 Maxwell C. Bridges : Ace Baker and Simon Shack: their arguments dubious and stilted, and they disingenuous
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, I have directly corresponded with Ace Baker and Simon Shack. I found their arguments dubious and stilted, and them disingenuous.
Here is a very old conversation with Ace. Also has Simon Shack and Phil Jayhan.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2011/12/finger-pointing-at-disinformations.html
//
Finger Pointing at Disinformation's Behind
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
Finger Pointing at Disinformation's Behind
Finger Pointing at Disinformation's Behind
x527 Michael Rose : super impressive
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
Thanks a mill.... supoer impressive.... but there's a very good reason IMHO for concentrating on objective observations especially reflecting stuff that indicates an IMPOSSIBILTY .... even if said impossibility does call for further investigation
x528 Maxwell C. Bridges : What impossibility?
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, I do not know to what you are referring with this comment.
"concentrating on objective observations especially reflecting stuff that indicates an IMPOSSIBILTY"
What impossibility?
//
x529 Maxwell C. Bridges : Bullet whatever: airplane dissolving
2020-01-09
Bullet whatever: " In another view, the airplane image is shown as if DISSOLVING harmlessly into the glass facadeof the building. No broken glass is seen, and no damaged or broken airplane componentsare shown, which is to be expected when the object concerned is in fact a digital image and nota real airplane.... or for that matter, a real building."
This is factually wrong and a case of bad & dubious interpretation of the images from a distance.
The physics of the towers isn't described properly, where the September Clues (SC) crews malframes the towers as being "solid blocks of material over the entire length, width, and height." They were not. Once the wall assemblies were breached and pushed out of the way, very little content would exist resist further penetration.
Also, the argument about "tail traveling length of plane into towers in same number of frames as it traveled such in thin air" is technically true, but owing to camera frame rates and velocities involved, these same x number of frames could represent a range of velocities. Stated another way, it would mask deceleration.
//
x530 Michael Rose : missing plane wreckage and building debris
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
...and you were going to say ???? about the missing plane wreckage and building debris , not a skerrick of either being visible in any Boeing/Building video I ever saw online or on Shack's screen
Michael Rose
Can I suggest changing your perspective to one of the obvious.... which is that when one digital image ("aiolane") merges with another digital imag ("WTC2") yo get what all cinematographers call (very aptly) a DISSSOLVE look it up in your Bolex Manual hahahah
x531 Maxwell C. Bridges : comment does nothing for me
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, that comment does nothing for me and isn't very convincing.
x174 Maxwell C. Bridges : speed of light discussions
Has a good discussion on frame rate and its effect on what appears on video to dissolve.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/npt-carousel-on-fb-all-theories-welcome.html
//
NPT Carousel on FB "All Theories Welcome"
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
NPT Carousel on FB "All Theories Welcome"
NPT Carousel on FB "All Theories Welcome"
Here are some other NPT discussions I had, one with Dr. James Fetzer.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../debunking-nptwtc.html
The disinfo game of NPT unravels quickly and paints its proponents in a bad light.
//
Debunking NPT@WTC
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
Debunking NPT@WTC
Debunking NPT@WTC
x532 Pete Davenport : very suspicious
2020-01-09
Pete Davenport
Pete Davenport Michael Rose I get very suspicious (already am), who ends their retorts w/ "hahaha"
x533 Michael Rose : helping me clarify my own thinking
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
Your comments are much appreciated for helping me clarify my own thinking.
The Queensberry Rulez do allow for a coffee break every 5 rounds in the world-to-wait division.....hahaha
Just go easy on the rum top-up
x534 Maxwell C. Bridges : Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, as much as I was a hardened no-planer, this here was the second huge piece of evidence that convinced me of real planes.
I have to run, but this is something that your argument has to address in a major way.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
//
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
cryptome.org
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
x535 Michael Rose : eliminate the alleged airplane
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
WHEN NOT IF we can eliminate the alleged airplane, we can safely skirt this airplane wheel distraction.... as just another perpeTARITOR's glraing error..... I have for obvious reasons seen no sense in checking this matter at all.... except to comment it seems total disraction and not needing any answers.... in viw of the airplane being an i9mpossibiity for the reasons claimed above.
x536 Maxwell C. Bridges : won't be dismissed by a wave of your hand
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, No, you can't dismiss this. You have to bore into it and address each piece of evidence of real aircraft parts one-by-one.
My favorite is the aircraft wheel embedded between two box columns of a wall assembly that it ripped off the backside of WTC-1 and was photographed from at least 2 perspectives lying in a parking lot next to the towers, before either one came down.
The engine that flew to Church & Murray, I've addressed in my prior FB discussions linked. An exit velocity as little as 122 mph would account for the distance traveled and bouncing off a building before tumbling / spinning under the scaffolding. The damage to the building hit would be hard to fake.
Go back and try again. This piece of evidence is very damning to the NPT premise and won't be dismissed by a wave of your hand. Get to work.
//
x537 Michael Rose : "100 years inckudng i vertime"
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
My fundaMENTAL problem is what needs addressing here.
My tiny mind, after practicing for 100 years inckudng i vertime, reckons that if it was IMOSSIBLE for the alleged airplane to have flow as alleged.... then what point remains in taking another look at some evidence which coud hardly be more planted in yer face" if it tried to be?
Michael Rose
Which Boeing was this part supposed to be from, I forget?
x538 Maxwell C. Bridges : question about whether you even read the reference material
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, your question raises another question about whether you even read the reference material that you were supposed to address. Scroll down, and all sorts of substantiating material appears.
//
x539 Michael Rose : an airplane that never existed in the context?
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
I understand that.... but do you understand why I am so congenitally unwilling to go into minuteae abut an airplane that never existed in the context?
What if we address what I declare to be IMPOSSIBLE (not merely i,probable) and why would you then isnsist I vist a toic of which you are past-master, but which in my tiny flied of view, is totally irrelevant because the plane coud not have been where or donw what was ALLEGED?
Michael Rose
I have only limited years left, so couold you have eough respect to allow us to agree that we procrastinate debating somethinf ?
Michael Rose
I was taught be THE best architectural design teacher in the country.... Bill kept repeating repeating the same mantra....
"don't try and SOLVE a problem unless you cannot think of a way to ELIMINATE the problem.
x540 Maxwell C. Bridges : Address the evidence
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, you make the claim that the WTC aircraft never existed and were never real.
My evidence -- amateur videos, validated aircraft parts, etc. -- clearly shows that real aircraft were involved.
Okay by me if you want to argue that the real aircraft were not the alleged commercial aircraft. They were drones in the sense they were very precise. But this takes nothing away from the realness of the aircraft.
Address the evidence in the link above.
Otherwise, you are being a weasel.
Might be off hours (or middle of night) where you are, so you don't have to address them today.
But if you fail to address them, they will keep coming up.
//
x541 Michael Rose : the torrid question of why and/or how an ex-NPTer became seduced by the perpeTRAITOR's propoaganda
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
Your responses are a a superb effort.... and much appreciated.
Do we need to revisit (sone late date) the torrid question of why and/or how an ex-NPTer became seduced by the perpeTRAITOR's propoaganda spread over a million websites and over 18 years of lies and slander?
DISCLAIMER: I consider Rich D. Hall to be a disinfo agent and his conclusions wrong. However, here he is using someone else's 3D rendering of WTC that is overlaid by many amateur videos.
Start watching about 6:50 to find where the 3D overlay is.
https://youtu.be/E6iTdsS18DQ
[Rich Hall tries to frame the radar data inappropriately earlier in the video.]
//
911 Video & Radar Analysis - 2 OF 3
youtube.com
911 Video & Radar Analysis - 2 OF 3
911 Video & Radar Analysis - 2 OF 3
Michael Rose
Again .... much as I like and admire Richard D, if he had observed that the VERY FIRST appearance of the WTC2 fireball was accompanied by NO AIRPLANE or any other object.... he might've tried a different tack.... clever as his radar-pinpointing program un dubtledly is/was
Michael Rose
We could SPECULATE on the so-called radar data.... and PikotsFor911Trutj did.... but if the "Boeing" was not a real airplane of any description.... shall we put this to once side for a later day and move on?
Michael Rose
To recap: the Boeing "UA175" pefermed a few functions which were, still are, absolutely impossible.
I surmise it's 'cos the plane was not a real Boeing.
The evidence I have checked (which of course I don't claim to be ALL the evidence0 supports the NPT .... to the point where I ignore for THE TIME BEING the discrepancies as being of no consequence to th basic value of the NPT
Michael Rose
Let-s not forget the perpeTRAITOR has been paying hand$$$$$oely for the best ??? brains in the usiness.... and the guiding lights dwell in the murkiest depths of the Mossadd and th CIA and theFBI.
Michael Rose
These guys are super-competent at fooling folk.
Be warned (yes, I know you already were/are)
x542 Maxwell C. Bridges : the video of the 3D analysis
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, the video of the 3D analysis of the different videos and showing them to be co-linear you have not addressed.
We're in agreement that "some" imagery manipulation happened. But your argument appears to be that ~all~ of it was faked (a classic move by SC that debunks them). It was not.
Watch the video from 6:50 and contemplate.
//
x543 Michael Rose : the classic airplane-faked cutouts
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
My eyes were finally FORCED wise open hen I came across the videos which arrived within the first few minutes.... videos which were never repeated because they had to be redone with the story grafted in.
The videos I refer to consist of (a) shot of fireball erupting from WTC1 but no aiplane>
The CGI plane was added presumably by Naudet Freres.... no doubt with $ome incentive$
Michael Rose
() The first shot of WTC2 had afirball, no plane....
but everything on the video planet goes to show that BOTH of the classic airplane-faked cutouts were NOTHING to doi with any aircraft, and EVERYTHING to do with strategic unbolting of sections of buiding.... see inter alia the Mossad gangsters camped on level 91 for years and years.
x544 Pete Davenport : so interested in FACTS
2020-01-09
Pete Davenport
Pete Davenport Michael Rose Statement of FACT: How can I take seriously the words of a person, so interested in FACTS, supposedly, that he can't even be bothered to type correctly, or at least use "SPELL" CHECK.
I have on memory stick, a clear video image of the 2nd…See More
x545 Michael Rose : no help whatsobloodyever
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
Obviously no help whatsobloodyever.... mea culpa.
Some folks are past being able to be helped,
It's the Way Of The World I guess
Michael Rose
Pete Davenport Hers a HINT FWIIW
Check the very-first video which was aired at 8.05 am on 9/11/2001
No airplane at all.
So why d'ya s'pose I refuse to worry about faking any contct with the buiding when the prototpe video has no plane ONLY a fireball.
And I don't even know how genuine that fireball effect might have been... but super-suspicious in my tiny mind, that it would've been seen on Telly with no Boeing anywhere in the scene
You don't even need to blame Simon Shack for any if that.... there original scene was videotaped by ornery Americans watching their TVs that day.....Simon merely collected the data.
Like any video-maker worth his salt would.
x546 Maxwell C. Bridges : admit that real aircraft were involved?
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, proof of imagery manipulation does not automatically conclude that no aircraft were involved.
Can we at least get you to the point where you'll admit that real aircraft were involved?
//
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, two of my super powers are being naive and trusting until given reason to believe otherwise.
I approached this discussion in good faith that you are a sincere and open-minded seeker of 9/11 Truth, only you have been duped by September Clues (and other no-planers). Don't feel bad, because I was duped for like 4 years.
As a good faith gesture, I have supplied the analysis that got me to change my NPT tune. You need to study it and address it all. I was not able to, and it was pretty overwhelming. And I saw other major areas of unsatisfaction with the personas of Ace Baker, Simon Shack, and SC crew. They were insincere one-trick ponies that could go no further except to call imagery into doubt (albeit some of it rightly so.) Consequently, I publicly apologized and changed my opinion, when contrary information was presented. This is what sincere, open-minded people do.
//
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, I suggest you have a good sleep before you make further replies, and also that you study the few items that I have presented.
You seem to going off the deep end, barely repeating coherently SC and other NPTer's lame arguments.
When you come back, address the evidence of the larger pieces of aircraft... 10 different instances. Address the 3D overlay videos.
And be open-minded to the concept that you -- like I was for 4 years -- have been duped by NPT@WTC and based on this new evidence and analysis are in need of changing your views.
Have a good night's sleep.
//
x547 Michael Rose : (A) 580MPH velocity in shot "B" is 230 MPH.
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
(1) Same "airplane" flying the exact-same trajectory in the same few seconds of Real Time, velocity in shot (A) 580MPH velocity in shot "B" is 230 MPH.
Thatls IMPOSSIBLE
Or tell me how you can force it to be true?
x548 Maxwell C. Bridges : V(observed)=V(aircraft)*cosine(viewing angle to aircraft path)
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose I have already addressed this, and the solution is in the vector math. You have provided no video links, so your comment can be neither verified nor disputed.
V(observed)=V(aircraft)*cosine(viewing angle to aircraft path)
Observed velocity will be different from different viewing angles.
//
x549 Michael Rose : refuse to address even one IMPOSSIBILITY
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
Maxwell Bridges
Even before checking the IMPOSSIBILITY of the same plane at 2 wildly-different velocities while supposedly fly the exact-same path towards the exact-same virtual building (don't forget what you thought was WTcC2 was in laptop/necktop FACT simply a virtual representation on YOUR screen)....the shot of the airplane IMAGE speeding Right-to-Left across your screen, was traveling at a calculatid 580 MPH....|
This is a real-life/real-time IMPOSSIBILITY for 2 reasons (a) Boeing LLC state their VNe is over 200MPH LESS than the times velocity, and (b) the 767 engines cannot develop anything like enough power to push an object such as a real 767 through sea-level dense air at the observed speed.
Yet you refuse to address even one IMPOSSIBILITY .... so why you think anybody else might be at observational fault here completely defeats the Collective Intelligence of the Rest Of Us, Max....
Although I have to say, the IS a THEORY....
Michael Rose
Maxwell Bridges Ya gotta admit, there's way-y-y too many nefariouos reasons why a SANE and sensible no-planer sez they rejoin perpeTRAITORs...
No gentleman would event begin to speculate...., of course.
x550 Maxwell C. Bridges : Focus
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, you have yet to substantiate your lead-in sentence with a video and time-stamps. I've asked for it repeatedly. Based on my knowledge of September Clues, you are doing a lame impersonation of their disinformation.
Clearly you don't understand math, because discrepancies in apparent velocity is due to angles of perspective with respect to flight path that simple high school trigonometry can accurately predict. (Do you even know what "cosine of an angle" means or how it is used in vector math?)
Although Rich D. Hall is mostly disinformation, he did incorporate a 3D analysis video that visually proves why velocity might appear different. Further, these videos when overlaid on two sets of radar data, from which the velocity is also easy to derive, puts a ding into your comprehension.
Focus.
Ignore the videos for a moment. Go to my last comment to this discussion that posted a repeated link to the WTC-1 punch-out.
//
x551 Michael Rose : Leave the latter for those who appreciate alternative thoughts.
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
Maxwell Bridges to show good faith I just watched a few tedious minutes of your airplane-parts-recovery video.
And I left my very-valuable-very-valid comment: but you have better things to read, than any of my drivel....
Leave the latter for those who appreciate alternative thoughts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j7_CL0KgrQ
9/11 Plane's landing gear found
youtube.com
9/11 Plane's landing gear found
9/11 Plane's landing gear found
Michael Rose
Maxwell Bridges Richard D based his whole hypothesis on faulty (if not downright faked) data. The hologram nonscience demonstrates this very ably.
I've forgotten math, but a cosine has absolute zero applicability to the videos I mean. I take you point, but if you thik a professional architect is not able to make appropriate adjustments in estimating video velocites, you have picked the rong person to try to fool, lad
Michael Rose
Maxwell Bridges
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT4wljY7fjM
e.g. at 3.46 .... I'll leave you and your Rolx Oyster to confirm how near to 580 MPH this image is moving…See More
x552 Maxwell C. Bridges : Can't you see that this is slow-motion?
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, you either have me confused with someone else, or you are not having a good faith discussion, because *I* did not post a video about "airplane-parts-recovery".
You did, though, and it looks like you're trying to distract.
You ignored my request for you to focus on the last top-level comment from me with the link to the WTC-1 punch out webpage. (Through this weasel move, you're defeated on this point and must acknowledge the validity of the physical evidence of aircraft involvement at the WTC.)
https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
As for Rich D. Hall, I made a disclaimer from the get-go that he peddles disinformation, which are his deceitful hologram premises and his misinterpretation of radar data to get there. But all disinformation is built on nuggets of truth. I provided the time-stamp to start viewing his video, which was an the 3D rendering of WTC overlayed by various amateur videos.
Your admission of having no trigonometry skills kind of puts you in a bad position to understand the rational mathematical explanation for why two video clips from different perspectives might calculate the x-velocity differently. It also means that you have no counter-argument and must accept defeat on this point.
As for the 3:46 timestamp in the SC's video, so what that it might calculate the velocity to be 580 MPH? That would be in the right ballpark for 2 sets of radar data.
As for the 0:11 timestamp in the second video where you challenged me "see if you can do any better than
my 200 MPH".
Can't you see that this is slow-motion? They took the original video and slowed it down, just like common sports' instant-replays. Thus, you may have dinged either your intelligence or your sincerity, but either way, you must accept defeat on this point.
Mr. Michael Rose, I have been having this discussion in good faith with you in the sense "convince me of your premise, or let me convince you of mine."
To recap, we are in agreement that imagery manipulation did happen with the 9/11 footage, and the four different versions of the helicopter shot is an excellent example (as are the Pentagon several frames from a parking video and the 86+ confiscated videos from other cameras.) We are in agreement that the corporate media was complicit and controlled.
However, those few valid examples do not logically lead to the conclusions from SC of the videos all being CGI faked. That is complete disinformation and struck down by the physical evidence of real aircraft involvement with the wheel assemblies.
Your arguments defeated, are you ready to prove your open-mind and objectiveness by admitting these pillars of your NPT beliefs are in error, must be corrected, and thus gives you an opportunity to change your NPT opinion?
When I was in the same situation of having my NPT pillars knocked out from underneath me, I acknowledged the errors and how such impacted my opinions. (I apologized for having led other astray, too.)
You would do well to heed my example and do likewise.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/05/i-concede-point-and-will-no-longer-be.html
//
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
cryptome.org
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
x553 Michael Rose : coparative side-on views
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
Trigonometery is beyond your understanding, lad.... which is why I quote coparative side-on views of the SAME (alleged) airplane doing 200 MPH in one view and 580 MPH gping on the same route at the same time, in the other view from the other side of the DIGITAL Tower
x554 Maxwell C. Bridges : It wasn't trig that doused your 200 mph falsehood. No. It was slow-motion that did it.
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, stop projecting your weaknesses about trigonometry onto me. Ironically, though, it wasn't trig that doused your 200 mph falsehood. No. It was slow-motion that did it.
You really ought to click on the "... See More" link of my comment and read it thoroughly to the end.
Otherwise, Grandpa, you're just playing games... badly.
//
x555 Michael Rose : Forget all your famous faked vectors
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
The no-trig method of checking YT CGIs 4 Dummies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT4wljY7fjM
e.g. at 3.46 .... I'll leave you and your Rolx Oyster to confirm how near to 580 MPH this image is moving
Forget all your famous faked vectors, I've made your Rolex calcs dead-easy by watching the IMAGE side on.... no corrections needs>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFBG8f-XZcw&t=3s
start around ).11 and see if you can do any better than
my 200 MPH
Same plane, same (phony) trajectory, twice as fast in one fake shot than the other.
x556 Maxwell C. Bridges : Are you a bot?
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, are you a bot? You're acting like one. You repeated the above comment several comments above in this very thread. I answered it in detail.
You lose, because you fail to recognize "slow-motion" when you see it.
//
x557 Michael Rose : prove me rong again
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
(2) Boeing crashes into glass facade, no wreckage, no broken glass.... simple dissolve/
A real crash is IMPOSSIBLE 9unlless you say otherwise) but what we (still) see IS POSSIBLE if the plane and the building are both digitaal
Feel free to attempt to prove me rong again....
x558 Maxwell C. Bridges : resolution of the cameras
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose your comment is factually wrong. The resolution of the cameras, all filming from a large distance, was insufficient to depict all of the impact debris. There was broken glass and shredded wings and such. But come on! We're talking 155 ft plane depicted in a comparatively small number of pixels compared to other items in the frame like sky and towers, yet you expect to see large pieces of debris, when the lessons of high velocity impacts tells us energy is sufficient to shatter materials! Please put on your thinking cap.
//
x559 Michael Rose : No plane anywhere in the shot
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
(3) No plane anywhere in the shot when zoomed right out 5 miles.... when zooming rapidly into a close-up with the Tower, an airplane image sneaks in stage right. There's a very goood (=very bad) reason we dont see any plane image in the ong sht.
x560 Maxwell C. Bridges : not replying above where I addressed it
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose I've addressed this already, so you are being disingenuous by 1 not replying above where I addressed it, 2 starting a new thread with the repeated claim.
The miracle zoom represents corporate media foreknowledge and expectations. Again, you provided no video links, so it isn't just me who doesn't follow you. You aren't making your case. You're only repeated what you vaguely remember from September clues and other clever crafty disinformation efforts.
//
x561 Michael Rose : defend the indefensible
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
My only problem is why some people find so much easier to try an defend the indefensible, andd so difficult to follow Logic 101 or whatever
Dear Mr. Michael Rose point to yourself on that one. You were duped, as was I. You aren't willing to explore the evidence that contradicts with your duping. Are you really actually and factually open-minded and objective? Prove it. Explain the many instances of wheel assembly fragments. //
x562 Pete Davenport : Plenty of EYE-WITNESSES
2020-01-09
Pete Davenport
Pete Davenport LOGIC 101
Plenty of EYE-WITNESSES
x563 Michael Rose : eyewitnesses manufactured
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
POLIRTICS 101 eyewitnesses manufactured very low cost
x564 Maxwell C. Bridges : even heard the aircraft coming.
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose exactly, because they were there and even heard the aircraft coming. How did CGI fake that? It didn't, because aircraft were real (even if not the alleged commercial aircraft.)//
x565 Joe Turner : crashing over and over
2020-01-09
Joe Turner
Joe Turner The sound was there alright the little fake plane just kept crashing over and over again,it crashed at least 4 times before the live ear witnesses changed the public address system to play elevator music.Who would have thought the plane crash audio would get hung up and keep playing over and over and over??
x566 Michael Rose : oh-too seriously
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
You have a wicked SOH Joe Turner ... Mr Maxwell Bridges runs the serious risk of taking you oh-too seriously, though
Michael Rose
Maxwell Bridges I personally heard the characteristic sound of Rolls Royce Merlin engines of RAF Spitfires over London during the Battle of Britain circa 1943 .... but I claim neither I not any other mortal man on this GFS planet can attach an particular actual real-live sound to any particular aircraft, not to the point where our puny ears can say for certain that "that's the sound of Flight UA175 going over....just wait a minute and we will hear the sound of the splintering glass etc as it fades volubly into that tall building over yonder"
(To be spoken with an english (Received Pronunciation) accent, please, chasps.
x567 Maxwell C. Bridges : sincerity and reputation are at stake.
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, you chose to make your comeback to this posting under this throw-away thread. Your weasel-move in ignoring the few times I've posted about the WTC punch out aircraft evidence does not go unnoticed.
Your sincerity and reputation are at stake.
//
x568 Michael Rose : decision-makers are still considering a verdict
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
Maxwell Bridges
The decision-makers are still considering a verdict, but you got left off the Jury List, Max.
Michael Rose
You won't agree with a word of it. but this classic experiment would apply directly to instances of 9/11 witness collaboration, Pete...
but I agree, you would probably be more receptive to the diea if you read it in somebody else's page not mine.
Nothing I can do about that, lots that you could do, though....if you wanted to....
https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html
Solomon Asch study social pressure conformity experiment psychology
age-of-the-sage.org
Solomon Asch study social pressure conformity experiment psychology
Solomon Asch study social pressure conformity experiment psychology
Michael Rose
The 911 Movie was one gigantic fraud
Scene from Simon Shack's
September Clues Part H
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0mZaYT4Qx0
September Clues Part H
youtube.com
September Clues Part H
September Clues Part H
x569 Maxwell C. Bridges : part 1-9 and A-H gigantic frauds
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose September clues was part 1-9 and A-H gigantic frauds that were very clever and crafty in their deceit and framing. Why didn't they obtain source network footage? Instead they used low quality video where the network employed on this day unusually large and obnoxious bottom banners. //
x570 Michael Rose : folks let you watch telly on The Day?
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
How old were you when your folks let you watch telly on The Day?
x571 Maxwell C. Bridges : of "The Day", I saw lots of clips through the internet at "work"
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, both of my parents died last century, so they were not around to tell me what not to watch on the telly. Although I inherited my parents' old telly (only because I otherwise didn't have one), it was only used for Blockbuster / VCR date nights.
However, of "The Day", I saw lots of clips through the internet at "work," as we all spent a lot of time surfing the web.
//
x572 Michael Rose : total inability to spot the reason for the crap-quality of video recorded
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
I only asked because of your apparent total inability to spot the reason for the crap-quality of video recorded so faithfully from the crap-quality TV images by the very-well-qualified team of Mr Shack's
x573 Maxwell C. Bridges : how slick and clever they were
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, September Clues made lots of crap decisions precisely to give their disinformation wiggle room.
But think about their endeavors, and how slick and clever they were. Someone put a lot of effort (money) into this to make it look amateur while still clearly being professional. Parts 1-9 and Parts A-H, each like 10 minutes or more long. That's a movie budget, no? Clearly, the missing $2.3 trillion in Pentagon spending could afford to pay.
Whether or not Mr. Shack has the CGI credentials, I'll not argue. But in deeper discussions with him and his SC crew, they failed integrity tests and would not discuss outside their CGI boundaries. For example, they argued "all imagery was faked, none of the 9/11 imagery was real." I challenged them with 5 or so images from Dr. Wood's book and asked them to help me discover what was "fake" about them. Had they succeeded, it would have been a great moment to 9/11 Truth that Dr. Wood's based her conclusions on "faked" images. Armed with this new information, she'd be able to re-evaluate, recant, and move forward.
But the SC crew failed. They saw where I was going -- trying to mine nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood -- and ended up banning me in a ridiculous way.
//
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, So where have you gotten in examining the evidence of real aircrafts at the WTC?
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
//
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
cryptome.org
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
Aircraft Wheel Punches Out a Steel Wall Section of WTC Tower
x574 Michael Rose : supremely-weid SOH Max
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
I apologise profusely for being totally unable to follow your supremely-weid SOH Max.
x575 Maxwell C. Bridges : be blessed with a greater and improved understanding
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, I apologize too that this admission -- along with the others on trigonometry, "slow-motion", and WTC wall-punch-out -- kind of puts you in the position of not being able to adequately defend the NPT premise.
Part of the reason that I use honorifics in front of people's names is to keep my writing efforts on a positive note, when otherwise such admissions from a discussion opponent might lead the whole discussion into the weeds.
Furthermore, I am a fair and generous fellow, a couple more of my super-powers.
I've given you the way out that allows you to save face and grow at the same time and be blessed with a greater and improved understanding.
Namely, admit defeat, that NPT is disinformation, apologize, and stop promoting it. And go forth and stop others from promoting it with the same information that knocked out the NPT pillars.
"Feed my sheep."
//
x576 Michael Rose : Your problem, mate
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
Your problem, mate....only you can solve it.
My brain is fortunately well able to accommodate the no-planes position without any need for apologies.
After all, I've never been involved even remotely... in the everlasting perps' cover-up.
x577 Maxwell C. Bridges : output like a tru-bot
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, output like a tru-bot. //
x578 Michael Rose : your ever were a no-planer
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
FYI Nothing.... but NOTHING you've typed so far shows the slightest evidence that your ever were a no-planer>
You're undercover typer, touch-typing 4 the perpeTRAITOR then?
The global-elite bankers' payroll consists of a vast army of the type.
x579 Maxwell C. Bridges : Quite the embarrassment today, this link is
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, Of course nothing I've "typed so far shows the slightest evidence that [I ever was] a no-planer," because THOSE aren't my beliefs anymore. Why would I be typing fresh such erroneous views? That is faulty bot-logic.
This exposes another of your weaknesses (that overlaps that of bots) in your inability to follow links and explore things on your own.
My tactics and strategies have been exposed from the moment I made the first link to my blog. An intellectually curious person might go explore it beyond what I linked.
You think I'm a fraud and was never solidly in the NPT camp.
El-oh-el.
Quite the embarrassment today, this link is.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2009/01/im-no-planer.html
I was wrong about the physics because I used what September Clues gave me. But the more I contemplated, the more I researched, the more I saw the deceit in their faulty descriptions of the physics. From 2009 to 2012, I was NPT.
//
I'm a no-planer
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
I'm a no-planer
I'm a no-planer
x580 Michael Rose : pro-plane nonscience can very safely be ignored
2020-01-09
Michael Rose
So you really understand everything i say....and all your pro-plane nonscience can very safely be ignored?
Michael Rose
BTW .... don't be so cute as to try blaming Simon Shack for your faulty logi(sti)c/s.
Simon did his best, even i can understand him.... if you have a problem, Houston, so be it.
x581 Maxwell C. Bridges : a fine entry on my blog as a further example of NPT getting debunked
2020-01-09
Dear Mr. Michael Rose, on the positive side, our discussion here will make a fine entry (some day, when I get around to it) on my blog as a further example of NPT getting debunked. It shows that Facebook is alive and well with disinformation agents and bots pedaling NPT.
On the negative side, I can deal with your intelligence level, but not with your insincerity. I don't find you or your NPT beliefs genuine. You fail simple integrity tests regarding reading your opponents comments and references, and characterizing his work properly. You've found no faults in my counter-arguments to your points, and in fact have actively ignored them.
Mr. Fonzie, unable to admit when he is wrong and has been duped.
On the way negative side, your performance calls into question whether rational discourse with you is even possible on any topic. You have some bot-tendencies, too.
I'm not paid-to-post, so will be cashing out my chips with a clear win before further time is wasted here. I'll be turning off notification to this posting (allowing you the last word on every thread, should you decide to make them.) I'll leave you as a FB friend, but will be unfollowing you. If you are easily duped by this disinformation (and can't be ever convinced of its errors), it might not bode well for any other discussion topic.
I thank you for the discussion.
I now leave you to carrying on without me.
//
x582 Maxwell C. Bridges : Physical evidence of WTC planes
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
The wall assembly is from the back-side of the WTC-1 (with respect to direction of impact) with a portion of an aircraft's wheel assembly stuck in it.
This wall assembly in the street also destroys arguments about crash physics. The plane plowed through one wall and the core area, and it still had enough energy to several the bolts of a wall assembly on the back-side and knock it to the street. If nothing else, this should be saying how weak those connection bolts were. Therefore, any damage on the front-side that can be attributed to entire wall assemblies being pushed about reduces total energy requirement and leaves energy available to bend or break box columns of wall assemblies elsewhere.
Landing gear at West and Rector Streets
