-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [911InsideJobbers] Re: [Fwd: WG: AW: The "no plane theory" is bogus, Jimmy - don't fall for it] Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:14:12 -0000 From: alexldent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>The steel plate on both buildings on the upper floors got down to a 1/4 inch thick as one nears the top. An aircraft doing perhaps 500 mph would EASILY pass through that, like butter if you will.<<<< This of course is incredibly misleading, as the outer wall was not 1/4inch sheet metal, it was comprised of 18inch square box columns, and the plane would have had to impact dozens of these columns, not to mention the steel and concrete floors (the fuselage alone would have had to impact 6 of the columns plus two floor slabs). And of course the issue is not whether the fuselage would have penetrated at all, but whether it would slide in at full speed without any sign of distortion or explosion. But I guess I am preaching to the choir here.... --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rosalee Grable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: WG: AW: The "no plane theory" is bogus, Jimmy - don't fall for > it > Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:19:08 -0400 > From: Jimmy Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > The edges of the smoke do not change. Even in three seconds, they would > change. Smoke is not a cloud. The distance to the smoke and its relative > size are not > Watch the video of the smoke before you make claims that the edges do > not move in even one second. > http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/wtc-video.htm > <http://users.westnet.gr/%7Ecgian/wtc-video.htm> > > And why did you claim holograms when none of us has made such a claim? > As for accusing someone of fraud, you have no proof at all. As for her > and Nico trying to divide the movement, that is outrageous! It is the > vast array of others, that have tried to divide the movement, not them. > They have a temper problem. But so do I. I struggle against mine and > admonish them about theirs. > > She used Salter's video, not her own. Salter removed it! It seems he is > the one that is hiding the truth. > > As for the media being controlled, it is! And the CIA has access to all > of the feeds. Why did the media never show building 7 again? They are > controlled. > > > Moreover, no plane or object when it hits something stays rigid like it > was. A building like Mosquito netting? Well then I can use the > euphemism, "The nose of a jet is thin as rice paper" So we have a new > disaster flick, "Rice paper battles Mosquito netting" > > There was NO sound of the engines from the reporter who was on the > ground. A jet engine is much louder than a fire engine siren. There is > no sound of a jet on the other video that Rosalee shows. You cannot > muffle the sound of a 767 at full speed. It is deafening. I am a pilot. > I have been next to a jet on the ground and at takeoff. That is why they > wear those ear protectors > > The reason they did not use a plane is that no pilot and no guidance > system is that accurate for a plane that size. > http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/lineInPgrass.html > > Frank, you are wrong on this one and they are correct. > > jimmy > > > > Jimmy, > > Consider the very short time the plane and the smoke are visible. > > If it's three seconds, I'd be surprised. Look at qany other distance > shot of the smoke.....it moves slowly. In 3 seconds it hardly > moves at all. The video moving would be enough to obscure the > smoke's very tiny movement in that short a time. Basically, the > smoke is not rushing out, but being slightly and slowly being blown > in a horizontal direction. > > Ask the Webfairy why they would use optical illusions and how they > could get them to 5 separate feeds at various news agencies ? I asked > Rosalee Grable about this - Why not use REAL planes ? She said > "because they were expensive". Their story is total bullshit, Jim. > In the California desert, there's hundreds of 737s and 767s just > sitting there. The government's gonna worry about money ? > > Also, consider that the planes were puncturing buildings that the > Project Engineer, Frank DiCarpini described as like "mosquito > netting" on a screen door being punctured by a pencil. > > The steel plate on both buildings on the upper floors got down to > a 1/4 inch thick as one nears the top. An aircraft doing perhaps > 500 mph would EASILY pass through that, like butter if you will. > > The planes aren't phony. Their facts are wrong. They are trying to > divide the effort to find the truth. And their doing it by twisting > facts, name calling and mis-quoting. I've been dealing with them > for months. PLEASE don't automatically "sign on" to this stuff. > > Why would they use photoshop or flight simulators, when real > aircraft do the job nicely ? (They also have no explanation for > the Naudet Bros film of the first hit - which HAS a very clear > sound track of the plane echoing in New York city streets.) > > They think the Naudet Brothers, and everyone else in the world > was in on it. And now, they're saying that a fleet of drones did it. > > Their purpose is to create infighting amongst reasearchers. I'm > working on a chapter for Jim Fetzer's new book. I've warned him > about the Webfairy nonsense. Please check with him and others > about this "ghost plane" stuff. > > Thanks Jimmy, Regards > > -John Austin > > > Jimmy Walter wrote: > > We are not talking holograms. Please go to my site and click on the link. > > Smoke does not sit still. It is clearly not moving and the plane goes > > into the building like butter. > > jimmy > > > Yahoo! Groups Links Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/ Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
