A Challenge To All Who Believe Real Boeings Hit the WTC
CB_Brooklyn Fri, 10/20/2006 - 5:17pm
A CHALLENGE
TO ANYONE BELIEVING THESE VIDEOS SHOW A
REAL PLANE HITTING THE SOUTH TOWER
I think this could benefit us all!
1. Go down to your local college/university.
2. Find a physics/engineering professor you can trust. (A real one, with a PhD)
3. Show him/her the slow-motion videos here (or better yet, show straight from the CNN DVD)
4. Ask the professor flat out: "Is that a real plane?"
5. Ask the professor to explain the answer scientifically, and list the laws of physics that would apply.
6. Post your results here.
7. Let others with the nohow evaluate it.
8. If any errors are found, make a second trip to the professor ask him/her to explain the errors.
9. Post your results here!
==============================
Former Mechanical Engineering Professor Dr Judy Wood and former Aerospace Engineer Joseph Keith both say the videos violate the laws of physics. If you don't trust them, then get someone who you do trust.
Getting answers from multiple professionals will help us all. Find people you can trust! They should follow the laws of science and nothing else. If they do, all responses should be identical. If you want, tell them that you'll post their answers on this website, but will keep them anonymous. (Perhaps you can post the name of the univerisity.)
- CB_Brooklyn's blog
- Login to post comments
Yap Yap Yap
You can't even get it straight in your own head. Is the question about "real Boeings" or "real planes"?
Have you gone down to your local college/university and performed these steps yourself? I'd like to see your results from doing so.
Ok guys don't respond to
Ok guys don't respond to these blogs anymore, Casseia came up with a great idea that we just "Quarantine" this shit and ignore it.
So this blog is;
Quarantined
(^ First person to spot a disinfo blog type that and then we'll all just ignore it)
Halla-Fuckin-Looa
Gary
911truthnc.org
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"
i cant wait to see your
i cant wait to see your answers Cb Brooklyn. i assume you will be doing the same thing correct? make sure to post the answers you get on this blog. should be interesting.
DO NOT FEED THE
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS
QUARENTINE!!
leave it up to the guy who
leave it up to the guy who can't even spell knowhow.
"Ones" is possessive by
"Ones" is possessive by nature, and does not require an apostrophy.
actually, being possesive by
actually, being possesive by nature is what demands the inclusion of the apostrophe - one's spelling means "the spelling belonging to one", hence the apostrophe.
i don't really care about grammar and spelling but you incorrectly corrected me so i am in turn correcting you.
click my name to see the foolishness of the images of an aluminum 767 entering the steel/concrete wtc2 without any of it breaking off or even crumpling or indeed, even slowing down.
on second thought you are
on second thought you are right: possesive by nature would mean that it doesn't need an apostrophe - but since one in this case referred to a singular entity's possession, (the spelling), that's why i believe that it needs an apostrophe.
oh well. click my name anyway.
not again....I voted 1if you
not again....I voted 1if you wanna know
Why dont you go do your homework and come back when you have something to back your crap up, which will likely be the day that easter and christmas fall on the same day
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
CB be the 1st
You might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, your a being a preacher.
We all don't think your sermon is worth any one's time.
We heard you theories. Enough is enough.
Do Not Respond To CB's no planner blogs. My second and last response to your threads.
Gary
911truthnc.org
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"
as I already said, I have
as I already said, I have experts I trust. You don't trust them, so find someone with expertise you do trust!
Boeing or Raytheon?
Question 10: Does CB_Brooklyn work for Boeing or Raytheon?
By the way, here's a picture of what may have hit the Pentagon, IMO:
http://www.aero-web.org/database/museums/getimage.htm?id=4101
It's a Skywarrior, and it looks much like a small commercial airliner.
Or
Perhaps a painted-up Global Hawk: http://www.desertsecrets.com/i.ghawkuav.jpg
I agree as well
Do not respond.
Since these message boards are intended for the sharing of opinions, I would only state that it is my opinion that the no-planes, Judy Wood mini-nukes, energy beams, little green men blogs are all clear cointelpro disruption - designed to bait people - and discrediting the movement.
The people who forward these debates are either disinfo agents - or useful idiots.
So - there will be no debate on this issue. We are one move ahead on this one.
That's my opinion.
DO NOT RESPOND!! Would make
DO NOT RESPOND!!
Would make a great T-Shirt..
And show a picture of the plane .. as it is HALF-buttered into the tower...
Hmm, Have given it much thought .. yesterday I had the idea is to get some people together and build a rocket sled and a part of the wing (or buy it second hand) and build a part of the tower (aluminium-clad-steel) and use the rocket-sled to smash the wing-fragment into the steel fragment at 450knots.
This idea shall be called the u2r2h-wing-vs-wtc-smash-test...
Lets see what scorn I harvest from this, then. DemKarateCholeric step forward, please.
they know they'll never find
they know they'll never find a scientist to agree with them. They know they're wrong. Hopefully they'll be quiet now, and let 911Blogger get back to what it's supposed to be: a 9/11 NEWS site
CB and u2, please accept
CB and u2, please accept that some people think this is not a good place to discuss the tv fakery ideas. These people have valid reasons to think so. Its simply a very controversial issue which causes flame wars over and over again. And it seems that there hasnt been much progress in it in the last weeks.
This is a very popular 911 site, visited by many newcomers. The tv-fakery research is not a thing for newcomers.
I mean, i have zero problem with you guys researching such things, and i admit some things in the videos look strange. But your research is not at a point where it can convince many people. Thats quite simply a fact that you have to admit. This has nothing to do with 'is it true or not', but with the *fact* that theres a thousand issues with 911 that people dont know about that are a million times easier to understand for John Doe than Tv fakery. Please, in all respect, you just have to admit that. It also wasnt Tv fakery that got you interested in 911 in the first place.
There *is* a place for such research of course. But it looks like its not this site. You cant force people to swallow your theries and accept them, or give you a place to present them. If people on here dont want it, create your own blog somewhere else. Its that simple.
And please, i dont mean to attack you. But this current state is not good for anyone. I dont think it helps your research much when 90% of the talk about it on this blog is actually flame-wars and accusations etc.. about the issue.
Why not talk and discuss it with fellow researchers and people who find it interesting and worthwile?
Compelling results will find their way here im sure. In one way or the other.
I GOT BANNED TODAY!! I AM DEVASTATED!! CEnSORSHIP IS ALIVE!
I got banned! this is the first time this ever happened to me.
Wow, they even blocked my provider's IP-number!! That's like in CHINA!! Now I can't even READ
911 blogger the normal way. I recommend that everyone start using TOR to avoid being shut out.
My blog has been deleted ? http://www.911blogger.com/blog/196 is dead.
Does that mean my other contributions are null and void, too?
.. I thought my blog entry picture was rather good:
For those of you who wonder what it lookes like when you get banned, when I try to log in, this is the message I get:
The username u2r2h has not been activated or is blocked.
CB and u2, please accept CB and u2, please accept that some people think this is not a good place
I accept everything that other people think, gladly!! Thoughts are free!
to discuss the tv fakery ideas. These people have valid reasons to think so. Its simply a very controversial issue which causes flame wars over and over again.
controversial? Oh my god! I thought 9/11 was not in doubt!!
And it seems that there hasnt been much progress in it in the last weeks. This is a very popular 911 site, visited by many newcomers ...
True. It is leading nowhere, because "These people" refuse to debate it. They want us dead, silenced.
How bizarre that you execute their wishes.
I am afraid this will be victory for the CIA/NSA team.. they like the concept of banning free speech, too.
I know, you're only trying to protect the young and innocent from heresy.
You could have admitted to everyone that you banned me. (and CB?) by saying:
YOU ARE NOW BANNED.
But you were not brave enough to state it publicly.
CB and u2, PLEASE ACCEPT BEING BANNED
sorry, but this is unacceptable. We did not post child-porn... although
in a post of mine.. a grim photo of a Iraqi victim of US-weapons ... was deleted previously.
blah blah.
you dont care. DBLS and Albanese and the 'regulars' are now happy conspiracists...
lets see who they target next.
Just curious, u2
Do you honestly feel that you were merely fostering discussions of theories/issues, or was part of you invested in stirring things up? Because I strongly believe an element of the latter was involved, and that that was why you were banned. I'm sorry to hear it, because prior to the last couple of weeks, you were an intelligent voice with an interesting perspective, and moreover this place can use all the self-identified female voices it can get, IMO.
My impression is that dz et al. will reinstate people who request it via email, under some circumstances.
bright-eyed-and-bushy-tailed
Noam Chomsky said in an interview in 1995:
"If you are not offending people who ought to be offended, you're doing something wrong."
Of course, at least *I* think, he implied: within the bounds of morality.
Often people are deeply offended when you get close to their holy grail, to their supreme lie, to their 'dark' raison d'etre. So in that way this is a good thing... it helps to clear the air.
> Just curious, u2
> Do you honestly feel that you were merely fostering discussions of
> theories/issues, or was part of you invested in stirring things up?
Of cause I stir. I feel this is an obligation in an environment where perps are
on the loose and depend on people's docile behaviour.
The 911 mind-fuck is greater than we can imagine. You see, the perps threaten us
with irrational behaviour (mindless-arab-violence).
IMHO it helps to keep everyone bright-eyed-and-bushy-tailed and helps cooperate in alerting each other of fraud. Also, when done in jest, its fun to wind up the mono-theists.
> Because I strongly believe an element of the latter was involved,
> and that that was why you were banned. I'm sorry to hear it,
How sorry are really? Aren't you afraid to fall from favour with the in-crowd by expressing sympathy for me?
> (flattery deleted)
> My impression is that dz et al. will reinstate people who request it via email,
> under some circumstances.
I am not sure it would make anyone happy.
You see.. the downside of free-posting-of-all-and-every-idea is that the CIA/NSA perp lurkers
get 'ideas-for-free' and when using the scientific method of OPERATIONS RESEARCH
we enable them to do amazing things (to us).
I quote from my current favourite book:
Operations Research (OR) is a term used for logical and mathematical techniques applicable to management. It started with a group of boffins during World War II who used mathematics to wage war more effectively. One of the first efforts used mathematics to work out how to improve their use of depth charges dropped by aircraft on enemy submarines. This improvement in technique led the Germans to believe that a new type of depth charge was in use. A whole range of very powerful mathematical techniques bas been developed since then.
Yet I am still naive enough to believe that glasnost is the best way for a future society where we live free from fear of violence and where we can occupy ourselves with the beautiful arts and sciences.
em7, dz ... please at least unblock my ISP-IP. Its silly and very inconvenient for me.
I regret to say that it makes me suspect that you could be spying on all of us.
Although you guys have done a fine job with 911blogger, I think you *do* have special responsiblities with regard to free speech and trust of users not to be spied upon. Your argument that we can go somewhere else is exactly what corporations use to justify their hierarchy. The fact is that we all have to uphold the highest possible standards and we should take pride in doing so.
...
"How sorry are really? Aren't you afraid to fall from favour with the in-crowd by expressing sympathy for me?"
Actually, I'm just as sorry as I said I was, and for the reasons I said I was, which were intended to be more a statement of fact than flattery.
I have no worries about being shunned by the in-crowd for expressing sympathy for you, and I honestly don't think that's how people here operate. I'm sorry that you evidently disagree.
blocking
"em7, dz ... please at least unblock my ISP-IP. Its silly and very inconvenient for me."
i have no intentions , nor the power, to bann or block you. Im not a siteadmin.
OT: em7
Check out my post on the 911PFT thread regarding subtitles. Playtime has sent me theirs, in English.
i take it this is your post
i take it this is your post here at the bottom -> http://www.911blogger.com/node/3929
maybe now you can go do something useful.
hey u2,
just one thing: 911blogger is not the only place on the internet. Why do you hang out on a site that uses 'CIA/NSA' concepts, as you say? Isnt that kinda pointless ? If you seriously think that is the case, its obvious you have to find someplace else, isnt it.
Ok, its 2 things:
I dont want you silenced, nor did i say anything like that. If you understand my point 1 above, it should be clear what i mean.
Its just sad. I have a feeling you would have something to contribute, actually.
I disagree and will explain why
I disagree and will explain why:
Many in 911Blogger are assuming others will not understand tv-fakery. They assume this based on their own beliefs of tv-fakery. I've shown some pictures to people and they have no problem at all seeing it. One must understand and believe in something themselves in order to successfully sell it to others. Anyone not being able to sell it does not confidently believe or understand it themselves. I have the same problem with many aspects of 9/11, therefore I only talk about what I know about.
I say again.... anyone thinking newbies cannot understand tv-fakery is wrong.
tv-fakery, just like controlled demolitions, is based on Physical Laws.
Just because some of the regulars in here "don't like" tv-fakery for whatever reason is no excuse to prevent one from blogging it. As I said before, this exposes the media as being directly involved in the actual attacks. And people must know that they can't believe what they "see" on the news.
I'll say a third time... anyone thinking newbies cannot "see it", is wrong.
Censoring a very important aspect of 9/11 Truth, because some truthers are uncomfortable with it, or because they falsely assume newbies can't see it, is also wrong.
i disagree that it is 'as
i disagree that it is 'as easy to understand as controlled demolition'.
However, I do agree that - if theories are being discussed - its weird to 'ban' one subject. In an ideal world, common sense does the filtering.
(Since this is not an ideal world this is somethin that can obviously be discussed till april 2089, but thats not my point).
Anyway, i think dzs frontpage explanation of the purpose of this site sais it all. Enough said about this now.
For the record: CB_Brooklyn
For the record:
CB_Brooklyn was NOT banned
http://www.911blogger.com/blog/107
What has he got that I haven't?
Balls?
u2, that blog you posted was
u2, that blog you posted was definitely not appropriate. OTOH, I understand your thinking: if others can post blogs that break rules (such as those calling people disinfo artists) and not get banned, then why can't you? Is there selective banning going on here? Most definitely. That's why we have to be strong and not break rules. I plan on sticking to physical laws and the such.
> u2, that blog you posted
> u2, that blog you posted was definitely not appropriate.
why? I posted an instructive picture and the following text:
No Planers are not worth responding to.
other people said that, not me
911blogger bias has been made clear.
(factual statement)
Please, everyone, make sure you DO NOT RESPOND!
other people said that, not me
Its the new thing.
(factual statement)
was that hate-speech, or what?
> OTOH, I understand your thinking: if others can post blogs that break rules
> (such as those calling people disinfo artists) and not get banned,
> then why can't you?
Hey, I like name-calling. It is just another form of communication. It tells us
more about the transmitter than about the recipient. It often tells us more
than the rant following or preceeding it.
Communication is where its at. 911blogger is still invaluable.. but it could be
doing without resorting to banning and IP blocking.
And it also doesn't mean that 911blogger couldn't be replaced.
Also 911blogger will be bought up by AOL one day.. (just kidding)
You know, the NAZIs banned all jews from the german chess federation in 1933.
Maybe they were winning to often ;-)
But, ok, if it is any consolation to yous... I REPENT.
I agree that NoPlaners should press their viewpoint on others.
However "general conspiracy theorists" should continue try to press
their viewpoint on others. There, I said it.
can DZ unban me now?
Has anyone saved a local
Has anyone saved a local copy of my last blog post that was censored?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3931
I would like to read the comments..
even if the "planehuggers"
even if the "planehuggers" as you call them are wrong and the planes are fake, how does that change the bigger picture of 9/11 Truth at all, and why do you think that proving video fakery is the best/most-effective approach to 9/11 Truth? would it change the story so much and do you really think the fakery is proveable enough that it's important enough to get into heated debates and flame-wars with fellow Truthers? tell me why i should care if the planes are fake, since even if they are it seems that the blatant evidence of controlled demolition (freefall collapses, crimping, eye/earwitnesses to explosions, squibs, etc) is so much more overwhelming and obvious, at least to everyone i've talked to. please explain how the tv fakery angle is worth the division it causes, since most Truthers are convinced it is bogus-- a distraction at best, and cointelpro at worst. these are sincere questions for the "tv fakery" crowd-- please answer substantively, and i will listen. maybe you'll even win me over, since some of the footage is suspicious, and the technology certainly exists.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth Member Opens TV-FAKERY Blog
New Blog, which will discuss the
scientific evidence and physics behind
TV-FAKERY
http://noplanes911.blogspot.com