For the French! Webster Tarpley interview...
Reprehensor Tue, 09/26/2006 - 6:51pm
While in Paris this past week to promote the French Edition of "Synthetic Terror", Tarpley gave an interview in the French language. Please pass this on to French-speaking truthseekers and fence-sitters everywhere!
French Synthetic Terror available here. (Editions Demi Lune)
37 minute Google video at link;
http://reopen911.online.fr/?p=188
- Login to post comments
Would someone tell me why is
Would someone tell me why is www.reopen911.org site still promoting the WTC No-Plane Blue Screen theory right on their front page?? Would someone please take that theory out.
This is sort of a beef of
This is sort of a beef of mine with Tarpley. I love the guy, but he will not steer away from any theories. Thus, he puts Nico on his show and supports guys like Jimmy Walter.
OT
on MSNBC - the following point is made on Olbermann tonight
Bill Clinton has opened a debate by asking the question of how responsible the Bush Administration should be for the attacks of 9/11. Since 9/11, this question has largely been avoided by the MSM. Will the media, politicians, and pundits now begin to press this issue?
Don't make a mistake :
Don't make a mistake : http://reopen911.online.fr is really different than http://www.reopen911.org
Blue-screen, Non?
Webster has said this as many times, as have Alex and David Ray: Stick to the points everybody can see, like Building #7.
Don't confuse the show-funding from the messenger(s), and,- Least of all don't discredit those of us who have actually made great discoveries from the most rediculously unfounded of theories, as you cannot surpass your own grasp when you do everything as suggested in the textbooks.
I propose thusly; if Strike #2 were not 'CGI,' must the airplane not therefore have the actual attributes of a hologram?
And therefore, we've only left to decipher what does it take for this plane to behave like a hologram, as though it had achieved impact with zero resistance?
Not only can I provide the means to do that, I actually touched the surface of the materials that were used, giving me a distinct advantage, (minus the fact that I don't want to resemble a famous Warner Bros. wabbit when I'm done mixing the ACME "TNT"!)
Bottom-line? It could not have been a commericial airline of any standard configuration! Perhaps that last statement can be disproven, and if so, again, I'm the only one in the world that offers you a solid, scientific reason why.
... Sorry I've been too lame to draw it in 3D and put it on uTube. (Hard to do on a 200mhz Mac., but I will be glad to work with the guys who have done these other excellent 3D structural walk-thrus. They have enough data therein for me to make quick work of this, perhaps less than 1/2 day in PhotoShop.)
You're not the only one
"I'm the only one in the world that offers you a solid , scientific reason why [it couldn't be a 767]"
No. :)
From the Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 131, Issue 10, pp. 1066-1072 (October 2005)
Here's the abstract from ASCE Research Library
A numerical simulation of the aircraft impact into the exterior columns of the World Trade Center (WTC) was done using LS-DYNA. For simplification, the fuselage was modeled as a thin-walled cylinder, the wings were modeled as box beams with a fuel pocket, and the engines were represented as rigid cylinders. The exterior columns of the WTC were represented as box beams. Actual masses, material properties and dimensions of the Boeing 767 aircraft and the exterior columns of the WTC were used in this analysis. It was found that about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft was used to damage columns. The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130 m/s. [i.e. 7200 miles per hour]. It was also found that a Boeing 767 traveling at top speed would not penetrate exterior columns of the WTC if the columns were thicker than 20 mm.[20mm = less than one inch thick. The columns were known to be 4 inches thick.]
©2005 ASCE
The elaborations/math work within the brackets is mine.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
130 m/s = 290 mph
not 7200 mph...
m/s means meters, not miles, per second, I'm sure.
I don't claim to be an expert on these matters, but considering an airplane is not very rigid and thus couldn't transfer significant amounts of the resistance encountered on impact through its fuselage, why would the back visibly decelerate upon impact?
The holes match what I would expect as well.
But the most important question still not being answered is: Why complicate matters with hypothetic hologram technology when an actual airplane could do the job just fine?
So please, lay it to rest.
Pas seulement pour les français!
Damn, is this guy smart or what?! How many languages does he speak?
your few strongest points
Four or Five, but so do many Europeans, which in no way diminishes his brilliance, but might go some distance to explain why so many Americans are challenged even by English.
But to the point, people, the few strongest points in particular. 911Truth is now in the court of public opinion. Any trial attorney will tell you, in court you stick to your few strongest points. Everything else is a distraction.
Point 1. How could any hostile aircraft of any kind violate Pentagon arispace?
Point 2. On 9/11/01, with the nation "under attack," why did the Secrect Service not immediately hustle the POTUS to a secret, sanctuary, but rather leave him hung out, security stripped for almost and hour?
Point 3. Why did the administration first aknowledge the "Angle is next" call then deny it? And what about the reference to the launch codes, the call to Putin and the POTUS' movements throughout the rest of 9/11/01...very unusual and never explained anywhere in the "official" story.
Nobody can niggle over the technicalities of these points. These are hard edged questions about documented undeniable facts that should be forced upon the personages of this regime at every public appearance, and ultimately when they stand in the dock for treason.
These are points which no 911 Truth denier can obfuscate with phony science or eye witness hysteria. Moreover, blow back cannot explain these events in any way. Each of us must work at being the best advocate for this case we can. We must win over the liberal fence-sitters and undermine the hard core right. Our case must be made sharply and to the point. The fate of the world depends on it. As Tarpley reminds us regularly, 911Truth is the only stake that can pierce the heart of this vampire regime, and time is running out.
jtg
Tks
Thanks for your huge job !
Make it international. We will support you.
Normandie--LaFayette