-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [planehuggers] Omholt says they push a button to overcome
Newton's Third Law!
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:59:55 -0500
From: The Webfairy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Close to the ground, the plane hits air and the air hits back. The
chattering of the air sets up vibrations which would shake the plane apart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY
*Flight 175 Impossible Speed*
Olmhold says there's a button to overcome this~
This magic button also overcomes the second half of Newton's First Law,
just for good measure~
Olmholt isor was a contributing editor for DefenseWatch.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/November/DefenseWatch.htm
according to
http://www.sftt.org/dwa/2002/12/18/3.html
I'd say he's a man who should know:
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=18651&Disp=0
<http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=18651&Disp=0>
* *
*MIND CONTROL IN THE 21st CENTURY*
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
"Mind Control" is to be catalogued with space travel, wrist
radios and ray-guns; yesterday's fantasy becoming today's reality.
Certainly, it goes without saying, that "Mind Control" is more
accurately addressed as "Behavior Control;" one leads to the other.
Accommodating simplicity and common understanding, the term "Mind
Control" will be used as a synonym for "Behavior Control."
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=18651&Disp=0
<http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=18651&Disp=0>
*THE ENIGMA OF FREEMASONRY*
http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/enigma_of_freemasonry/text.htm
written by Ralph W. Omholt.P.M.
malaprop wrote:
I just looked at your msg again, and you better take a good look at
the guy you claim to be quoting, Ralph Olmholt.......how about having
him repeat this claim here? You know the one claiming the speed
possible with unplugging everything? Otherwise, it's just typical
Bilk-shit.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* malaprop <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; political-research@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:political-research@yahoogroups.com> ;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* Sunday, September 23, 2007 12:26 PM
*Subject:* Re: [planehuggers] 9/11 Disinfo from Fetzer, Wood,
Reynolds, etc. -was: boeing says:
You're just wasting everyones time with this stuff you're just
pulling out of your ass. Not a single piece of science, just a
whine.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Mark S Bilk <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ;
political-research@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:political-research@yahoogroups.com> ;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* Sunday, September 23, 2007 9:05 AM
*Subject:* [planehuggers] 9/11 Disinfo from Fetzer, Wood,
Reynolds, etc. -was: boeing says:
>From: james_ha175
>Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:36 AM
>Subject: [planehuggers] boeing says:
>
>boeing says that a real 767 cannot fly at 500mph at an altitude
>of 700ft.
550 mph is definitely beyond the specified and allowed speed for
a 767-200 at 700 feet altitude. But the 767 pilot in our 9/11
Physical Evidence Group, Ralph Omholt, says that the plane can
and will go that fast for a short time if various safety limit
circuits -- e.g., engine temperature and rotation speed -- are
disabled by pulling a few circuit breakers.
Passenger airliners are "overdesigned", with very large safety
factors in order to prevent catastrophic failure when unforeseen
stressful conditions occur. So in this case the plane is able
to greatly exceed its safe permitted speed limit specification
for a short time, albeit incurring difficulty in steering, and
perhaps permanent damage to the engines.
The speed of the second plane is very consistent in all of the
videos. Judging from previous actual faked videos from the
government -- e.g., the CIA cartoon of TWA800 and the bogus
Bin Laden videos -- the government fakers just aren't that
careful and consistent.
None of the WTC video-fakery claims stand up to scientific
scrutiny, despite the incessant lying of Jim Fetzer, Morgan
Reynolds, Nico Haupt, Webfairy, and various anonymous but
unusually skilled propaganda video makers. I suspect that video
professionals were hired for some of these. Both the U.S. and
Israel have prominent pro-war movie makers whose videographers
could be borrowed. Some people will do anything for money.
For example, in September Clues 1, the anonymous videographer/liar
says that what he calls the "nose-out" object -- actually a plume
of dust and smoke -- emerging from the opposite side of the tower,
is the computer-generated image of the nose of the plane allowed
to travel on too far. He even shows magnified images of the nose
and the plume, saying that they have the same detailed shape.
But he fails to mention three things that completely disprove
his claim:
1. The time of appearance of the plume does not at all match
the projected travel of the nose.
2. The speed of the plume is only about half that of the nose.
3. The fine details of the nose vary greatly from frame to frame,
because they are caused by low resolution -- the nose is only
about half a dozen scan lines high, so the scan lines create
fine detail irregularities in the nose outline that don't
really exist in the original optical image. And the anonymous
videographer/liar intentionally *selected* images of the nose
and plume that matched. If he had selected other images of
them from adjacent video frames, the viewer would have seen
that they don't match at all!
In fact, as others have observed, it is the videos that claim to
prove video-fakery that are themselves faked -- by dishonest data
selection and omission as in this case, by intentional
misinterpretation of the data, by propaganda methods such as loud
rock music or heartbeat soundtracks that are designed to inhibit
the viewer's critical thinking, by ad hominem attacks and even
threats against critics of the disinformation gang, etc.
Webfairy is still claiming that Newton's Third Law of Motion --
"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" --
proves that the planes would have bounced off the towers.
Although it's been pointed out to her several times that her claim
equally "proves" that *all* projectiles would bounce off their
targets -- which is obviously absurd -- she still keeps on saying
it. Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, some stopped clocks are *never*
right.
In the referenced video:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-many-ways-can-we-show-that-ua175.html
<http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-many-ways-can-we-show-that-ua175.html>
the people phoned up at Boeing never say the plane lacks the
capability to go that fast if the safeties are disabled; they
don't even try to find out. And the engineer Joseph Keith
quoted in the video doesn't cite any hard evidence either.
Will the various COINTELPRO-type agents (and their useful-idiot
true-believer followers) in the No-WTC-Planes/Video-Fakery/
Energy-Beams disinfo operation now begin spewing ad hominem
attacks against Omholt and myself? Probably, if past performance
is any indication. Will they address the points raised about
September Clues and Newton's Third Law? They've always refused
to do so in the past!
They can't deal with direct questions about their lies. Just as
Judy Wood was utterly unable to defend her claims when asked
direct questions by physicist Greg Jenkins:
Dr. Greg Jenkins, PhD physicist, Interviews Dr. Judy Wood
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017>
Here are many more scientific refutations of the disinfo:
Dr. Greg Jenkins' blog
http://911blogger.com/blog/783 <http://911blogger.com/blog/783>
The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams
to Demolish the World Trade Center
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
<http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf>
A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf
<http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf>
Victoria Ashley exposes 9/11 disinfo and hoaxes
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriots_question/index.html
<http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriots_question/index.html>
Mark
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 09:57:08AM +0100, big guy wrote:
>It doesn't seem to register with people who should know but I
>guess that air thickness and engine characteristics are beyond
>their scope. Engine manufactures specifications might reveal
>something regarding the do's & don't of the boeing engine.
>
>I've said this before but "175" was shown to be doing 500
>mph. The assumption is that it had to be. Since it's only
>capable of doing max. 220 mph the risk to the official
>story was, from the very beginning, exposed to being
>foney. Alternatively, it was not within the scope of the
>cover up to know boeings can't do 500 mph which shows how
>clever NOT they were.
>
>Missiles do 500 mph so is this why "175" HAD to do that speed.
>
>If "175" was doing anything upto 220 mph going towards the
>south tower it would seem to have taken forever. See how long
>you can keep in view a plane at low altitude. It seems to be
>crawling along. Almost a snail's pace. May be they couldn't
>have it in the frame too long.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: james_ha175
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:planehuggers%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:36 AM
> Subject: [planehuggers] boeing says:
>
> boeing says that a real 767 cannot fly at 500mph at an
altitude of
> 700ft.
>
