Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[jaydeehess]

Yeah, well you see the plane is really just a big bag of air. It weighs 150 tons if you nelt it down into a single block but in reality that 150 tons is thinly spread out not unlike an aluminium cobweb by comparison with the massive steel of the building.(See photos above). Otherwise the plane could not fly.

Ohhh, that's what you are on about, that the plane did not squash up on the exterior of the building and break up into a billion pieces that would rain down on the streets below.

Well even the light aircraft that impacted another apartment bldg a few years ago managed to actually enter the building. It weighed much less than the weight of just the fuel load on a Boeing and was flying at less than half the speed of the Boeing. It was constructed much lighter than the Boeing as well. Yet it did cause damage to the steel wall it hit.
So you have a Boeing weighing a couple of orders of magnitude _= a couple of orders of magnitude more momentum) more than the small plane, travelling at over twice the velocity of the small plane ( = a greater than quadrulpling of momentum)and constructed with a much sturdier frame than the small plane (meaning breaching the wall is easier).

Yes, the leading parts that hit the wall do squash/break up BUT the momentum also allows a breach of the wall AND quickly following this is the rest of the mass of the aircraft pushing through that breach and any lagging debris from the aircraft leading parts and the facade/window glass.

That you do not have the ability to see and understand this is quite apparent but that does not negate it.

Aluminium does not cut steel. That would simply be tantamount to the bread cutting the knife. Especially paper-thin aluminium.

One can in fact snap a knife in half if the bread is simply moving fast enough. I would put the blade crosswise to the direction of travel though since if this is your analogy then it would be encumbant upon you to denomstrate that the columns of the towers were honed edges of steel. Besides, of course, the columns were not 'cut' in the same connotation of the word in which a knife 'cuts' bread. Instead the steel was pushed and bent to its breaking point by the very sudden, and relatively focused horizontal load that was a large, heavy, fast aircraft impacting them.

<<sighs>> water cuts steel but aluminum can't snap steel , gotcha.
a hurricane can push a straw through a palm tree but aluminum cannot break steel, gotcha.
A bullet can punch through steel or concrete(a lead bullet) but aluminum cannot, gotcha.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm sure the Naudet Brothers will have had the Rule of Thirds uppermost in mind as they pointed their camera at the blazing North Tower with chaos all around them. Maybe they imagined they were Ansel Adams photographing the Grand Canyon.

Actually it becomes a part of what you do at all times, a natural process, an instinctual way of framing a shot. Do you still have to think about staying balanced and upright when riding a bike?

Would that be a solid aluminium ball or a hollow aluminium ball?

Make it a soda can half full of soda, better analogy for you?
Go, try it, do let's see a truther video doing this to a length of angle iron. Once at 20 MPH, again at 50, again at 100(and thuis the limit if the method of throwing the can is a human arm) the momentum change with a 2 1/2 increase (20 to 50) in velocity is a 6.25 times increase. From 20 to 100 is a momentum increase of 25 times.

If it was moving at 500 MPH (25 times faster than 20 MPH) its momentum would increase by 625 times.

I await the truther video. (debunkers might try it too except any results will be dismissed by truthers as disinfo of course)

 

[carlitos]

I soooooo want to go load a half-full soda can into a potato gun and launch it at steel beams.*

*Not suggesting that anyone do this, but if you do, please wear goggles or something.

 

[jaydeehess]

Hmmm...

So, steel is stronger than aluminum, and airplanes are made of aluminum, so there is no way an airplane could penetrate a steel building. Is that the argument?

'Cause if so, keratin is stronger than lead, and bullets are made of lead, so there is no way a bullet could penetrate a structure infused with keratin, such as skin.

Congrats, truthers, you just proved that bullets are harmless.

I can make relatively deep scratchs in lead with my fingernail so obviously if I wish to protect myself from a bullet all I need do is place my finger nail in its path (or a steel zipper, or buttons, a sherrif's badge, etc.). It will just squash up against it and I will be safe.

 

[Thunder]

yes. how is it that something made of soft lead, could penitrate steel???

steel is stronger then lead. MUCH stronger. so how is that lead can punch a whole through it???

have the laws of physics been suspended?????

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Indeed, the 'squib' dust exits a window and encounters essentially dead air and thus it fans out as would be expected.

The dust, smoke and debris exiting with the engine are all neccessarily behind the engine itself which is moving at 100 MPH(IIRC) as it comes through the side of the building and carries with it a column of moving air as it punches through it(the air that is). The trailing dust and smoke are within that column of moving air thus they follow the engine in much the same manner that dust or paper will follow a car as it passes by.

Are there no limits to your imagination?

.

Explain why you dispute this explanation.
Can you agree that the 'squib' ejecta fans out because it exits a small opening (the window frame) and encounters still air?
If so then explain your dispute with my explanation of the smoke and dust/debris that came out after the engine punched a hole in the wall.

If you do not at least agree on the 'squib' ejecta then pray tell explain why it does fan out.

 

[jaydeehess]

I soooooo want to go load a half-full soda can into a potato gun and launch it at steel beams.*

*Not suggesting that anyone do this, but if you do, please wear goggles or something.

If you have the time and capability then go for it. I have the later but not the former. Besides, my wife would ask why I was doing it and my only recourse would be to explain that I wish to show idiots a physics principle. I get eyes rolled at me enough when I watch Mythbusters.

 

[jaydeehess]

yes. how is it that something made of soft lead, could penitrate steel???

steel is stronger then lead. MUCH stronger. so how is that lead can punch a whole through it???

have the laws of physics been suspended?????

Only in "Star Trek" and "The Matrix" which some woo-adherants regard as docuementaries.

 

[TruthersLie]

Bump for bill smith since he/she is running from it.

A nice small piece of steel... can it demolish a car?



What happened to the car? Better question... what happened to the steel?

Please pay attention billy.


Yet again you spew outright lies.. and your level of ignorance is absolutely amazing.


nose in engine out. Come on billy... actually use that small brain for something.

 

[TruthersLie]

Is there a precedent for this bullet-shaped ejecta?

Feel free to fire a bullet into an object and watch the debris come out the other side. It isn't hard to see.

Not sure why you keep pointing out that the camera was zoomed in.

Because when you zoom in the camera at massive distance you distort the image. you are trying to count pixels in your nose in nose out bs, in an distorted image, from a bad vhs copy that is digitized and uploaded... it isn't accurate enough to give you anyting you can see.

But if you examine those other videos they clearly show what hit the tower and came out.. you know nose in, ENGINE out.

The emerging object was shaped roughly like a bullet, rather than a trumpet. Some expelled dust (squibs) appears to have obeyed the inverse square law, while other expelled dust (nose out) appears to have done the very opposite.

Yes you are talking out of your ass here... but hey, great job.

In a low-res compressed copy of the video some of the edge pixels might flip over to the background colour in one part of the image but not in another part. That's why broadcast-quality footage could help to answer the questions and that's why it's mainly the no-planers who want to see broadcast-quality footage.

Exactly. And yet you no planers want to examine and make proclaimations based on this crapola...

Of course you also have to dodge the tens of thousands of eyewitnesses, the video which surfaced in the hours after the attacks, the plane debris etc...

The conspiracy in the tens of thousands, yet NO ONE HAS EVER TALKED.

Are there no limits to your imagination?

Plenty, but unfortunatley for you they are bound by reality.

The story of the Naudet brothers that day is one long series of coincidences. They were filming a fire crew who were called out (on a false alarm) to one of the few spots in the area with a perfect view of the north face of the North Tower - just in time to catch the first plane crash.

Just like a twoof with piss poor research skills... WHY were they there? Were they just on the street corner randomly filming? YOu might want to research that.

 

[Thunder]

Doesn't "Myth Busters" have some sort of CIA/DOD connection?

 

[Thunder]

The conspiracy in the tens of thousands, yet NO ONE HAS EVER TALKED.

how can they talk...if they are already dead!!!!!

 

[bardamu]

Lovely. You know what your link clearly proves? He isn't a videographer (aka ENG cameraman) nor claims to have been one. Thanking you for helping cement the point I made. I wish all challenges in life were self-correcting like this one.

And Steve Wright's expertise is film and video compositing (which, oddly enough, that Hard Fire episode concerned).

If he doesn't know how to use a camera he had no business telling the Hardfire viewers the black-out was caused by the agc. Is it normal for experts to pretend they know more than they do?

Ah! Miracle zoom, eh? Cameraman doing something as mundane as checking focus? You see, that's what professional cameramen do; they zoom in as tight as their lens allows from wherever their camera is so that the lens' magnification of the image will magnify any slight focus problems. That way, if the director later calls for a push-in (zoom-in), the shot won't lose focus making cameraman, director and broadcaster look bush league.

Cameras in studio and remote trucks (OB vans for Continental readers) have what's called a tally light on the front (for the talent), viewfinder (for the camera operator) and usually the sides (for others who might need to be aware that a camera is on-air) and the tally system receives a signal from the production switcher whenever that camera is selected on the switcher. I don't know if part of the telemetry with a chopper camera includes tally so I'll assume it doesn't and the director will normally warn the camera operator that his/her camera is about to be taken on-air, when it's on-air and when it's clear. I'll wager that the FOX director on the day overlooked this bit of housekeeping. Given what was happening, it's understandable.

The cameraman decides to check focus immediately after the chopper pilot tells him a plane is heading for the towers? You can't be serious.

Unfortunately, there's nothing 'miraculous' about the zoom (coincidental, yes) or the plane-shaped dust (Newton's 3rd law) and the signal outage is tied-in with the signal interruption caused by the plane's impact.

How does Newton's 3rd law explain expelled dust contracting rather than expanding?

Why was only FOX affected by that particular signal interruption?

I'd love to know where Ace got the notion that key masks are self-aligning, Steven.

(Steven?)

Ace Baker did more than get a notion - he recreated the composites and they behave like the planes in the 9/11 videos.

Sure you can. No-planers are insisting that all videos showing planes impacting the WTC towers are faked and necessarily everyone who provided raw video would have had to be 'in on it'. Normal people don't do tracking pans of nothing. Since every shot would have been choreographed and storyboarded, the position of the holes (which would have, of course, been a known quantity) also would have been a known quantity and the only minor challenge would be to digitise the footage shot on the day, add the CGI planes, output back to tape and then provide said tape to broadcast networks for distribution hither and nigh.

KISS.

There's a walloping big elephant in Ace's Avid room (aside from the obvious one) and I've only shared that with Pomeroo. Will he ever bump into it? I doubt it. But it's fun to watch him and his minions not recognise it.

It's not like Pomeroo to sit on something he could use against Ace Baker. He must be dying to let it out. Why don't you put the man out of his misery and share it with everybody?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Wow for a recent member you seem to have a fairly good working knowledge of forum members who were banned before your membership became active.

 

[fitzgibbon]

If he doesn't know how to use a camera he had no business telling the Hardfire viewers the black-out was caused by the agc. Is it normal for experts to pretend they know more than they do?

He offered his opinion. It isn't unusual for experts in one specialised field to leverage their skillset and offer and opinion in a related field. Are you now going to posit that he's part of the conspiracy? I offered-up that I thought the black was caused by a briefly-adjusted iris reaching close threshold. However, the cameraman of record says that wasn't so. Fair enough.

The cameraman decides to check focus immediately after the chopper pilot tells him a plane is heading for the towers? You can't be serious.

You were there, eh? You know the exact timeline of events in that chopper? Or are you just spinning another speculation as to when exactly in that video that the pilot passed on this information?

How does Newton's 3rd law explain expelled dust contracting rather than expanding?

Do you know what Newton's third law is?

Why was only FOX affected by that particular signal interruption?

May have to do with how their signal is received by the cable companies. Some have direct cable connections, some don't.

(Steven?)

Ace Baker did more than get a notion - he recreated the composites and they behave like the planes in the 9/11 videos.

Bully for him. He just can't explain how it is that everyone in NYC within view of the WTC that day is somehow a government agent and 'in on it'.

KISS.

Compared with Ace's Rube Goldberg approach, mine's a damn-sight simpler. However, you're welcome to come up with an even more elegant workflow if you can.

It's not like Pomeroo to sit on something he could use against Ace Baker. He must be dying to let it out. Why don't you put the man out of his misery and share it with everybody?

Because I'd sooner let he and his sock puppets twist. Hoist themselves even higher on their own petards. You must get the picture by now. I'm not going to be complicit in helping Ace Baker refine his mania. I'd much sooner watch him embrace his tar-baby and enjoy the show knowing just how obviously wrong he is and how oblivious he is to it.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Wow for a recent member you seem to have a fairly good working knowledge of forum members who were banned before your membership became active.

I think some of the laundry has come back

 

[T.A.M.]

If he doesn't know how to use a camera he had no business telling the Hardfire viewers the black-out was caused by the agc. Is it normal for experts to pretend they know more than they do?




The cameraman decides to check focus immediately after the chopper pilot tells him a plane is heading for the towers? You can't be serious.




How does Newton's 3rd law explain expelled dust contracting rather than expanding?

Why was only FOX affected by that particular signal interruption?




(Steven?)

Ace Baker did more than get a notion - he recreated the composites and they behave like the planes in the 9/11 videos.




KISS.




It's not like Pomeroo to sit on something he could use against Ace Baker. He must be dying to let it out. Why don't you put the man out of his misery and share it with everybody?

It is interesting that you speak of Pomeroo who has been banned from here for over a year. But let me guess, you are JUST a long time lurker...right?

TAM

 

[jaydeehess]

In a low-res compressed copy of the video some of the edge pixels might flip over to the background colour in one part of the image but not in another part. That's why broadcast-quality footage could help to answer the questions and that's why it's mainly the no-planers who want to see broadcast-quality footage.

Exactly. And yet you no planers want to examine and make proclaimations based on this crapola...
.

Its actually not the entire story in low-res and compressed-recompressed images. Its not just background 'flips' its adjacent pixels. This is why in the clip that was , and might still be, on the AE911T site, that Roker's face is a uniform , featureless, light brown.

Yet with this immediatly obvious fact the truthers still insist that, when it suits them, such video contains amazing detail.

A camera may or may not have both optical and electronic zoom. Optical zoom will not affect image quality much. The edges may distort, there may be some chroma abberation and there can be some 'fisheye' effect. If the camera also uses an electronic zoom though then this will effect that zoom by interpolating what the now extra pixels 'should' be. Blowing up such an image will give you what the electronics 'thinks' should be there, not what may actually have been the case.

Zooming in means that any small movement of the camera results in a wide swing of the picture. HOWEVER, zooming in with 'steadycam' also requires electronic processing that can affect image quality at the pixel level and again examining such a video at that level will NOT give you a true idea of what was there.

 

[bill smith]

He offered his opinion. It isn't unusual for experts in one specialised field to leverage their skillset and offer and opinion in a related field. Are you now going to posit that he's part of the conspiracy? I offered-up that I thought the black was caused by a briefly-adjusted iris reaching close threshold. However, the cameraman of record says that wasn't so. Fair enough.



You were there, eh? You know the exact timeline of events in that chopper? Or are you just spinning another speculation as to when exactly in that video that the pilot passed on this information?



Do you know what Newton's third law is?



May have to do with how their signal is received by the cable companies. Some have direct cable connections, some don't.



Bully for him. He just can't explain how it is that everyone in NYC within view of the WTC that day is somehow a government agent and 'in on it'.



Compared with Ace's Rube Goldberg approach, mine's a damn-sight simpler. However, you're welcome to come up with an even more elegant workflow if you can.



Because I'd sooner let he and his sock puppets twist. Hoist themselves even higher on their own petards. You must get the picture by now. I'm not going to be complicit in helping Ace Baker refine his mania. I'd much sooner watch him embrace his tar-baby and enjoy the show knowing just how obviously wrong he is and how oblivious he is to it.

This onversation is getting interesting isn't it Fitz ?

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by bardamu
Why was only FOX affected by that particular signal interruption?

May have to do with how their signal is received by the cable companies. Some have direct cable connections, some don't.

I can think of several ways that only one destination for a video source could be affected but I doubt that bard wants to hear them.