Merged No Planer calls for scientific study / Missiles of 9/11

brazenlilraisin said:
Ya. Fail. From here on out you really don't deserve any response at all.
Click to expand...

So you believe the YouTube 'uploader guy'? So he would have gone into such detail as to put in the white flash into the video? Not likely. That's an original flash to be used as a marker to make the video editing consistent when inserting a computer graphics plane into several 'amateur' videos with different camera angles etc.
 
Anders Lindman said:
So you believe the YouTube 'uploader guy'? So he would have gone into such detail as to put in the white flash into the video? Not likely. That's an original flash to be used as a marker to make the video editing consistent when inserting a computer graphics plane into several 'amateur' videos with different camera angles etc.
Click to expand...
Now you doubt the creditability of the guy who created your fake video?
:jaw-dropp
 
Robrob said:
Now you doubt the creditability of the guy who created your fake video?
:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

No I don't. For some reason the person uploading that video had access to the original, or a unedited copy of the original. And notice the comment from the uploader: "This original in my opinion is a complete fake."

The uploader writes: "in my opinion". If the person had faked the video him- or herself, then the comment "in my opinion" doesn't fit much, now does it?
 
Very typical use of sciencey sounding words such as energy. This is not meant to be critical of truthers, more a critique on the lack of general science understanding.

Too many people think of energy as some sort of fuel that causes things to happen. A better definition is the ability to do work. The moving plane had had mass and velocity and thus kinetic energy. As it hit the tower some of the energy went into deformation of the plane itself. Easy so far. However as the plane slowed it experiences an acceleration. Mass with acceleration we science people call a force. So the plane hitting a steel beam experiences a force. Newtons 3rd states an action has an equal and opposite force so the beam itself needs to be able to withstand the force. Pretty sure a simple mind game could solve it. Imagine a single girder fixed on an airstrip. If a plane hit hit would it deform? The answer would be yes. So extend that to a row of girders. Would 5 be undeformed? 10 undeformed, you choose a number. Then what would happen if the plane was moving faster? Would it deform more of them?

Don't confuse deform with being destroyed. A building is a structure in equilibrium, deform enough beams enough to destroy the equilibrium then the building will fall.

Next part truthers ignore is inertia. A moving object will tend to stay moving until acted on by an exterior force. The material in the plane still has mass, even though it has deformed. It actually doesn't really matter what the material is, equal mass and velocity is equal inertia. Like the old joke what weighs the most 1kg of lead or 1kg of feathers?

The material only really changes how quickly the energy (and inertia) disperses. Granted aluminum is softer than steel, but so is lead. If the lead is moving fast enough it will break through a steel sheet. It gets deformed in the process but the inertia carries it through.

Often harder materials are less easily able to withstand impact. They are hard because their structure does nit tend to allow their crystalline structure (as in the case of steel) to flow and deform around an impact. This is one reason we use steel instead of cast iron these day. Impurities introduced into the iron, typically carbon forms harder areas between the crystal structure, which maintains the strength (real word is toughness) while allowing the material to flow so you sort of get the best of both worlds. Imagine firing a diamond at high speed into a steel plate. The diamond will put so much of it's energy into deformation (in it's case breaking apart) the much softer steel will deform less. Even so make the diamond move fast enough the energy dissipation will not be able to occur quickly enough and will break the steel.

So to conclude. A relatively heavy aluminum (and other materials) is very likely to deform steel beams when moving at high velocity, due to dissipation of energy and inertia even though aluminum is softer than steel. Never underestimate impact forces.

Couple of truther experiments all done with one car, one wall and one driver.

Get a nice sturdy wall and drive at it really fast without a seatbelt.

Remember steel is harder and stronger than brick so the car should be fine and because inertia can be ignored when telling fairy tales you won't go through the window.


Could you report back on your results?

If all goes to plan you should just crumble the wall into dust and pass through unhurt.

Have simplified things a little for the truthers (avoided using words that are to big).
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
No I don't. For some reason the person uploading that video had access to the original, or a unedited copy of the original. And notice the comment from the uploader: "This original in my opinion is a complete fake."

The uploader writes: "in my opinion". If the person had faked the video him- or herself, then the comment "in my opinion" doesn't fit much, now does it?
Click to expand...


Allowed your own opinions not your own facts.

Opinion does need knowledge and understanding of the issue.

I have no opinion of the validity of the Higgs Boson because I don't understand enough about it. I have to rely on the people who do. I am not arrogant (plenty arrogant in some ways) to disregard people who have spent their lives in understanding the subject.
 
Montag451 said:
Allowed your own opinions not your own facts.
Click to expand...

It's not my opinion. The person uploading the video wrote "in my opinion" about the video being faked. That shows that the person who uploaded the video had NOT edited it himself/herself.

In reality the uploader of that video is probably some government agent.
 
Anders Lindman said:
No I don't. For some reason the person uploading that video had access to the original, or a unedited copy of the original. And notice the comment from the uploader: "This original in my opinion is a complete fake."

The uploader writes: "in my opinion". If the person had faked the video him- or herself, then the comment "in my opinion" doesn't fit much, now does it?
Click to expand...

Uh, no. He admits he edited out the plane in the original WTC tourist video to show how "easy" it was to edit videos. Honestly, I know English isn't your first language - if you are confused you should ask questions.

"i created this to show just how easy it is to fake a video."
Click to expand...

Not, "I posted the original secret "plane-less" video."
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
It's not my opinion. The person uploading the video wrote "in my opinion" about the video being faked. That shows that the person who uploaded the video had NOT edited it himself/herself.

In reality the uploader of that video is probably some government agent.
Click to expand...

And your evidence for him being a government agent is......

Remember.... You are allowed an opinion, but you base that opinion on what?


Mmmmmmm the troll is strong in this one
 
Robrob said:
Uh, no. He admits he edited out the plane in the original WTC tourist video to show how "easy" it was to edit videos. Honestly, I know English isn't your first language - if you are confused you should ask questions.



Not, I posted the original secret "plane-less" video.
Click to expand...

Read further of what the uploader wrote: "This original in my opinion is a complete fake." How does that fit with the claim of the uploader having edited the video? The first claim is: "i created this to show just how easy it is to fake a video" Are you sure 'created' means 'editing out a plane'?
 
Montag451 said:
You are allowed an opinion, but you base that opinion on what?
Click to expand...

Based on this:

image.jpg


From: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLPeuJ4ni8U

The white dot is not some editing artifact. Watch the video clip and you will see that it's a bright flash in the original footage. That's a time and position marker deliberately put there along with the explosives for making the 'cookie cutter' plane shape in the facade.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Based on this:

[qimg]http://s9.postimage.org/n0kspwz5r/image.jpg[/qimg]

From: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLPeuJ4ni8U

The white dot is not some editing artifact. Watch the video clip and you will see that it's a bright flash in the original footage. That's a time and position marker deliberately put there along with the explosives for making the 'cookie cutter' plane shape in the facade.
Click to expand...

So your qualifications in photo analysis are?
 
Anders Lindman said:
The white dot is not some editing artifact. Watch the video clip and you will see that it's a bright flash in the original footage. That's a time and position marker deliberately put there along with the explosives for making the 'cookie cutter' plane shape in the facade.
Click to expand...



[Forrest Gump]

Stupid is as stupid does.

[/Forrest Gump]
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
What qualifications do you need? A child can watch the video and see that the dot is a flash and not something edited in.
Click to expand...

OK fine. There were lots of camera's aimed at the towers by this time and live TV coverage, so where is there a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc, etc, camera angle showing the same artifact? Corroboration would be helpful, otherwise it means absolutely nothing.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Read further of what the uploader wrote: "This original in my opinion is a complete fake." How does that fit with the claim of the uploader having edited the video? The first claim is: "i created this to show just how easy it is to fake a video" Are you sure 'created' means 'editing out a plane'?
Click to expand...

The poster states he edited out the plane from the original video to show how easy it was to edit videos.

http://911review.org/brad.com/fake_video/FAKE.html
i created this to show just how easy it is to fake a video. Many of the 9/11 videos were released days, or even years later (the original for this one, was released YEARS after September 11 !)
This original in my opinion is a complete fake.Remember, MANY of the videos you see about 9-11 have NOT been authenticated, and were either submitted by ANONYMOUS people, or the people who submitted them work for the government, Such as one video by SCOTT MEYERS computer programmer for the NIST.
Click to expand...

Please let me know if you need any more help with this.
 
Anders Lindman said:
What qualifications do you need? A child can watch the video and see that the dot is a flash and not something edited in.
Click to expand...

Pareidolia.. Ever heard if it. People turn a vague or insignificant image and perceive it as being important.

Don't tell me you have never seen an image of David Icke or Alex Jones in a burnt potato.

I am not sure a child can see it could be regarded as evidence. In fact I showed it to my 2 year old and weirdly he just said "biccie" (slang for biscuit in the uk) not "Boeing 757 nose cone"

A video posted on youtube which may or may not be edited isn't really reliable.

All you need to do is get the original file, look at the frame pixel by pixel to prove authenticity by finding no evidence of manipulation. Next have a number of unbiased experts (aeronautical designers and engineers would probably be appropriate) to identify that the image is of a nose cone of a 747 jet.

Now that would blow the whole gubermunt conspiracy out the water. Imagine your riches and fame, the tv appearances, you would be a hero.

And I would quite happily bow to your expertise. Until then you have nothing.
 
Anders Lindman said:
What qualifications do you need? A child can watch the video and see that the dot is a flash and not something edited in.
Click to expand...

And I guess you need to be a paleontologist to know that there's something off about the dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park"? Any idiot can do a jump-cut and make something out of nothing as that person did. But it takes a special kind of idiot to take that nothing and claim it's something. Behold! Trutherdom writ large!

Fitz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom