Video Fakery in the 9/11 Attack

[bill smith]

Post#'s 335-337

Proof positive that neither MM or BS have any knowledge of real world physics.

Oh I was just pulling your tail Sabretooth.. lol

 

[fitzgibbon]

Hell I'm surprised half of Manhattan didn't go down.

We are still getting aftershocks here in Toronto.

That you're surprised (sadly) doesn't surprise me. It's tempting to hop on the Gardiner and try to knock some sense in that wooden head. But I suspect it'd be time wasted.

And please don't presume to speak for the GTA unless you're using the royal "we".

 

[Architect]

The plane weighed one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building and even that miniscule proportion was thinly spread out over almost the width and depth of the building.

And it caused a 500,000 ton building to sway back and forth did it ?

Bill, we've covered some of these issues before and it's more than a little disingenious of you to try this line again. To suggest that a building would not undergo perceptable deflection or movement completely misunderstands how structures actually "work".

Buildings are designed to take credible loads, that is those which can reasonably be anticipated. Typical examples include imposed loadings including winds (these are actually quite complex because they may induce torsion, etc.).

If we take wind in a little more detail, one might model the building to take a fairly constant load over one or two faces. The forces so arising are dealt with across the structure, redistributed across the entire fabric.

There is no comparison with the focussed loadings due to the impact of an aircraft on a small part of the building. The comparison would be claiming that a well-lobbed brick couldn't damage you car because 5kg would never damage a 500kg Ford.

In short we don't design for it, and it's quite reasonable to expect movement as the impact forces redistribute themselves/are transmitted throughout the structure.

 

[jaydeehess]

Fitz,,start this video and freeze it the instant you get an image onscreen. Then click it through until the plane emerges from behind the building. No Planes ?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6402347900887643799#

You're daffy. I see the aircraft approach and hit the building then a fireball erupts along the structure and out the other side. A shadow is cast lower down on WTC 1 by this cloud of fire and smoke.

I see no plane coming out the other side.

Now, is it really necessary to have yet another looong thread on this subject? Did not Ace Baker carry on and on long enough with this nonsense?

No-planers are the looniest of the loons in the whole 9/11 conspiracy genre.

Gee, I wonder why the choppers were all filming the side of WTC 1 that had the big freakin hole in it and there was only a brief venture over to the other side? I wonder why traffic choppers don't dwell more often on smoothly flowing traffic and instead consentrate so much on the slow or stalled traffic lanes of nearby highways? For that matter when a shooting occurs at nightclub why is it that the news reporters show up there at the front door to do their stand ups and not in the back or at a nearby nightclub?

I call cover-up!

 

[jaydeehess]

.

There is no comparison with the focussed loadings due to the impact of an aircraft on a small part of the building. The comparison would be claiming that a well-lobbed brick couldn't damage you car because 5kg would never damage a 500kg Ford.
.

I wonder if bill needs to see a pumpkin going through the door of a van?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=didpjwBgFqY&NR=1

 

[Andy_Ross]

With that shattering blow did you see a kind of shimmy run across the face of the building ? The wall of vertical columns should have been a little like the strings on a guitar and you would expect to see such a shimmy.

Like in 'The Matrix' when the helicopter crashes into the building?

The plane weighed one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building and even that miniscule proportion was thinly spread out over almost the width and depth of the building.

And it caused a 500,000 ton building to sway back and forth did it ?

Why not? think of the speed it was travelling. All that energy had to go somewhere.

Skyscrapers sway in the wind, some even have 'Tuned Mass Dampers' built into them to cut down the swaying motion to stop people inside getting motion sickness.

If the wind can make a tower sway why wouldn't an Airliner travelling at very high speed transfer enough energy to cause movement?

 

[bill smith]

You're daffy. I see the aircraft approach and hit the building then a fireball erupts along the structure and out the other side. A shadow is cast lower down on WTC 1 by this cloud of fire and smoke.

I see no plane coming out the other side.

Now, is it really necessary to have yet another looong thread on this subject? Did not Ace Baker carry on and on long enough with this nonsense?

No-planers are the looniest of the loons in the whole 9/11 conspiracy genre.

Gee, I wonder why the choppers were all filming the side of WTC 1 that had the big freakin hole in it and there was only a brief venture over to the other side? I wonder why traffic choppers don't dwell more often on smoothly flowing traffic and instead consentrate so much on the slow or stalled traffic lanes of nearby highways? For that matter when a shooting occurs at nightclub why is it that the news reporters show up there at the front door to do their stand ups and not in the back or at a nearby nightclub?

I call cover-up!

Yes all those choppers on the North Side just hanging in the air, cameras rolling and with WTC7 nicely in shot (by chance). Imagine if a plane had come screaming down in a nosedive into the roof of WTC7 ? I can just see it....the biggest and most televisual fireball the world had ever seen. And luckily all those choppers, media and the World audiience combine to share the most spectacular and shocking footage ever seen on the Planet.

 

[bill smith]

Like in 'The Matrix' when the helicopter crashes into the building?



Why not? think of the speed it was travelling. All that energy had to go somewhere.

Skyscrapers sway in the wind, some even have 'Tuned Mass Dampers' built into them to cut down the swaying motion to stop people inside getting motion sickness.

If the wind can make a tower sway why wouldn't an Airliner travelling at very high speed transfer enough energy to cause movement?

A single shattering blow sets up a different dynamic in the structure than a steady wind does.

 

[little grey rabbit]

The landing gear is the one of the strongest things on a plane it has to hold up the plane!!!

Well exactly, I am starting a push to start making aircraft blackboxes out of recycled passports and airplane tyres.

They seem to be better at surviving....

 

[9/11-investigator]

Mainstream truthers should HATE no planers. No self-respecting truther should give those idiots the time of day unless they LIKE having their movement thought of as the ramblings of a bunch of morons.

Twinstead reveals that if only the truthers would eliminate the no-planers from their ranks, the truth movement would not be a 'bunch of morons'.

Something beautiful is blossoming here...

 

[jhunter1163]

If there were no planes, what killed all of Stanley Praimnath's co-workers?

Bill? LGR? Jammy? Hello?

And I'd reckon that a bullet weighs less than one three-hundredth of one percent as much as I do, but I am sure as hell not standing in the path of one to prove that such a small mass couldn't possibly damage me.

 

[Sabretooth]

Twinstead reveals that if only the truthers would eliminate the no-planers from their ranks, the truth movement would not be a 'bunch of morons'.

Something beautiful is blossoming here...

...and instead you'd just be a "gaggle of morons"...

 

[jhunter1163]

Twinstead reveals that if only the truthers would eliminate the no-planers from their ranks, the truth movement would not be a 'bunch of morons'.

Something beautiful is blossoming here...

Oh, they'd still be morons. It just wouldn't be as immediately obvious.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A single shattering blow sets up a different dynamic in the structure than a steady wind does.

But would it make the building move? How much energy would it transfer?

Do you think Mr Smith that there were no planes?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Bill? LGR? Jammy? Hello?

And I'd reckon that a bullet weighs less than one three-hundredth of one percent as much as I do, but I am sure as hell not standing in the path of one to prove that such a small mass couldn't possibly damage me.

Nobody denies that the WTC towers did need a lick of paint, in case they had not been stuffed with nano-thermite.

 

[triforcharity]

Why didn't the man in the white uniform react to a roaring jet flying over them at very low altitude and incredible speed?

[qimg]http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/3331/95680511.jpg[/qimg]

He does. Keep watching.

 

[little grey rabbit]

He does. Keep watching.

While I expect that something flying hit both towers on 9/11, there is no way that the Naudet video and the "plane" it shows has not been tampered with. Maybe it has just been blurred a bit to make it impossible to identify but it flickers in and out of different frames in the most bizarre way.

Anyone got a heads up as to which street the famous passport was found on?

 

[MIKILLINI]

"The FOX “Chopper 5” and CNN “Ghostplane” videos are both shown to have multiple observable features irreconcilable with reality, yet perfectly consistent with video compositing. For instance, Chopper 5 is missing an airplane in its first 5 seconds." -- From: http://www.psy-opera.com/Papers/Composites-1-9.pdf

Where have I heard 5 seconds before?

Why, oh why can't you conspiracists recognize the fools gold that pulls you in the delusional pool?

 

[MIKILLINI]

The plane weighed one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building and even that miniscule proportion was thinly spread out over almost the width and depth of the building.

And it caused a 500,000 ton building to sway back and forth did it ?

This post is an example for lack of knowledge in dynamic forces.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Then by all means please explain how the home videos show the exact same thing as what was seen on television. The private pictures, the eyewitnesses, you may begin....

The example of the staged amateur video shows that they put a lot of effort into making it look like it really was an amateur video. No computer graphics except the plane.