First up, anon from the previous comments section. I follow on.
"Let's take 9/11 one step further.
For starters, I have seen live video proving that no airliners hit the WTC towers, taken by a live NBC affiliate on that date.
When a person pulls their head out of their colon, and accepts the fact that the planes were photo-shopped on to the WTC videos (and rather crudely, in places) after the fact, and that there is a time delay between when things happen and when you see them on TV, it explains a number of things, such as:
1) Why there is no video of ANYBODY boarding any of the planes in question, at the boarding gates in question, at the airports in question, on the date in question. Additionally, the FBI stupidly claimed that 9 of the "Arabs" were sent to secondary security, due to "suspicion." If that's so, then why is there no secondary security video of any of them? Are they fucking vampires? And, if they went through this added security, then how could they have possibly taken all of the weapons and such on board that the government claims? And where are the private and federal lawsuits against the airports, airlines, and/or security company(ies) for allowing it to happen? Simple. There are no lawsuits because there is no video of them, and they didn't get those weapons on the planes, because they didn't get on the planes. This also explains why a number of the accused “hijackers” were subsequently found to be alive and living in other countries – quite a trick for a “suicide” pilot/hijacker.
2) Why they have never recovered any tail sections, any of the huge, 6-ton tempered-steel outboard engines (including the struts), any of the tubular steel seat frames, any of the passengers' corpses, any of their luggage, fuselages, the basically indestructible black boxes (which have ALWAYS been recovered before and since 9/11), etc. When planes of that type crash, they leave wreckage.
3) Why a woman who still lives in New York spent 5 years searching for relatives of 64 people on one of the obviously phony passenger lists, and even after hiring detectives, never found a single one.
4) Why Willie Brown and a number of clergy left San Francisco International Airport after a number of hours on that date, because not one family member/relative/friend ever showed up to inquire after any of the alleged passengers on "Flight 93."
5) Why NORAD never intercepted any of these "hijacked" airliners -- because there were none to intercept.
6) Why neither United nor American airlines has ever filed a loss claim for any one of those four flights.
7) Why there is no video of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.
8) Why, up until late 2004, as pointed out by a noted 9/11 researcher, the BTS web site showed that neither of the American flights were even scheduled to fly on that date. The BTS pulled the pages off-line and doctored them, later reposting them, but unfortunately for them, by that time, the original pages had been backed up and widely distributed over the Internet.
9) Why the FAA had the tail numbers of the 2 United flights registered as "valid," meaning that the planes were still in service, until September 28, 2005. The FAA only de-registered them after two other 9/11 researchers kept demanding to know why the planes were still registered as being in service, four years after both the federal government and the airlines had stated for the record that they were destroyed in a “terrorist” attack.
10) Why the FAA's own directory of pilots and their qualifications showed (at least a while ago; they've probably doctored that by now, just as they doctored the BTS web pages after the criminal implications were pointed out) that on 9/11, not one of the eight pilots alleged to have been in the cockpits upon takeoff had a current, valid commercial pilot's license."
Hullo again anon. Will you forgive me for declaring myself dubious on the no-planes thing? Perhaps it's the curious take-no-prisoners, fuck-the-lot-of-yers attitude of the no-planers? They remind me of Tasmanian Devils - they'll pick a fight anywhere, for any reason, and even amongst their own family (if you can dig it). I've yet to see one of them convince anyone of anything. Or even try really...
Furthermore I'm not quite sure what utility might be gained by dispensing with planes and utilising doctored footage that would necessarily be at odds with the numerous witnesses, particularly given that the remote control of civilian jetliners has been a simple reality since the late sixties. It's like the Apollo photos with the alleged mismatched shadows that supposedly have two light sources. Why bother using two when one would suffice and two would offer no perceptible advantage? This scores big in the what's the point? department.
I will concede some aspects of the no-plane case. Dave McGowan turned me around on the Pentagon. Prior to that I'd gone along with Mike Rivero and his numerous witnesses. McGowan did a number on the lot of them. And obviously there was no plane in that field in Shanksville (but there does seem to have been a debris field leading up to it). But as for the twin towers I've yet to see anything that made me think twice.
What does everyone else think? Are there any non-tasmanian no-planers out there?
Disinfo and psyops aside, here are my technical thoughts on the matter:
In Anon's spray, photoshop is the wrong word. Photoshop is for the manipulation of still images only. Moving footage would require a far more elaborate process. I can see two options.
Option 1 - A 3D plane comped into footage of an empty sky. Given the simplicity of a render involving a simple metallic object like a jet-liner (a render is the conversion of sundry algorithms and data into shiny complete footage), and given the grunt of computers nowadays (even in 2001), this is just feasible. It used to be that renders would take an hour a frame (and there's 25 frames in a second don't forget) but we've come a long way since then. Rendering gets closer and closer to real-time every day. Anyone who's played one of those new car-racing games and marvelled at how good it looks, you're looking at real-time rendering. It's not quite photo-real but it's not bad neither. Also in televised sports games, horse races, and swimming competitions it's possible to see various graphics comped real-time onto the field, or pool, or whatever. The camera pans to and fro but the graphics stick to the environment. Mind you, the 2D graphics that sports require is way simpler than any fully 3D jet liners. And the computer games involve their own series of cheats not available to people with real cameras in a real city. The problem with this option is the fact that eye-witnesses would have nothing to see. The planes would only exist on TV.
Hmm, thinks: Would a separate team be required for each separate shot? Or would each camera be able to plug into a central computer supporting a single 3D model that would be automatically comped into each camera's output? Nightmarish! And how to avoid having the plane appear over the various foreground elements of smoke etc? In the regular post-production world this would involve the manipulation of soft-edged mattes that would involve hours of work and absolutely smash the possibility of real time rendering. Furthermore, the requirements of coordinating CG animation with real world pyro is so fraught (certainly in real time) as to be, well... frankly impossible.
Option 2 - Some variety of projection with no comping necessary. God knows how this would work: an insanely powerful 3D projector (or a series of them) would throw a solid non-transparent image of the jetliner into the sky that would not only convince witnesses, but also cleanly transfer to film and television. It is true that were this possible it would simplify the whole process. One camera, a hundred cameras, witnesses in their thousands, who gives a shit? Mind you the problems I outlined above in regards to coordinating the timing of holographic plane with the non-holographic kerosene explosions are identical. Of course above all this lies not only the fact that no such thing is known to exist but I can't even imagine how it would work. Further, in some ways it reminds of that old chestnut you see in superhero movies - unbelieveable innovations that would make their inventor rich if only he thought of selling it. Like Spider-man's web shooters. Honestly, the guy is perpetually poor and it never occurs to him to sell these things? Okay, same-same for massive projectors that can mimic reality in 3D without a screen or anything. Never mind Mahathir saying that if they can make Avatar they can make anything: Avatar is a kind of false z-depth 3D (ie. if you go closer to the screen you won't see around the corner) and you have to wear special specs to even see it at all. A massive projector capable of fooling a city would be to Avatar what Avatar is to Indonesian shadow puppets.
But to hell with me! Pile in folks! Has anyone got any time for the no-plane gig?
44 comments:
It does occur to me that I'm in old-hat/who-cares territory with this (as we discussed in the last piece) but I've never seen anyone actually stop and properly deal with the no-plane thing. And what with the savvy people we get in the comments here I thought that this place would be as good as any.
Um... I hope it's not Gallier versus The World again.
Mind you, that was pretty good fun...
I've always been in the "who-cares" camp and have regarded the plane/no-plane argument as only serving the interests of the dis-info crowd.
To me the important point has been that all three WTC buildings were controlled demos. The 'how' tells us the 'who' and that leads to the 'why'.
So ordinarily I'd let this one pass BUT something has always puzzled me, Nobby, and you might be just the man to unpuzzle me.
Holography has been around for decades but it has never, to my mind, been exploited for entertainment commercially. I have wondered for years if the NSA, or similar, might have secured patents over its technology and sat on them so as to preserve its 'ooh-aah' factor for some 'big day' in the future.
So have I just been barking up the wrong tree or what, Nobby? (and I'll try and not take the Tasmanian Devil description personally.)
FB
I went to Disney in the early 70’s and as part of one of the attractions there was a hologram of Cinderella’s ball. You saw it from an elevated position on a slowly moving rail car ride and the characters were dancing in 3D in real time but you could see right through them. I am quite prepared to believe that in 25 – 30 years the technology could have improved a hell of a lot. Having said that, why go to the bother when drones are a much simpler solution to the problem. The BLEVE from the side of the second tower could be stage managed but the implosion on the adjacent face I should imagine is near impossible to do. To argue from no passengers to no planes is non sequitur. Drones could easily account for apparent inconsistencies like no video footage at the airports etc. As well as no passengers there were also no box cutters. This most unlikely of terrorist implements was added in later to make the story stretch further. What I think, is that it was believed in the plans conception that after a while, everyday life would give people something different to worry about and the Twin Towers would fade in importance and all that would be left over was the War on Terror. What was not expected was that every time Bush or Cheney said the word Terror the general public would say “Eh!”
OK, Nobody, let's pile in. :-)
I've spent some time thinking about the potential for no-planes, and, whilst looking at the evidence as its presented, have flip-flopped several times. To me, it's like some kind of 'denial' territory, if you catch my drift?
First, let's introduce the characters of the NPT movement. A funny bunch if ever there was one. In no particular order, we have:
Ace Baker - Laurel Canyon material if ever there was such a thing. Ace's background as a musician means he obviously has the right skill set. But hey, he's taught himself video skills, so lets cut him some slack. He (famously) pretended to shoot himself whilst being interviewed on JihadRadio. :)
Simon Shack - an American musician (what is it with musicians?) living in Italy, and producer of the September Clues films. I've exchanged a couple of messages with him.
Judy Wood - A real life scientician! We're moving on up the ranks now, but Judy's thesis that high energy weapons were used from space, have left a lot of people wondering.... me included. She's quite a fan of fellow mad scientician, Hutchison, famous for the 'Hutchison Effect'.. Google it, and be amazed (not).
Genghis - You'll like Genghis, Noby. He's a fun guy. Always losing his temper and accusing everyone of being cointel or disinfo. In fact, it was Genghis that made me think twice about the whole NPT thing. Thanks Genghis!
Killtown - anonymous blogger.
Jeff Hill - calls up and records his phonecalls with various people involved as eyewitnesses or people who filmed the actual plane crashes, the Evan Fairbanks being a good one!
I've probably left some NPTers out and for that I apologise... I know they're a vein lot and need their moment in the limelight.
To me, the NPT movement is the perfect rabbit hole. Anyone with a half a brain can look at both Pentagon and Shanksville incidents and get apretty good idea that its possible there were no passenger planes here. Thats good enough. Leave it at that and ask questions about those two incidents. Right? Right.
No.
Lets encompass the 4 incidents, and spread the truth (that there were no passenger planes at Pentagon and Shanksville) and mix it with a lie (that there were no planes at any of the 4 incidents) and you create your perfect rabbit warren. Add a few 'experts' in the mix, and you have yourself an internet free-for-all, a never-ending Craig Murray'esque kind of blog with never-ending self opinionated crap.
It's a masterplan really. One need only take a step back to see it for what it is. There is no end to the willing lambs that tread this path.
Oh I have to chime in, if I'm even mentioned (in the comment but still).
The no plane at WTC argument is pure disinfo, your arguments to debunk are sound and good. Just to add a point, if you ever have seen the Naudet Brothers footage of the first impact, you can clearly hear the sound of the plane and the variation of it along the trajectory of the planelong before it is visible, so your "3D hologram thinga-magic needs also to simulate the sound of a plane.
As for the pentagon plane, I have another theory that is not as clear cut as the plane/no plane dichotomy. I've tried to locate the video that convinced me of this alternative hypothese but failed. I will retry this week-end. The theory is that there was indeed a plane. The plane has been seen by a lot of people who could not be plants. The difference with others is that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, it flew over the Pentagon and went away. The explosion seen was made with explosives/truck bomb/missile whatever.
My take on the subject has always followed similar footsteps to your own pursuit above, Mr. N.:
On technical merit alone it is pushing the bounds of sheer possibility to "fake" the two NYC overflights.
As for the lack of video, there's a distinctly elephantine pattern being ignored there: the complete clampdown on ALL such video, aside from the orchestrated variety aired by the broadcast media.
This smacks of broad-brush policy applied to deter the discovery of additional bits of physical evidence demonstrating the orchestrated nature of the larger event, regardless of whether or not there were planes involved. Such that what was hidden in plain sight remains so, et al.
Yes, the entire monstrous thing was just a replay of Gulf of Tonkin for the 21st Century. Conspiracy FACT writ large.
However, I will also wager they torched some planes and made a big mess to help sell the authenticity of their big false flag show, even as the planes were flown by wire and the bulk of the other "evidence" was manufactured, manipulated, etc.
All the "if A then B" games at work in the arguments surrounding that fateful day are just another bad case of Hegelian Dialectic Rash as a result of too much direct interaction with this severely tainted subject.
Severe cases may require a thorough detox program, complete with sandy beaches, attractive native girls dancing by the campfire and copious adult beverages.
I'm not making light of the tragedy here mind you, just attempting to shift things away from the shouting match environment that tends to develop around any and all such discussions.
And is it just me, or are you actually baiting the spooks by posting such subject matter Mr. N? Openly daring them to play their semantic games in moderated circumstances, such that we -- the lunatic fringe who don't answer their call to duty -- can disassemble their tactics under the harsh light of reality and a few more souls might become wise to the various tools in their trick bag?
If so, cheerio... =)
Hmmm. I'm in the don't know camp too.
I also think that speculating on the 'how' of it all detracts from the obvious absurdity of great swathes of the 'official narrative' - which is no doubt manna from heaven for its promoters and defenders. It's those myriad absurdities together with Establishment categoric refusal to address them that point four-square at an explanation of events so inimical the Establishment that it has to be kept hidden at pretty much ANY cost. IOW, elements of the Establishment - necessary, powerful, 'Deep-State' elements - are deeply implicated in those events. That much I know with as much certainty as I know anything. Everything else really is speculation - or rather pretty much everything else because, for example, the collapse of the buildings had to obey certain unambiguous laws of physics and chemistry which narrows the field of pure speculation somewhat. IOW if it IS proven categorically that explosives HAD TO BE INVOLVED, then the official narrative really is dead. That seems to me to remain a particularly fruitful line of additional research.
On the 'no-planes' thing. I remain intrigued. Have a look at the Killtown site for example. One thing among all the verbiage and (doctored??) video that sticks in my mind is the speed of the tail section of that second plane, viewed from below as it approaches and vanishes into the building. It takes 8 frames for the plane to travel its own length as it approaches and exactly 8 frames for the tail section to disappear inside from the frame that shows the nose impacting. Strange that - not to say impossible.
Puts me in mind of the now proven doctoring of the Abraham Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination between its alleged filming and its release to the public years later (only stills from it before that). The accumulated evidence on JFK (ie that Oswald was NOT a lone nut) is absolutely overwhelming and nobody who reviews it properly could possibly conclude otherwise - but the official version stands.
This is a solid analisis, both by anonymous and Nob. I can't see the Tasmanian devil here, only someone (sometwok, actually) laying out rather a couple of "facts", or, "observations".
Ultimately it does not matter for what happened, but I see the point and support it. To decipher how it was done, us folks are obviously stuck with a frame of reference of technical possibilities as we think they are today. Now, with reverse-engineered saucers since at least the late 40's being a very probable reality, we are left in the dust when we try to apply what we think is possible. Not that 3D animation is way more cool in those underground bases. We probably missed two or three generations of ANY tech. Same for Tesla weapons pulverizing the towers - how to approach such an analysis? Perhaps we are like 18th century people here. Still, plenty of pitchforks around ;-]
idiot savant
Dear Nobody:
I'm amazed and honored (I think) that you gave that kind of exposure to my comment. First, though . . .
Obviously, Photoshop was the wrong word; I'm no video expert. They were put on the videos, anyway. In fact, if you really take the time to look closely at some of them, they are so amateurish that you might wonder how you didn't notice it previously.
As far as witnesses, interestingly enough, within less than 10 minutes of the first explosion, "news" organizations were interviewing a number of "eyewitnesses," who mainly happened to be high-ranking executives and officers of those very same organizations. What are the chances of that? And how do you get all of that up and running so quickly within a few minutes of a "surprise" terrorist attack?
Besides, if they were going to pull off something like that, how difficult would it be to have their whores interview their own people? It would be no more difficult than having their whores interview their own people, passing themselves off as relatives of 266 passengers, none of whose corpses have ever been recovered. Or fabricating "transcripts" of phone calls from planes, using voice-morphing techniques. It's really not as complicated or far-fetched as it sounds.
I think that I covered the no-plane thingy fairly well in my previous comment, so I don't want to go into a long exposition here. I'll just keep it simple. If there were conventional jumbo jets involved, then how to explain what I wrote previously? The odds against those things all being some kind of weird coincidence that could be easily waved off wouldn't fit on a calculator screen, and would involve trashing numerous laws of physics.
Of course, I realize that most of your readers rolled their eyes over my comments. Brainwashing and media conditioning can be pretty tough to shake. Hopefully, if your readers start thinking really hard about all of this, and realize that the feddle gummint has never offered ANY evidence to back up its fairy tale, and has in fact refused to do so when asked, I think you might see a few more comments.
Happy Trails
vampire patsies? hardly.
all port security at originating fields - israeli controlled co.
WTC - planes
PA - plane, 8mi debris field, midair breakup/probable shootdown
pentagon - probable missle, but not a commercial jet. no way.
5 concurrent FEMA/NORAD drills going that day, too many bogies to sort real frm bogie.
bumblebee flts over highest concentration of mil/civ fields on the continent. no norad order to scramble. all norad hi brass promoted. lower wing commanders/pilots most dead now, under odd circumstances.
pipe laid years b4, for neocon 'nu pearl' op; cheney/rummy reduction of 'redundant, old cold war' scramble wings'..long'd planned, knew where holes were in COG (Continuation of Gov mastr plan)and widened them, including response protocols btwn FAA/NORAD/WH.. i've read the JCS Joint Chiefs)report to congress, 1st or second, post 9/11.
day b4, 3trill announced on msm missing frm DOD/Pentagon - never another word.....
dov zakheim; corp shares in remote control company;
"dual Israeli-American citizen as Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the United States Dept. of Defense should raise some eyebrows. He was also President Bush's senior foreign policy advisor during the 2000 campaign.
He was (is?) Corporate VP at System Planning Corporation, a major player in the "Homeland Security" industry. One of the products that SysPlan sells is the Command Transmitter System, a remote control system for planes, boats, missiles and other vehicles2 . It's highly customable and configurable to interface with an almost limitless number of vehicle types. "
tech was present in those models of planes, capabilities a given for ground based or mobile override.
possibilities:
switchout of orig planes/any occupants; WTC inbounds - mockd empties -juiced up payload;thermite/thermate/other.
WTC
- set charges - towers both had construction crews w/full access for over a month.
bugout/lease break - israeli firm.
horde of gold, and horde of 'evidence' - FED cases of 'gold price fixing - all gone.
Pentagon -
impact hole too small; vaporized debris, no tail/wings/engines... utter bullshit.
extras:
insider trading(fantastically untrackable/untraceable!?) on shorted airline stocks, literal killing made. unclaimed to date.
KROLL gets what blackboxes are said to've been found.. never another word, down the memory hole.
patriot I, pre-written well in advance, rush'd thru unread/middle of night.
boozing jihadists in titti-bars, and on israeli/dual casino boat miami.
intact patsy visa found on street blocks frm WTC...
anthrax scare - only targets - dems (that i remb)
dog that didn't bark - SS not airborne during attack - w/gilligan in fla school, reading 'my pet goat'.
odigo text warning..
****
well gotta scoot for now.. i'd lost all this b4 and hadta retype... sigh..
catch y'all later
Re: War of the worlds, Orson Welles, apparently people saw UFOs
Who has ever actually seen a plane crash into a building
Anyone ever flown a plane into a building
Devil's Advocate
When something happens that we have never seen before perhaps we have to fill in the 'blanks'
As for the science , me don't know diddly
cheers
Oh [vocative case!], our gentle host, Mr. Nobody!
Thank you for getting me started once again!
Part 1 of 2:
3D images of the alleged planes? Who spoke of 3D images? 2D images were more than enough for the job, since the vast majority of the "news agencies" clients were focused on the Hegelian part of the specific TV-series: The sentimental factor. After all, the worse-than-YouTube quality level of the aired footage, even though it was shot by the best and most expensive professional cameras in the world, must probably indicate some heavy editing.
I would like to point out the fine work Mr. Simon Shack did in his 2008 documentary called "September Clues" where analyzing the recorded official broadcasts he proved that the U.S. TV networks used computer generated sceneries of Manhattan on 9/11 and the "planes" were hasty improvised 2D images, taking advantage of the "live TV" broadcasting special feature of the 17 seconds delay between capturing and airing.
Mr. Shack provides his documentary free of charge and kindly prompts us to download it from www.thesocialservice.it or watch it online spanned in two parts:
September Clues -Part 1/2 and September Clues -Part 2/2, among other informative videos of his.
Personally, I always try to download (and keep in my video library) whatever I am going to watch because it usually is of a better quality than the video-sharing version and it will be much easier for me to navigate through the video, even in a frame-by-frame manner, watching it in multimedia players (such as Media Player Classic, VLC, etc) than in the browser's flash player.
Let me list a few of the impossibilities aired as facts by those five major news outlets, most of which the "September Clues" expose:
- The screaming (but not so famous) "Nose-Out" scene, that was "fixed" later with a large screen banner(!) covering it; FOX TV also tried to conceal this footage from public view claiming some copyright issues before editing these few frames out.
- Mike Walter's "scientific explanation" of the airplane wings folding back(!) during impacts! Breaking technology --pun intended!
- The "walking Verrazano Bridge" footage. Simply the best!
- Huge planes looking like fuzzy black shades under direct sunlight in a clear sky; and their impossible reflections.
- The different plane paths before the impacts, presented by different sources.
- The different colour-balance profiles and the different foreground and background buildings of the same base-footage of the Twins, as aired by different news networks in an attempt to make the footage appearing to be original.
- The "coincidence" of the 5 South Tower impact shots, of the 5 TV networks, coming from 5 camera spots located on the very same axis, with all the cameras aligned one behind the other(!).
- The 160-feet gash of the North Tower which was gradually obtained not during the alleged plane impact but 15 seconds afterwards(!), by secondary explosions that created the "right wing" of the gash 6 seconds after the main explosion, and by video-editing at the 15th second) -a gash that was not there right after the "impact", but also absent from the ABC and CBS footage(!).
End of Part 1
Part 2 of 2
The outrage of the official 9/11 absurdities continues:
- Light aluminum planes that defy the third Newtonian law, on their impact with Pentagon’s reinforced concrete walls they create large solid holes into the least populated section of it, having the exact diameter of their own hollow fuselage(!), and destroying mostly financial records that should not exist; then, they vanish into thin air leaving absolutely nothing behind –not even the titanium or steel engine parts that are practically unable to be vaporized in open air, outside a laboratory with special equipment...
- Light aluminum planes that defy the third Newtonian law, cut the WTC’s steel buildings through like butter on impact, and become totally absorbed and practically disappear into these buildings leaving absolutely nothing behind, other than a "large plane gash" and intact terrorists' paper passports; then, they try to turn the whole steel buildings into fine dust in 10 seconds time (see: WTC-1 & WTC-2 disintegration, and turning a huge massive steel column into fine dust within milliseconds).
- The WTC-7 impossible implosive and surgically accurate even collapse into its own footprint, allegedly caused by the significantly smaller quantities of the same debris that could not even harm WTC-6 (which was RIGHT UNDER the falling tower –not at the next building block across the road, where WTC-7 was located); even though WTC-7 was also a steel building with massive SOLID beams, initially built to be an electrical substation with the strength to host huge transformers and constantly vibrating diesel generators.
- The fleet of scorched vehicles of the site during that day. What kind of energy can do that sort of partial damage? My favourite is Figure 68: Though the front half of car 2723 is toasted check out the new wax job on the back! Why did the strong fire, which destroyed the front half of the car (burning the steel parts of car’s interior and engine), not even harm the shiny paintjob of the rear half? After all, a raging ordinary fire that could make such extensive damage to the steel parts (the engine, the seats, etc) would certainly also ignite the gas tank (located right under the car’s trunk); but the spared rear paintwork tells us otherwise.
- ...and so many other things that the majority missed or ignored, while was distracted watching repeatedly in the authoritative "TV news" planes attacking populated buildings, big fireballs, huge smoke piles and finally the unusual explosions of the quarter-of-a-mile-high WTC Twin Towers with the cauliflower tops (see: Figure 7(b)) that indicate unbelievable amounts of energy present (like in volcano eruptions or in nuclear blasts) that to plane can supply, and their total reduction into fine powder; things the majority missed or ignored due to the high levels of emotional charge this specific type of Hegelian attack created for them...
Not to mention the "magic fuel" (a term I coined back in 2007* in remembrance of JFK’s "magic bullet"!) that melted the steel superstructures of those 110 stories high STEEL skyscrapers that stood tall for decades against the rage of nature, without the need for any reinforcements!
Note: I am linking to Dr. Judy Wood’s website because of her vast collection of pictures of those incidents...
[*] Have fun!
End of Part 2
Seems like disinfo to me, but regardless, it is a meandering trail among many meandering trails leading all energy away from the main fact: it was a demolition, false flag operation sponsored by high level operatives in the US gov't and probably with other state agencies involved.
The fact that the no-planers (no planes hit the towers, to be specific) pound the table long and hard and with unneeded ferocity at those who don't believe their theory only gives them the look of disinfo. Using phrases like "when a person pulls their head out of their colon" to describe fellow researchers and non-believers of gov't lies is only a psychological tactic to sway one's point of view. "The planes were photo-shopped (and rather crudely, in places)"? Crudely? They use 2D terminology on a 3D event, call it crude in places, and then later add that they are no expert. And I have seen all this stuff myself, and there is NO crude obvious faking of planes . . . quite the opposite, from what I have seen: there is no obvious evidence at all of such a thing.
Which brings up a point one should ponder: if the 'no planes hitting the towers' people are NOT disinfo, then what obvious evidence made them look into this theory? The answer is that there is no such evidence, of course, and the reality is that the entire argument sidtracks, derails and divides the 'truther' movement - all causes they should also be against.
Disinfo, disinfo, disinfo, rinse, lather, repeat.
In this classis example you present, Nobody, all the old and tired false arguments are presented. As if tail sections would survive the bombing and disintegration that the entire building went through . . . and as if the gov't would want parts of the plane to fall under public scrutiny to examine explosive residue which would give the whole game away in the first place. Telling parts of the story we all agree point to gov't/state complicity, and making it seem as if it only bolsters the no-plane argument. And then touching on parts like the NORAD stand-down as if it might have been because there were no planes . . . making one think that perhaps the gov't wasn't even needed. And lastly, mixing in parts that we all agree with (clearly no jetliner crashed into the Pentagon) in as part of their disinfo to garner grudging support.
See, the psychological twisting in this theory actually gives one the feeling that gov't complicity wasn't needed at all, and tries to gloss over the hundreds of instances of overt complicity by many persons in positions to do so.
Let's leave it at this: it was obvious that the buildings - all of them, including the Pentagon - had demolition work done on them for various effects. Clearly, there was a huge standdown and gov't (and their many agencies) complicity. And clearly, it was a planned false flag attack seeing how all the elements were orchestrated together to ensure receding individual rights, incite mass fear from outsiders, start wars, and ramp up the corporate dictatorship and eventual world gov't/empire.
Devoting long threads to side theories with no clear reason to look into them only wastes a lot of time and energy, exactly what it was designed to do.
Excellent! It might be a who cares discussion but that was a top read.
In order -
James, As for the demolitions, I'm with you. And there was Xymph saying the demolitions are weak and we should concentrate on other things. Yeah right... And I don't know anything about holography beyond going ooh and ah in the tourist shops. But speaking of which...
FB Disney world! My family went there at the same time and were blown away by the ghosts in the haunted mansion. I recall the car turning sideways wherein my father and I could see a ghost sitting between the two of us. Sure enough we turn to look there and there's nothing - it was only in the mirror. There was also a room full of dancing ghosts but nothing I saw was possessed of solidity and all were in entirely controlled environments and undoubtedly involved screens or smoke or some other material to receive the projection. That being said, yeah, it was thirty years ago. Who knows what would be possible now? Of course that's us assuming that there would be no research on the subject that wasn't MIC and if there was, the MIC would be quick enough to snavel it up before anyone found out about it. This is possible but it also qualifies as an pretty big assumption.
Thanks Edo, nice round-up. And I'm down with your conclusion at the end. Like I said it's been my experience that the NPT mob are the most fractious people going, second only the paid disinfo shills. That aside I wondered at the logic of 'finding a simple technique and sticking with it' versus the old 'whatever works/horses for courses' (ie. planes here, no planes there). In the end I figured that whilst the former is desirable, in the real world it's inevitably ditched.
Hey Gallier - Good point: Sound. I had this in mind but couldn't quite squeeze it in. Then again, maybe this is cheatable. How many times have I looked up to catch sight of whatever plane it is only to realise that the plane is behind me and I'm reacting to reflected sound. C'mon, who hasn't had that? Subsequently the sound could be coming from a series of speakers strung up at lampshade level. Mind you, we're in that two-lights-on-the-moon variety of what's-the-point? ie. why not just use an RC plane? As for the Pentagon plane, I can't remember where I found this (it may have been Dave McGowan) but are you talking about the A3 skymaster? Imagine that painted up in commercial livery with portholes down the side - what with being 1/2 scale it'd be a spookily close to the real thing. If you were walking down the street and heard a high pitch screaming noise and looked up to see that thing doing 800 kmh at tree-top height I reckon you'd buy it.
Thanks Mir, um... no not that clever mate. Well... I am that clever, but not in this particular instance. Mostly I'm just wondering at this NPT thing that won't die. (1 of 2)
M. Savant - see that's what I'm on about folks. Having just come off a HAARP primer, I'd have to say that the tech could well be beyond our ken. My recent stint at Geoff Wells blew my mind on the whole UFO caper. Clearly there is something going on there. Things I used to consider as certainties or impossibilities seem to turn into... well I don't know.
Hey anon, I should have mentioned that none of those points you made are actually incompatible with the idea of RC planes. Your case wasn't a lay-down misere. And don't underestimate the punters who hang at this blog mate. They're as heavy as they come. And besides, merely urging people to 'think' ain't quite going to cut it. But your point as to the PTB not having offered ANY evidence to back up their claims (oh wait, wasn't there a singed passport that flew out of the collision/fireball/collapse and was found on the street? Ha ha ha ha, now that's chutzpah!) is well taken. And ties nicely into the conclusion I reckon I'm going to go with.
And Good God Kikz, you win! The competition, by they way, was to rewrite David Ray Griffin's New Pearl Harbour in 200 words or less, ha ha. Also, put that list next to Craig Murray saying it could never happen. Cue the eyeroll.
Hey Ferris, can I just fine-tune that? "When something happens that we have never seen before and everyone says it must be so... I'm sure you can dig it.
And not a Hellene, the Hellene! Thanks mate, how very non-Tasmanian you were. Is everyone off to check out his links? I am. I know that I'm generally skimpy on links myself (there's so many other people doing the link-heavy thing that I don't really bother) but what this discussion needed was some links to some worthy shit. (Can you dig it Anon?)
Did I forget anyone? Yep! Sabretache. I left him till last because frankly I think he nails it. Which is to say, here we are in a long discussion, when really the whole thing is moot. But never mind. Me, I'm perfectly down with Tache's point about knowing this broad picture with as much certainty as one knows anything. Okay then - the precise how is what exactly? A point of curiosity amongst history fans? That description is as good as any I think. And it's certainly not a thing worth flinging epithets around for. As a history fan, I'm still curious but I have a bit of running around to do. Thanks Hellene (and Sabretache) for the links. I'll be back on Monday.
And don't you folks wait for me. Pile in and I'll see if I can get a buddy to do the approval process for me.
Hullo Slozo, typing jinx mate. Um... we can waste a bit of time can't we? We do it all the time. Did somebody mention The Birdwatching Couch of the Gods just now? No? Maybe it was just me...
Otherwise folks, I think I just turned comment moderation off - just for this piece and just for the weekend. Off to do a test...
Okay boys and girls, you're free to go nuts. No one better be too naughty though because I'll be back on Monday.
signed,
anonymous
I vote Kikz's comment for 'Synopsis of the Century". Awesome, Kikz
I like you lot! (even you Gallier!) :p
Excellent comments Kikz and Sabretache!
I remember during the time I was flip flopping over this, showing September Clues to a couple of people, and waiting for the look of utter dis-belief on their face... Like performing a magic trick on someone... It made me feel kinda funky, if you know what I mean...
But, if that funky feeling was derived from providing some kind of entertainment, it was never gonna stand the test of time, as I found.
Somewhat wordy , from R. Buckminster-Fuller's 'No More 2nd Hand God' concerning our apprehending of external phenomena.
" Generalized systemmatic conceptuality's omni-directional relationships are only agularly configured and are independant of size or dimension.
No man has ever "seen" outside himself. His brain is a multi-frequency [ four sensory ranges] scanning [TV] integrator, continually operating in co-ordination with a multitude of memory [ kinescope taped] TV scanners.
The whole array of NEW and MEMORY TVs is frequency monitored by an angular and frequency modulated PATTERN COMMONALITY SCORING AND SCORE-PREDICTING conceptual co-ordinating capability. The TV co-ordinating conceptual capability includes a score-guessing and score-guess testing faculty, as well as a strategic-tests-contriving-pattern considerator, all of which conceptual patterning proclivities are self-started and regenerated by synergetical INTELLECTION.
capitals are Fuller's italics.
We 'guess' what we see based on past recollections, probabilities.
In Psychological warfare I assume that someone followed through with experiments based on this passage.
One of the threads to come from 9/11 were all the comic books and TV/films that showed or implied an attack or crash at WTC.
In latest post a airline called TowerAir rented out a 747 for a film called TURBULENCE which has a poster of the thing flying through twin towers.
Tower Air went bankrupt in 2000 and their Hangar, Hangar 17, now houses remains of the WTC, while one of their board members died in the Lockerbie disaster.
The question : How 'easy' is it to manipulate a large amount of people.
Its probably true that Military equipment has a 'headstart' on the general public, as well as the concentrated scientific effort plus the compartmentalisation of all those concerned in said op.
These , for me, are things that happened 'before' the attacks, preparing the ground. The years of training that lead to a 10-second burst in the Olympic 100m.
cheers
Hey, I found that video again. It's called :
NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - SENSITIVE INFORMATION
can be seen at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o
It's a really well done video, it's 82 minute long and does not a thorrow destroying of the official version of the Pentagon hit. The interesting bit of this video was that it did solve the dichotomy of plane/no plane theory by simply demonstrating that it is a false one, there's a third way of interpreting the event.
Oh, I should proofread before sending. I meant "it does a thorrow detroying ..."
without the "not"
Doctoring of videos is not an impossibility and considering all the cover-up surrounding 9/11 not an improbability. The nose-cone video of a 'jet' re-emerging out of the other side of the tower is utterly preposterous. Yet we were shown this on 9/11.
Does attacking no-planers as dis-info-artists serve any purpose? Doesn't everybody agree at this point that 9/11 was an inside job and the buildings came down as a result of controlled demolition?
While we may never know what exactly went down that day, my gut tells me that the bullshit runs deep. Anon raises some interesting points and confiscated videos tell their own story of government lies and obfuscation.
If you're conducting a survey, count me in the no-plane crowd.
Hey mister Nix von Zilch,
another post from a real human being.
http://thatsjustplumdumb.com/index.php/2010/01/the-first-sphere-of-influence-zbigniew-brzezinski-and-the-family-rothschild/
How 'bout looking forward, the Zeitgeist is knocking hard.
And yes, another ALTA report is in the works to show zat ze Zeitgeist (funny, it means timespirit and timeghost) is what us sentinels have been expecting. Actually, a lot better.
Banzai! uhm, Yorisushi!
idiot savant
FB
Here is what a real aeroplane looks like when it hits a building.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1740000/images/_1744999_ap300hanging.jpg
OK here is one that’s a bit bigger and had a bit more fuel on board.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15223650/ns/us_news-life//
Click on “Home video of High rise crash”.
According to the report, the engine was found in the burned out apartment, the bodies of two victims were found on the pavement together with a passport. Why am I reminded of the words of the famous Mandy Rice Davis “Well they would say that wouldn’t they”? Is it usual for people to carry passports when they are not going out of the country? Anyway, these dalliances apart, after the resulting fire had burned out or was put out and apart from the impact and smoke damage there was no damage to the structure of the building.
I wasn’t aware there was a poll going on but if there is put me down for real drones.
If it is agreed that the buildings came down as a result of controlled demolition then why purposely introduce a topic which substantially doesn’t alter anything and only causes obfuscation?
I don't usually put the VW's up but this one seems appropriate "ovennest"
I find my life is much easier when I just believe..
Then I can focus my intellect on Eating, Rooting and Shitting.
I do think it is a little bit amusing that you're accusing "no-planers" as being loons or disinfo shills. Their theories are really not that much weirder than the idea that secret pixie dust brought down the Towers.
Anyway folks, I wrote a little post as an homage to the Truthers here.
Enjoy!
I always dismissed the no plane theory but watching the September Clues video has certainly brought up a lot of doubts.
It seems that lots of witnesses initially describe seeing a small plane or a missile. I have never seen the nose out footage before and the impossible reflections do make one wonder. This should be your territory Nobody, hopefully you may be able to take a look.
Also interesting was the similarity of the womans screams in the different video's, the matrix shot of the twin towers, I could go on but it's best for people to have a look themselves as there is plenty there, interesting indeed.
I am amazed just how many people repeat the disinfo that Dr. Wood "promotes ray beams from space," where there has never been any evidence of her saying that.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam7.html#DEW
Thanks folks, that was interesting. Believe it or not, I didn't get to watch any of those videos. After I wrote that absurdly long reply I only had 45 minutes left until the library closed, and in that time I wasn't able to download anything. I'll try again in a minute or so.
Part of me says I don't care. There are so many unknowns in the 9/11 caper that to start a fight over one of them seems a bit silly I think. It's all a bit like calling the Judean People's Front a bunch of splitters, if you know what I mean. Or are we the Judean People's Front? I can never remember.
Honestly between the no-planers and the likes of angrysoba there's no competition is there? One's worth heaping abuse on and one ain't.
Auntie Sobber, do you not get it mate? Are you the only person who thinks that an individual choosing to hang out at a blog wherein he finds himself in perpetual disagreement with every single other person there makes sense? Really? What is that sense? Think hard now because between whatever it is you can come up with and the obvious cold hard logic of Mockingbird-style disinfo, the former is on a hiding to nothing.
But never mind, why don't I help you out -
"I spend impossible amounts of time hanging out at bullshit blogs talking to nothing but bullshit people who spout nothing but bullshit because..."
Oh, and Gallier, thanks for that correction. It was very thorough of you mate.
Okay I checked out three of the smaller pieces - the 'nose-out' and the amateur footage analyses. Sorry folks, but I'm going to shrug my shoulders on these. If someone wants to declare me a disinfo guy, they can.
For mine, they were interesting and there were definitely some weird anomalies but I didn't see a knockout blow. But I did see a lot of weak points. As far as I'm concerned there wasn't anything wrong with the reflections in that car window at all. It's fortuitous that it managed to catch the action but otherwise it's perfectly possible. The low angle the cameraman had framed the picture with meant that part of the building would have to be reflected in the windscreen. It can't not be. The fellow's statement that there's no way a windscreen can reflect anything behind it is bullshit. And besides, if you were going to fake that shot, if I were going to fake it, I'd leave it out! Why bother? That proves nothing of course but then, nor does the film-maker for pointing it out.
Another weak point was the disappearing of the wing as the plane flew in front of the building. When things are the same shade and tonal value they do that. In fact the reason you have post-production is to prevent that happening. To use it as proof for post-production is a bit mad really. If that shot had been comped together then the wing wouldn't have disappeared. Can you dig it?
And then they point out that since we can see the interlevels of the WTC there must be digital trickery. Dear, oh dear. All they needed to do was put 'wtc' into google images and they'd see that the interlevels (or whatever you call them) have always been readily apparent depending on the angle and lighting.
But that's cool, conspiracies aren't a chain they're a cable: a disproved point isn't a broken link that severs the line. It's a single rotten strand that has no effect on the other worthy strands. But the worthy strands were few and far between here. And for mine none of them were true clinchers.
You know what I thought was interesting? The three frames of rainbow sky and the black frame failure of the video feed of the 'nose' footage. Me, I want to plug that into the truly inexplicably weird shit at Judy Wood's website.
She's the lady who did that first billiard ball calculation. She's brilliant. I remember that doing my head in way back when because those graphs she did as illustration are precisely animation curves from any 3D package. For mine, they stand as scientific proof of the impossibility of the collapse as described by the PTB. That's the kind of lay-down misere argument that pictures of the nose cone ain't, if you can dig it.
Anyway it seems like that's the least of the weird shit over at her place. Mind you, it's a mess of a site, a real dog's breakfast. But I've saved a few pages to desktop and I'm going to have a read overnight.
Aargh ten minutes of battery! Ciao Ciao.
My correction was because by forgetting the not it reversed the meaning of the sentence. Conceded, the spelling looked strange but it did not alter the meaning. Ha, ha you native speakers of the sea-german will have to get used to the massacre of your language, we at the EU-commission do our best for that. The latest fad is to hold meetings in english even if the majority (like 12 from 13) of people speak french natively or live in francophonia for 40 years.
aww thx y'all..
two things .. i noticed i'd left out in the retype..
norad standown... no scramble order..
well it did finally come.. too fukin late, then the wing was sent waaaay out over the atlantic to intercept....what exactly? more expected incoming - instead of the known rogues? (shakin head)
something else norad related..
that Joint Chiefs report i mentioned, commander stated norad runs only outlooking off continent radars, no internal airspace monitoring... what crap...
riddle me this batman.. then why do the SOP scramble orders still stand, as they have since inception? one case in point -post 9/11 FL(miami?) charter flt - some golfer payne? contact lost no response, FAA alerted as flt went into 'handover' flying toward Missouri? and the great plains north on autopilot... scramble wing intercepts/eye to cockpit - entire crew unconscious /frosted windows - wing escorts plane until fuel gives out.. down'd in corn/wheat field...
2nd
condi's & cabal's famous.. 'nobody ever imagined planes would be used, yadaX3'
bullshit.. there exist(s/ed) a FEMA/Natl Exercise/Response doc (can't remb the date, but it predated 9/11 by years... that was the front cover.. plane run into large bldg...
if i think of anything else i'll add later.. gotta get movin on the mornin troop movements and bugout.... uggggh mondayz...
but
hell has technically frozen over.. da saints won the damn bowl!!!!
geaux saints!
can't imagine what kinda partyin was goin on the quarter last nite:)
and for the love of NFL, will somebody in the know tell me what the hell...how the... that extra point - turned into the weirdest play/'nother touchdown... never seen such b4!.. 2 handed ball just over the line w/receiver rolling sideways -open legged summersault - while being trampled by defense ... O...M.....G! and it counted!!!!!! :D
I can't believe I am jumping in to this one, even my hubby says, you have done this all before...
And so I have.
Anyone want a copy of blueprints for one of the towers?
I have them on an old computer.
Or at least I did at some point in time.. It has been to long.
Plane or no plane.
There were planes.
The fact that NORAD didn't intercept does not prove that there were no planes.
They could have just stood down.
If there was no intention to intercept any planes.
Except at Shanksville.
There was a plane, and it was shot down.
It had to be, because somehow, some passengers got control of it.
I went back and rewatched the Naudet footage.
You can hear something coming in towards the tower. Actually, You can see and hear it flying towards and into the tower.
here
My feeling is more in line with that of james and slozo.
The planes or no plane arguement serves to divide the truth movement, which is bad.
Is it entirely disinfo? I am not entirely sure. I am sure that well meaning people hold that thought.
I have always been of the opinion the planes were necessary, they had to be there as part of the psy-op.
They were needed for the show.
To terrify the populace, to make them feel helpless, not just in the sky, but on the ground.
And they justified alot of expenditures (space based weapons and satellites, missile defense) that may have not been justifiable had the attacks not come from the sky.
The planes were there, the hijackers were there, playing there prescribed rolls, only thing they didn't realize, they were going to die.
People are expendable, when the ptb's have an agenda.
The people in the towers, everyone on the planes....more people die in car accidents yearly then died that day..
So yah, there were planes, because there had to be planes.
Hey folks, I am absolutely having my head done in by Judy Woods. That link from an anon above is nuts. To save you scrolling up...
Actually I'm going to bag out Judy Wood. Why is her site such a dog's breakfast? Can she not smoothly and coherently lay out her case so that punters are streamed from introduction to conclusion? She lays out all these interesting photos but they come in a blizzard and without any explanation of the context you're meant to be looking at them in, they're just head-scratcher. We should be blown out of our seats but we're just confused. Well, I was anyway...
But no longer! Now my head is spinning. But I have a feeling that the only way I'm going to get my head around it all is by going elsewhere. Wood herself seems incapable of sensibly explaining it. Never mind.
The best place to hide a diamond (the 'how') is in a bowl of shattered glass.
But all this questioning and arguing about the 'how' is distracting everybody from 'who' and 'why'. These are the important questions.
We don't need to prove who did it. That's for a court of law which the perpetrators are never going to face. We just need to know who did it. And that's plain(!) from what did and what didn't happen.
Ha, ha, nobody (and Penny) remember when I defended alone the Apollo landing last year? At a moment someone (I think it was Edo) told me I was too anti-conspiracy and I answered him that I was not, and that I sometime even think there can be more than even most of "truthers" (I hate that qualificative) and giving exactly the link to Judy Wood. Before I discovered that site everything was simple, rogue elements in government using their connection in Israel and government orchestrated a controlled demolition (easy to do in the WTC because of its unique configuration (I will come back to that)) with a aero-show for easy explanation for the gullibles. But as I've seen the movies / pictures at that site, I realised there is really more to it (space/ beam weapon, wahtever). There were two points that put me in, the excerpt of the alu/steel pulverizing you showed and a second thing noone ever noticed (hey my scoop) or mentioned: where are the roofs? When you do a CD, you have the building collapsing, but as there is no force applied to the roof, it will only fall above the pile of rubble. You can look at the pictures of WTC, there is nothing left resembling things on the roof: AC vents, the big TV antenna, lift casings etc. nothing is left. Maybe I'm completely off, but then I would like someone pointing me to pictures showing parts of the roof.
In my message above I mentioned in passing that I think the WTC (1+2) was easy to bring down with CD because of its unique conformation (this doesn't apply to WTC7 but this one was rigged in a more classical manner).
The WTC 1+2 were built like 2 tubes, the internal service tube with heavy structural wielded trusses and a lighter external structure. These two tube like structures were connected by the floors that contrary to the official story had normal steel trusses (there was an old site in 2001 that demonstrated it without a shadow of a doubt, that site doesn't exist anymore) and not only the light girders in the concrete.
In fact if you cut the inner tube at the base of the tower, all the structure will collapse in itself. The effect is being like when you close an umbrella, you only pull on 1 point and because everything is centrally connected the outer elements are pulled inside.
But that was my hypotheses before I saw that site, after that I lost my definitive answers without really finding new ones.
james:)
horton heard the who :)
(fortuitous...
mama sent me this lastnite.. 'project hammer'... goes into some detail on the 'hordes' i mentioned in WTC, and also stuff that was stored in the pentagon...)
the usual suspects of course...
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2010/02/08/the-bush-family-s-project-hammer-1
i'd heard/read of the 'beam' weapon theory.. definitely not out of the realm of possibility... but a single source of its mention escaped me...
...somewhat akin to an opera singer matching the resonance of a glass whereby shattering it...
i mean... we hav bombs that can turn a body to charcoal but not singe the clothes it wears.. gulf war I...
haarp - boiling uppr regions of the atmosphere...since?
...There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Gallier;
I agree with your theory on taking out the central core structure and the building would fall into itself.
Recall the early explosions that was the core being done in, in the sub floor levels.
When I spent far too much time on this topic previously there buried in one of the official reports was the fact that the
fastenings had been pulled out of the steel in a downwarn fashion
Which had left elongated holes in the structural steel, this indicated the core had collapsed first, moving downward and pulling the fasteners down and out of the steel they were welded into.
I think that the no planers may be right. The idea of a plane being there could be suggested shortly after a trauma and photo shopped in BEFORE the buildings were"hit".
The human mind is a funny thing and is easily tricked, especially by the evil geniuses of the Pentagon before we were so watchful.
Why risk using a real plane if it can be done without - I mean a real plane could crash at the wrong place.
If they could fool everyone and not use a plane, they would. I think they could.
Aluminium airplane wings VS solid steel construction beams?
In reality aluminium airplanes designed for flight come off second best when colliding with an immovable solid steel skyscrapers. So what was seen on the Televitzian is quite different to what would occur in reality. One may do a test to see what would actually happen by making a model airplane to scale and and having it collide with a scale model of the WTC. There is not to much involved really, the plane is mainly aluminium packed with soft human bodies, and the solid steel frame of the building, needs to be fixed to the ground immovable then speed factor.
You will notice when aluminium cars hit trees there is a similar result, that the tree, being fixed to the ground, is barely damaged, maybe the outer skin bark is deatached but the solid tree recieves not so much as a dent. the aluminium car travelling at high speed on the other hand always comes off second best. You may notice in car crashes and plane crashes that hit immovable solid objects that the human bodies are hurled forward at point of impact, often thrown clear of the car/plane by dozens of meters, these bodies end up scattered everywhere, because they are soft they tend to break apart very easily and be thrown very far from the point of impact.
Basically when you do your test with your model aluminium plane VS solid fixed steel you can fill your model plane with organic material resembling human flesh, upon point of impact at high speed, you will be amazed just how far and wide that organic matter scatters on point of impact.
Post a Comment