Pure illusion and the wtc

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
dh

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Anyone who critically watches films like In Plane Site and Painful Deceptions with its careful depictions of the ring of steel girders encasing WTC2, may take a moment away from the pods and flashes you are instructed to look at, in the Plane Site movie, to wonder why, in those slo-mo videos, the plane glides so effortlessly, without resistance, or equal and opposite force, to quote some apple-hit scientist. Nothing at all to slow or crumple the smooth entry
Imagine driving your car at high speed into a brick wall. Is there no resistance from the wall, does your car glide straight through it?
www.gallerize.com...




posted on May, 4 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
There are a lot of questions surrounding the WTC attack, but giant missiles holographically camouflaged to look like planes is patently ridiculous. It smacks of deliberate disinformation - spurious, looney theories designed to discredit any and all serious investigations into the events of that day.


dh

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
On the contrary. I wouldn't put this out for public display- to the unconvinced - only amongst those that have an idea of the full story
The visual clues are worth the study, measured against ones commosense validation about how things work
Given that this is all illusion, visual perception of this particular event militates against the way things are meant to be



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Actually, the WTC is more like a waffle than a brick wall. A bunch of little walls inside a rectangular box.

Instead of using the "ram a car into a brick wall" metaphor, try "throw a dart through a house of cards."

A object, moving at a fast enough pace, can puncture almost any structure with little to no damage. I need only point to 2X4s stuck, almost without any damage, into the sides of houses, brick and concrete walls, and trees as tornados hurl them around at near 300 mph.

When you look at the physics of how a plane would pass through a honeycomb structured environment like the WTC, how it "effortlessly, without resistance, or equal and opposite force" goes into the building and then explodes, it's makes perfectly logical sense.

I remember seeing an clip to an animation somewhere on here of how the plane likely would have reacted as it passed through the building before breaking up and sending fuel everywhere.

I find it far more interesting to see how a plane went into the Pentagon at such a low level than how one hit the WTC.

[edit on 4-5-2005 by The Big O]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
gprime.net...


My major concern about 9 11 was the complete lack of a response when the air traffic controllers lost contact with four large airplanes in US airspace. In another case, a lear jet with 8 on board was already being checked out and followed by a Norad jet within 20 minutes of losing contact, and that is normal. In 110 minutes after losing touch with the first plane on 9 11, no such thing had yet happened. Why not? And, Andrews Airforce Base is 12 miles from the Pentagon, and can have jets airborne in 3 minutes, so where were they? I would be grateful for a good answer to these things.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
gprime.net...


My major concern about 9 11 was the complete lack of a response when the air traffic controllers lost contact with four large airplanes in US airspace. In another case, a lear jet with 8 on board was already being checked out and followed by a Norad jet within 20 minutes of losing contact, and that is normal. In 110 minutes after losing touch with the first plane on 9 11, no such thing had yet happened. Why not? And, Andrews Airforce Base is 12 miles from the Pentagon, and can have jets airborne in 3 minutes, so where were they? I would be grateful for a good answer to these things.


You realize that the towers were not built like the walls of a nuclear reactor and that an f-4 is significantly smaller? That film proves nothing.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
What did you expect it to prove? All I meant to do by posting it was show what happens when a fighter jet hits a 2 meter thick concrete wall at 800 kph. It proves what happens in that instance. Of course it is totally unrelated technically to the WTC tragedy, it is only related by nature of the type of event, ie. a plane hitting a wall. I did not intend to prove anything about the 9 11 impacts.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I thought the movie clip was great!

I mean, it so completely sums up what we are talking about while at the same time is such an opposite scenario of what happened at the WTC.

I thought it was a joke when I saw it, good to find out it was intended as a joke.

At least sort of.

-O



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
So our reactors are safe as long as they don't have holes in them, like the WTC. I got footage of the WTC attack I d/l off limewire. Still sad to see a plane smack into the buildings, realizing there are people on that plane, one second alive, gone the next. Even got footage of first plane, some tourists walking around, then all you see is plane into building, all you hear is "Oh #!" "Holy #!" and "#!"(in the footage I have those are the three words said by the guy who recorded it, then it cuts back to CNN where the second plane hits. "There seems to have been an explosion!" But turns out the guy was on the other side, didn't see the plane hitting on the other side.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Having seen "In Plane Site' and "Painful Deceptions" I believe the length to which the describe the structural soundness of the WTC was to reinforce their position that the buildings collapsed through some other means. Additionally, if I'm not mistaken the strongest reinforcements were in an internal column, not the exterior. I don't believe either film questions the entry of the planes into the building.

As an earlier poster said, physics-wise, its more akin to a waffle than a brick wall. Despite the tons of steel, the building was designed to be able to sway in high winds.


dh

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Yeah, well the whole point of the post and the link was the visual evidence of the plane and its lack of impact on the wtc2
It's inconclusive for sure, it's not absolute proof, but every video LOOKS WRONG
You need to watch it from the position of of the unprejudiced observer, despite any technical knowledge
The windows are comparatively small, the interlinked upright and horizontal steel girders with interlinking welded and bolted plates are very strong
There is absolutely no resistance evident from the slo-mo videos of this strong structure to the entering plane
Admittedly frames have been chopped out, but there is no evidence of buckling misshaping or shearing to the plane
The puffs of smoke don't appear until the moment the wings have all but disappeared into the building
Never mind physics, this defies our natural feel for how the physical world we can sense interacts
This image is not right somehow

From the article

"Next is the impact of the alleged hijacked Boeing 767-200 with the WTC2 tower. Computer simulation and mathematical analysis of the impact by MIT, University of Purdue and others indicate that upon impact the wings of the 767 would have shattered and the fuel ignited outside the towers facade, the aircraft would have lost about 25% percent of its kinetic energy on impact and that the tail fin would have sheared off due to torsional forces. In layman’s terms this means that the aeroplane would have decelerated sharply, crumpled up and exploded against the tower’s wall with only heavy objects like the engines and undercarriage puncturing the towers facade. No film or photograph of the impact and aftermath shows any of these predicted effects.

We also have a report confirming the current existence of N612UA, the very aircraft that was operating Flight UA175 on the morning of September 11th 2001 - in other words the aircraft that was supposed to be destroyed in the WTC2 attack is still in service.

With these important issues in mind we have reasonable certainty that the object that was shown to collide with the Tower 2 of the former World Trade Centre Complex was not a real Boeing 767-200 under the command of Arab hijackers."



[edit on 5-5-2005 by dh]

[edit on 5-5-2005 by dh]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Ok, got a new vid of second crash, do it in slow mo, the second plane is gone, disappeared into the building before anything happens. The commentary is going on about how it looks like "a bad special effect" and may be right. Doubt it, but could be. Just like a alien can come from Mars wearing a Yamaca and a gold chain with the Star of David hanging from it. Not very likely, but it COULD happen.

BTW, it is from below, the buildings looming above the person. A view not seen before by me, I always see the out side of city or in a neighboring building, but this is the first where crap nearly hit the guy as it blew up from the building and plane.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by James the Lesser]


dh

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Ok, got a new vid of second crash, do it in slow mo, the second plane is gone, disappeared into the building before anything happens. The commentary is going on about how it looks like "a bad special effect" and may be right.
[edit on 5-5-2005 by James the Lesser]


Well sorry to abbreviate your post James L but that is exactly the point


dh

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Big O
Actually, the WTC is more like a waffle than a brick wall. A bunch of little walls inside a rectangular box.

Instead of using the "ram a car into a brick wall" metaphor, try "throw a dart through a house of cards."

A object, moving at a fast enough pace, can puncture almost any structure with little to no damage. I need only point to 2X4s stuck, almost without any damage, into the sides of houses, brick and concrete walls, and trees as tornados hurl them around at near 300 mph.

When you look at the physics of how a plane would pass through a honeycomb structured environment like the WTC, how it "effortlessly, without resistance, or equal and opposite force" goes into the building and then explodes, it's makes perfectly logical sense.

I remember seeing an clip to an animation somewhere on here of how the plane likely would have reacted as it passed through the building before breaking up and sending fuel everywhere.

I find it far more interesting to see how a plane went into the Pentagon at such a low level than how one hit the WTC.

[edit on 4-5-2005 by The Big O]


Ok, look again - though you've only got split-seconds of material, how does the plane make this splicing action through the 12-foot spaced upright girders with no apparent reaction in the body of the plane, and no reaction from the building until the wings have gone in
Look at this, there is no visble deformity to anything, - the two supposedly solid entities maintain their integrity over just maybe two or three frames

For reference
thewebfairy.com...



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
The actual airliner that impacted the WTC is less dense than the F-4 phantom in the previously presented posts - it is perfectly plausible the airliner "vaporised" from the impact with reinforced concrete.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
As said, the WTC wasn't a solid wall. It's design was very very strong, but when push came to shove, it couldn't handle it.

Two planes, each with close to full tanks of gas, crashed into buildings at very high speeds. You'd expect the planes to go right in without much resitance at all. the point was that the buildings were strong enough to withstand that. The issue was galloons upon galloons of liquid fuel being added to a huge fire, fanned by the other tower. Over a period of hours, the buildings just couldn't take it.

I can disprove plenty on that site having seen it with my own eyes. The two planes that hit the towers were exactly what they said they were.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony or law of economy.

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

Source Wikipedea - many conspiracy theorists take note.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Do you have any idea how easy it is to go through a simple masonry brick wall?





dh

posted on May, 8 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Do you have any idea how easy it is to go through a simple masonry brick wall?







Yeah,Howard, the analogy wasn't too good
Still this wasn't a simple brick wall.
This was a building designed with a very strong steel core, and as the designers described , a steel cage round the outside designed to keep 737s out. Not let such airliners in with no observable resistance



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
What in the world were you expecting?

The planes would hit the WTC and bounce off with the engineer standing on top saying "AHA see we designed it to withstand this!"

Lab papers are very nice. And still you can't claim something "was designed to" withstand anything. As we can see from this real life occurence it withstood for quite a bit, and then stopped withstanding. So we're both right. Has this dead horse been beaten enough yet?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join