It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Recreate 9-11

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I'm not a structural engineer either, but I'm not really sure a scale model would work in this case, the laws of physics would probably make a tiny reproduction of building act differently than the real thing IMHO.

Anyway, if they found out it really could work, the conspiracists would just say it's disinformation.




posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mooonhoxe
It would take a lot of research and study to pull this off effectively. Aren't there groups out there that train in this kind of situation? If not, then there should be.


I think people have stayed away for two reasons.
The first is the fact that such a project would be a mammoth task.
The second reason is that people fear the unknown. In this case people are afriad that the results might take them out of there comfort zone.


I understand that that re-creating that day 'unbiasedly' would be pretty hard to do, but they should be attempted.


I couldnt agree more but Im at a loss as to how to get the ball rolling.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   
A computer simulation could be done just focusing on a few floors and looking for the failure rate after the aircraft's impact. That could be enough to determine the rest of the events.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I'm sorry but this wouldn't solve anything.

You would have to make EVERYTHING out of the same materials and any mistake could change the result of the whole experiment.

You would never be able to accuratley recreate the events.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I wish Donald trump or someone was in the ats league.

couldnt he finiance to build a pentgon structure in the desert, with the same specs as the real pentagon, ( he wouldnt even have to built the entire structure, )
go buy some aging boring,
fill er up,
setup some remote software..


then fly it into the pentagon?
then prove to you people what a REAL Plane would do.


[edit on 3-8-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Perhaps a computer simulation would be more feasable.


That is quite a good idea.

What software could be used ?


Could use 3ds max, Maya, Lightwave and probably C4d. They all have real life physics in all of those. How do you think movies look so damn cool.. Not from the movie gods.


Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by In nothing we trust


How would you feature both sets of viewpoints though?


You have more then one layout and set of planes.
IF the scale model towers didnt react like they like they did on 9-11 the trick is to figuer out what really happened. The only view point is what the experiment bears out.


I would do both, that way there is very little room for error.


Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by In nothing we trust


Which version would you present?


What ever the facts bear out.


It would have to be a group project due to the amount of time and effort and cost involved. Mooonhoxe I understand where your coming from but using full size buildings and planes is out of the question on cost alone. If tax payer money was used the US government would probaly want the results to suit there own agenda.


Read above. 3d is a big idea on alot of things, from making a real life flower, lady, car, to real life situations such as car accidents and shootings, so I dont see why any of these would have a problem with 3d.

Only issue I think is doing this in 3d by a few weekend warriors who do 3d in thier spare time can be very time consuming. So we can be looking at this for alot of years.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I reackon if we presented a decent enough package to my TRUMP
maybe had enough advertising plastered all over the mock pentagon from various companies willing to have there name branded on the citizens PROOF that the government has lied and tricked the world, he might just accept it.

I mean, what does a spare boeing in the junk yard cost?
couple with 3-4 months labour for building one side of the pentagon...
surely we could absolutley PLASTER the plane, the structure, and the ground SURROUNDING the structure with enough advertisements to come up with a nice slice of $$$ to pursuade my Trump to do this project.

Ya never know, maybe he's up for proving the government wrong as much as we are?

maybe theres enough ceo's in companies out there, willing to throw some cash behind this project, just to have a 10ft by 10ft banner of there companies slogan present on the wall that the plane hits.. all because they believe what most on here believe about the US governemnt

I dunno, fantasies n dreams isnt it all... the ones we want, are the ones we thaw.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   
ThichHeaded the only problem I can see with using 3d software is that everytime the software is upgraded the project would have to be migrated to the new software. On a personal level I dont have the time to learn any 3d software at the moment. I am all for using 3d software.

You could make the case that more then one meduim is needed (ie both models and 3d software would be used ) the reason why ?
Some baby boomers and older people might not accepted results from computer software. For the benfit of the public and members who take part in the project scale models may show things or show things in a differnt light that a software program cant do.

As for paid advertising as a part of the project I think that there might be a few issues concerning the commercialization of 9-11 and the fact that the ads wernt in place when 9-11 took place. The results and how the project was done could be published as a book if people but Im getting ahead of myself.



[edit on 3-8-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Paid advertising would be non for profit, and it wouldnt even be advertising.

People whom happened to support the creation of the test, would be allowed to have there name branded on the test.

im sure thin fabric, paper thin fabric on certain sections would in no way impeed a boeing plane slamming into a wall.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Paid advertising would be non for profit, and it wouldnt even be advertising.


It would have to be done in a tasteful manner and in away that has no effect on the outcome of the project. If a video of the project was made then advertising could be inserted without effecting the results of project. If scale models are used it may be possible to place advertising on the sides of the layouts without effecting the outcome.
If it could be done without effecting the outcome prouduct placement could work quite well. Who ever is creating the project would have to ensure that the group dosnt lose the rights to the project.





im sure thin fabric, paper thin fabric on certain sections would in no way impeed a boeing plane slamming into a wall.


You have the right idea but the problem is that the variables of the experiment would have been changed.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 3-8-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Whys this?
We have supposid video proof of how the plane enters,
we can calculate speed,
the type of plane used

everything.

We could craete a structure which is exactly 1/4,being a slice of the wall that was hit.
build it to exact specifications,

then bring a plane on in..
maybe do a few test runs to see if it is possible, to have a plane fly that low, that fast, and keep its bearings.

then if that is possible, bring the plane down from a high altitude, to ground level, while remaninig OFF THE LAWN.

then, just bring the plane on in, and slam it into the side, the same way the plane did.

film it from thousands of angles.

have advertising ' Painted ' all over the plane, thus not to affect it,
have large banners on the lawn AROUND the structure, NOT on the ground immediately below the wall,

I honestly think there's nothing stopping this world from performing a test to prove or disprove the governemnts series of events.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Agit8dChop if ads were placed on the planes people would use it as grounds to dismiss the project and how do we know that the ads wont effect the outcome ?
I would be happy to use advertising lets just be wise about it.
There is no reason why advertising couldnt be placed on a website.
Heres how prouduct placement could work have a scence by a PC or workbench. Someone spills there drink away from the PC/scale model and a certain brand of papertowel is used to clean the mess up.

With advertising on a website or away from an area that effects the outcome of the project everybody wins. If I ran a company I dont know if I would want my company logo crashing into a building and bursting into flames. Popcorn eating zombies would think that my company was connected to 9-11.

Agit8dChop we count you in as a member of the team who will takepart in the project if it gets off the ground ?


[edit on 3-8-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
ThichHeaded the only problem I can see with using 3d software is that everytime the software is upgraded the project would have to be migrated to the new software. On a personal level I dont have the time to learn any 3d software at the moment. I am all for using 3d software.

You could make the case that more then one meduim is needed (ie both models and 3d software would be used ) the reason why ?
Some baby boomers and older people might not accepted results from computer software. For the benfit of the public and members who take part in the project scale models may show things or show things in a differnt light that a software program cant do.


I don't think what other people think is a big thing, you want to prove the case in one way or another.

In real life case, you cant just go out and buy 3 buildings and run planes into them.

In 3d everything is to exact detail that we need everything from the size of the window to the smallest part of the plane.

EX here:


The reason for this image is to show something. This is a room I made and was showing someone how kick ass 3d was. This window here is exact to specifications for a real life window. The walls are about 7in thick and the window casing and such is about 6, 6 1/2in. The window itself as in glass is about 3/4th if an in thick.

Here is a few examples of 3d being used in things i said.

www.carsim.com...
Program


Credit where Credit is due.
Image shown here
forums.cgsociety.org...
Maker is: CanisLupus

There is more I can show you but I think this proves my point.

As for updating the s/w I don't think that is such a big issue. The reason being is you aren't showing the people the max file or Maya file, you are showing them the animation. In most cases that is an AVI, MPEG, or MOV.



[edit on 8/3/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I work in a studio, i can edit video, whatever you need, also i can mass produce the dvd/video if it ever gets to light.

you gotta stand up for what you believe, i am also willing to spend time learning to use 3d software.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I now think that 3d software is the way to go. I am always open to possibilities.
If you have any ideas or you want to take part in the project send me a U2.
Cheers xpert11.

[edit on 6-8-2006 by xpert11]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join