Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
In physics deflection is the event where an object collides and bounces against a plane surface.
en.wikipedia.org...



Now let's review NIST simulation in order to know if they account
for deflection:


Big image: img122.imageshack.us...

It is time to test a physical collision in the "real" world
and look for the deflection; the laws of physics are not mutable
so we know for sure that we will be seeing a deflection process:


Big image: img400.imageshack.us...

At this point we've got two possibilities:

+ The laws of physics did not apply at the WTC.
+ There is no plane driving any deflection process.

PD: But there is more to it...

Big image: img429.imageshack.us...



[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]




posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Were you expecting the plane to bounce off the side of the building instead of crashing through at a couple of hundred miles per hour? And not to mention that one image you just edited and took out, shows some objects being left behind after the trail of the plane as it impacted.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
We are talking about a MASSIVE deflection process here: missing, gone, none, zero, null.
Please point out where the massive deflection (As shown in the NIST simulation) is taking place.

PD: Of course I'm not saying that the CG must bounce on one piece, I'm looking for the physical process described by NIST (Second image); I have not found it.

PD2: Can you comment about the transparent plane a bit. Thanks.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
there is no way a plane could possibly reflect/bounce off, the force involved would, as was seen, destroy the plane.

Reflection works fine with light as a photon and the object it hits are both impossible to destroy.

Lighter parts of the plane bounced off, but there was still a lot of inertia there to dissipate.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
The NIST simulation goes against this statement:

"there is no way a plane could possibly reflect/bounce off, the force involved would, as was seen, destroy the plane. "

Because clearly the "plane" is destroyed on impact and some pieces bounce off acording to the known laws of physics (Deflection), as you can see on the PBS documentary.

You are twisting the laws of physics; ie: inventing new ones.

The expected behaviour of the collision is well simulated by NIST... The problem is that in the "real" world that behaviour could not be seen.

Of course letting aside the magical transparent plane.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
Can you comment about the transparent plane a bit. Thanks.


I'm not clear on what you mean by a "transparent plane".

Could you clarify?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I think that he is saying that the plane was transparent - that it wasnt really there.

I could be wrong, but I think that the OP is saying that is possible that the planes that struck the WTC weren't actually there, and were either some kind of holographic illusion or computer generated image used to fool the American people into thinking that the planes struck the WTC.

Of course, this theory (If Im correct in understanding what he is saying) is a crock. It completly discounts the THOUSANDS of eye witness accounts, and implies complicity in the media in perpetrating this crime on the American people.

All in all, I have this to say.

Thumbs down dude. Im all for an open mind, but you are totally reaching, and its ridiculous.



Also, I would like to add that this theory has absolutely no regard for Newtonian laws of physics - Specifically that "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" (The planes disintegrating on impact) and that "Any object in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by an opposing force" (Again, the planes hitting the building).

Deflection as a theory regarding the WTC holds no water.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by Mezzanine]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
It is amazing how you discount the NIST simulation showing the deflection...
We've got a theoric simulation and a "real" experiment that do not match at all.

Two choices:
a) The NIST simulation is wrong.
b) The WTC video is wrong.

PD: On the transparent plane... The picture speaks by itself, the "plane" (CG) is transparent... There is much more in there: the processed camera panning, etc. A total fabrication folks.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
That no plane theory is great really, I can accept it at the pentagon, and PA, but at the towers, I donno man.....

You are going on the deep end there.. we all saw the planes and the aftermath of the planes when they hit..

I dont think you can get much more real than that.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
You saw the planes... Where on TV? I saw Colin Powell at the ONU, on TV too, was it for real?


[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
It is amazing how you discount the NIST simulation showing the deflection...
We've got a theoric simulation and a "real" experiment that do not match at all.

Two choices:
a) The NIST simulation is wrong.
b) The WTC video is wrong.

PD: On the transparent plane... The picture speaks by itself, the "plane" (CG) is transparent... There is much more in there: the processed camera panning, etc. A total fabrication folks.


As far as the NIST simulation, you are comparing apples and oranges. The buildings were not shaped exactly like the proton experiment, neither were the planes.

Its not that the NIST was wrong, its just that it doesn't apply in this situation.

As far as the transparent plane, its obviously the camera attempting to focus on a fast moving object and a stationary object. Try messing around with cameras, you can get some interesting things but that doesnt mean that what you're filming isn't really there.
And you still havent addressed my concerns about how your theory would contradict the Newtonian laws or the thousands of eye witnesses who saw the planes hit.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
"Its not that the NIST was wrong, its just that it doesn't apply in this situation."

Of course, the detailed simulation by NIST of the WTC impacts does not apply to the WTC impacts. Doublespeak at the maximum level.

On the camera... That camera is making a neat transparency effect on 10s of frames and 100s of pixels each (On multiple videos of the event too, not just this one). Its quite interesting that TV cameras usually does not apply transparency masks when recording NASCAR or F1 cars .



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
This is how it was done.

This paper (www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b5_6.htm) titled Airborne Holographic Projector describes a holographic projector which displays a 3 dimensional image in a desired location removed from the display generator (in this case another aircraft flying nearby). The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception managment. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary (you and me).

The 3 dimensional display of flying airliners was projected to to show airliners flying into the WTC. That is why you can 'see through' the projections.

My opinion is that this technology was perfected about 15 years ago.






posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
This is how it was done.

This paper (www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b5_6.htm) titled Airborne Holographic Projector describes a holographic projector which displays a 3 dimensional image in a desired location removed from the display generator (in this case another aircraft flying nearby). The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception managment. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary (you and me).

The 3 dimensional display of flying airliners was projected to to show airliners flying into the WTC. That is why you can 'see through' the projections.

My opinion is that this technology was perfected about 15 years ago.







John, you are someone whom I respect a great deal, but I have to disagree with you on this. To my knowledge, there were no reports of other planes in Manhatten to project the image of the holographic plane.
Also, I feel that for the planes to be holographic would increase the scale of the 9/11 operation exponentially.

In terms of physics, the holographic planes dont make sense. Something hot those towers, something caused those initial explosions. In my opinion, I believe they actually were planes.

For holographic planes to be used in terms of hitting the towers in the exact spots, and the exact time, with the exact explosion ripping through the towers at the exact angle... I just think that requires an entire different level or precision than even the blackest, most highly trained government operatives aren't capable of.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by Mezzanine]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Originally posted by Mezzanine



John, you are someone whom I respect a great deal, but I have to disagree with you on this. To my knowledge, there were no reports of other planes in Manhatten to project the image of the holographic plane.
Also, I feel that for the planes to be holographic would increase the scale of the 9/11 operation exponentially.

In terms of physics, the holographic planes dont make sense. Something hot those towers, something caused those initial explosions. In my opinion, I believe they actually were planes.

For holographic planes to be used in terms of hitting the towers in the exact spots, and the exact time, with the exact explosion ripping through the towers at the exact angle... I just think that requires an entire different level or precision than even the blackest, most highly trained government operatives are capable of.



Their (the secret government) technology base is about 50 years ahead of where you think it is. So when you say the 'blackest, most highly trained government operatives' would not be capable of this...you are dead wrong. With all due respect.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
The building would consume the "plane" not "bounce" it off.

kinda like this,

Jet crash



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Mezzanine



Also, I feel that for the planes to be holographic would increase the scale of the 9/11 operation exponentially.

In terms of physics, the holographic planes dont make sense. Something hot those towers, something caused those initial explosions. In my opinion, I believe they actually were planes.

For holographic planes to be used in terms of hitting the towers in the exact spots, and the exact time, with the exact explosion ripping through the towers at the exact angle... I just think that requires an entire different level or precision than even the blackest, most highly trained government operatives are capable of.



Their (the secret government) technology base is about 50 years ahead of where you think it is. So when you say the 'blackest, most highly trained government operatives' would not be capable of this...you are dead wrong. With all due respect.


I dont believe its a question of the technology. I believe its a question of the logistical percision.

For example:

From an interview you did with Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM


Art - What about simulators? Flight simulators?

John - This had to be accomplished by pilots who got instruction - were taken to 'honest-to-God' Boeing 757 simulators which is - you know - the 757 and 767 the same cockpit essentially and you get the same rating and whoever concocted this whole thing knew that on a particular day that airplanes themselves could be switched because of maintenance problems and by selecting airlines that had that airplane, they had everything covered.

Art - Huh! So it actually took a fair amount of skill to plow into those buildings?

John - I would say that it took about 200 or 300 hours for each pilot - and we're talking about . . .

Art - 200 or 300 hours? But you mean of simulator time?

John - Of simulator time! They had to learn how to step into the cockpit - and that's a whole thing - getting into the airplane, but that's separate from that - they had to get into the cockpit and pull the circuit breaker for the transponder - sit in the pilot seat, disconnect the auto-pilot from the flight management system - turn the airplane, push the throttles all the way forward, find Manhattan - then line up on a pre-planned course - doing 10 miles a minute - they were clocked by air traffic control doing 600 miles an hour at 700 feet above the ground and fly directly into the middle the center of the World Trade Center. Now that - you know and the air races only fly 400 miles an hour and that's difficult - but to fly an airliner like the size of a 757 at 700 feet - I mean that took some skill and that took a long time to train that - probably a year.

Art - That's wild (unintelligible)

John - In addition to that - hitting the Trade Center was a feat - but hitting the Pentagon was even more of a feat because when you are going that fast there is a tremendous amount of air creating this lift and as you head towards the ground, that air reacts against the wing and pushes you up, so whoever - whoever hit that - trained to hit the Pentagon at the 3rd story was highly trained because when he came towards the ground - there was a tremendous amount of lift and you would have to trim forward and push with an incredible amount of strength to not be pushed up and over the Pentagon to hit the 3rd story.


Now, by your own admission, it took an extreme amount of skill to fly those planes into the buldings (if indeed, they were flown into the building); skill that someone qualified as yourself would possess, but not the average Cessna pilot. Now, the skill that it would take to not only operate a plane, but also a holograpic projection... thats mind boggeling.
I believe planes did hit the towers, not projections. Im not doubting the technology exists, I just dont think it was used that day.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsucker
On the transparent plane... The picture speaks by itself, the "plane" (CG) is transparent... There is much more in there: the processed camera panning, etc. A total fabrication folks.


Keep in mind that you're looking at a paused digital video, captured from a less-than-optimum consumer-level camera (if I'm correct on the specific video you're using).

First, compressed digital video typically has no real "frames", as the compression method stores the changes between reference frames (or keyframes), not individual frames. So, stills of a compressed digital video can introduce unexpected artifacts as a result.

The "semi-transparent" wings can then be caused by a number of items in this case:
1- The "slow speed" of the consumer camera frame rate capturing moving objects with as a blur
2- The lower-end consumer level electronics of the camera unable to properly refine images of this size (the original is small)
3- The interpolation of the blow up can introduce edge artifacts that being to look partially transparent
4- If the digital video is compressed to 15 frames per second, you may be looking at the average of two frames... resulting in a transparent moving image
5- If the digital video is heavily compressed, the sky color is being averaged with the wing color in that area.
6- If the digital video is heavily compressed, you may be looking at the stored partial changes between reference frames, not a reference frame.
and the list goes on.

I hope that helps.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   


Now, the skill that it would take to not only operate a plane, but also a holograpic projection... thats mind boggeling.


Im not saying I agree that a holographic projection was used to project planes hitting the towers.....But I think you are missing the point....operation of a hologram would be almost entirely computer generated.....the plane used to created the hologram would just be flying around.......the skill needed for that is by far less than the skill needed to actually fly the planes into the towers.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
More on the "simple" deflection model:

We do not need a complex model (ie: particle system simulation;
already provided by NIST) because the simplest model,
based on the well known deflection, shows the problem quite well.
In fact both models are NOT mutually exclusive.

I suspect that in the light of the --absence of deflection-- NIST hacked
the model to downplay the process, and make it appear more like the
"reality". This was two folded: go in line with the big hole
(Very difficult) and try to account for the zero deflection seen
(Impossible).

I do not know how It was done and I do not doubt that the technology
explained by John Lear exists (Because I have seen amazing civilian-tech
holograms).

Some posible scenarios:
CG digitally dubbed: I would expect more quality on the dubbing process.
Holographic tech: This accounts for the "eyewitness" and transparency.

Experiment (Beware):
1. Get a glass.
2. Throw it against the wall.
3. Glass desintegrates.
4. Each piece undergoes collision (With the wall and/or other pieces).
5. Lots of different deflections.
ie: the NIST model.





top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join