Gravity Can't Do This!

reply to post by WarminIndy

It is really amazing that in all the calls made to the loved ones and 911 calls, they acknowledge that planes hit the towers. But then again "Truthers" say the government made those calls. It is really incredible that government people who did not personally know the families of the victims could sound like the person.

That is incredible disrespect for "Truthers" against the families. And another "Truther" conspiracy is that no Jewish people were in the towers, however many Jewish families lost loved ones in the towers. Shimmy Biegeleisen was just one....so I suppose he did not get that memo.....

WTF I've never said that the government faked phone calls, and I haven't seen a single person ever say that on this website. That's a pretty big generalization, assuming that all "truthers" subscribe to that theory.

The "Truthers" have shown little regard to the victim's families, the victims and the integrity of the messages they made when they called their loved ones at home.

Your non-stop generalizations make me want to vomit.

To hear 911 calls from someone in the building say "We were hit by a plane, I love you" is extremely emotional and profound.

Sure, why wouldn't it be? Has anybody here said anything to the contrary? Has a single post in this thread revolved around the phone calls to the families of victims?

They knew it was planes.

So does everybody else including myself.....so why did you waste your time typing up this emotional rant?

So I want to know, did they see the "hologram images"? Did they watch tv while the building was burning around them? People jumping from the floors above, were they watching the "fake digital images"?

Another huge generalization on your part. You assume that everybody believes the craziest theory that you can think of, when in reality I don't believe that and I also haven't seen anybody suggest that on this website.

But of course, it is easier to diminish a human life when you don't care to hear to hear the messages of these people. You don't want to accept the testimony of firemen who gave their lives.

There are many firemen testimonies that go against the official story too. But sure, go ahead and pull they "gave their lives" card to try and guilt trip us into believing what you're saying.

You don't want to accept the many witnesses who saw it happen.

Saw what happen, the videos of the planes hitting? Because I'm sure every single person on this website has seen those dozens of times. I'm not denying that planes hit, I don't know where you are getting these wild assumptions from but keep up the good work.

You don't want to accept the simple little words "I love you" spoken by the victims as they tell their loved ones that their building was hit by a plane and they are trapped and about to die.

WOW are you serious dude? This emotional appeal isn't going to gain you any ground, everybody knows that it was a terrible tragedy, 3,000 people died. Just because some people looked at the facts and evidence and came to a different opinion than you doesn't mean that we hate their families. We don't get together and egg their families while cussing at them, protest funerals or whatever. You need to chill out with that attitude of yours.

The "Truther" movement is disrespectful, hateful, and not at all truthful.

How is it any of those things? Disrespectful how, because we're not blindly accepting everything our government tells us? Shame on us for not taking the word of politicians and people who gained so much from 9/11! We need to man up, and show some respect to the group of government officials who investigated the 9/11 attacks, because if there's anybody to trust when it comes to erasing any doubts that our government was involved, it's our own government. We are so disrespectful because we don't have the exact same opinions as you, jeez.

Hateful, who do we hate? Where is this hateful message in our posts that you are seeing? Am I not reading between the lines closely enough, because I just see people having a discussion here. You're getting all emotional and condescending us and I have no idea why.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

So what you're saying is that you have no idea how to determine who is correct?

You're saying that you don't understand the arguments about how the sampling rate/graph provided is unsuitable to provide accurate answers to whether or not jolts are actually in the raw data?

Ok then, if you're not able to make this determination, then you are unable to recognize when you read any truth. You will only agree with what is written when it agrees with your delusion of CD.

I'm saying they're all providing data, graphs, calculations, and evidence to back up what they're saying, and a lot of it is some really complex stuff that I don't understand. It's not a matter of reckognizing truth as much as not understanding the engineering and mathematical jargin and concepts that they're casually tossing around in 40 pages of discussion for each thread.

Yep, there was a lot of drywall in the towers. You should educate yourself about it.

Yeah I'm heading over to drywall college in the fall so I'll get back to you on that.

From that same forum: "What is causing the ejections of the debris" Once again, truthers that don't want to make a mockery of their online persona realize some truth of the matter.

...Or maybe I didn't see that?

What else do you think is causing the dust and debris ejecta ?

Please don't say floor-by-floor explosives all the way down the tower, it's just silly.

The ejecta is not fast enough. Simple as that. Forget audio. Forget installation. Forget all the AE911T gibberish. The pulverised concrete ejecta is not going fast enough.

If you want to simplify your viewpoint, consider one floor impacting the one below...

The nominal progression rate is around 27m/s, so one floor takes about 0.15s to go from static, through a 12ft drop and impact the one below.

During that 0.15s, ~206*206*10=424360 cubic feet of air is displaced.

If we use a rough estimate of the window apertures as being 103*4*8=3296 square feet, then we're looking at a flow rate in the region of...

424360/3296/0.15 = 858 cubic feet of air escaping per second, per square foot.

Any fairly small scale debris is going to be ejected pretty easily with anything even roughly near that kind of flow rate.

You should have quoted that, we don't want people thinking you're a lot smarter than you are now do we? You also should have posted some of the other 5 pages of that ongoing discussion in which many people disagree with him and explain why.

By this bit of self debunking lunacy:


The top section of the south tower fell at a different angle than the north tower.


A rational person would recognize that pointing out the south tower tilting during the collapse as being different from the north tower's collapse...... as proof that they weren't identical collapses.

I was referring to the bottom section of the towers. Why would I mention the difference in the top section of the towers to illustrate how the top section falls differently for each tower?

The top section of the south tower falls at a way different angle than the north tower, yet the bottom sections are crushed to the ground for both towers.

Originally posted by TupacShakur

I'm saying they're all providing data, graphs, calculations, and evidence to back up what they're saying, and a lot of it is some really complex stuff that I don't understand.

The same can be said of every issue regarding the events of 9/11 - including the physics questions bandied about. And not just for you. Every truther is in the same boat. And yet they make declarations about this and that as if they understand things better than the professionals that investigated the collapses, and thise that did their own independent studies.

It's not a matter of reckognizing truth as much as not understanding the engineering and mathematical jargin and concepts that they're casually tossing around in 40 pages of discussion for each thread.

Now you're beginning to see that you're not as well versed as you need to be to make proclamations about how the towers were CD'ed.

You may have questions, and that's fine. But truthers also need to recognize that they're out of their depth when answers are provided that disagree with their position on 9/11.

You should have quoted that, we don't want people thinking you're a lot smarter than you are now do we?

A rational person would recognize that it is a quote from that thread.

You also should have posted some of the other 5 pages of that ongoing discussion in which many people disagree with him and explain why.

femr is a truther. Plain and simple. He believes that the tower were CDed. But he has realized the stupidity of the claim that every floor was blown to bits like you did. The ones that argue with him haven't yet acknowledged that they are out of their depth when they argue with him, unlike you did above.

I was referring to the bottom section of the towers

Ah, then you've already had the answer, from someone else - cuz they were of virtually identical construction.

reply to post by -PLB-

How about this, I agree that accounting only floor connections failing is an over idealized model if you agree that a force larger than provided by the lower structure pre-collapse was required.

Not sure what you mean?

How do you know this is suspect?

It is just my opinion that it is suspect. I find is suspect for the reasons given in my previous post and because even in Verinage demolition with pre-weakened structures I've never seen a case where the top section was able to sustain an average acceleration through the bottom section, let alone at anything approaching ~2/3rds free fall (though if anyone knows of one I'd be interested to see it).

Did you have an education in structural engineering?

Yes.

I don't find that very interesting, you can easily explain that by the tilting.

I haven't heard that. Care to fill me in?

As for 7, clear signs of internal collapse were visible.

But that doesn't explain how several floors for the entire area of the structure were able to very suddenly go from supporting the static weight of the building to being structurally non-existent, and several more after that suddenly providing almost no structural resistance.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

It's not representative at all.

Therefore your analogy fails and is suitable only for laughing at.

Yes it is. Perhaps you could manage to provide some reasoning for why it is not representative instead of more emotional rhetoric? Good job furthering debate.

My analogy was not trying to represent the collapse, merely explaining the difference between freefall acceleration, less than freefall acceleration, and decelerration.

So in my analogy, my reference brake pressure is zero.

Now... if YOU want to create an analogy that recreates the collapse, feel free. I could use a good laugh.

So in other words, your analogy was entirely pointless and relevant to nothing. Good job furthering debate.

An increasing mass at a constant velocity gains momentum.

Which again, has nothing to do with the towers since the mass the top sections gained came from stationary collisions where velocity had to decrease to achieve conservation of momentum.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
So are you "Truthers" going to say the entire FDNY was involved in the conspiracy when they said that burning jet fuel was flooding the elevator shafts?

I've asked this question so many times over the years, whenever it gets brought up... and I never get a definitive answer. For some reason, it's an easy claim that some people make, but they fail to provide any accurate information about it.

How much jet fuel was flooding which particular elevator shafts?

You made the claim, so be specific now, WarminIndy. No handwaving or sidestepping - just answer the question.

I am addressing the "Truther" aspect from every juncture they claim is false.

We have all heard the "truthers" claim that no Jews were in the building, we have heard that the FBI made the personal phone calls imitating victims. We have heard so many wild claims. This is merely one more wild claim made by "Truthers".

When you asked for physics, you were given physics. When you asked for architecture, you were given architecture. When you asked for an understanding of forces on the building, you discounted it by saying "That is impossible, because the way I think is....".

When you ascribe to the "Truther" philosophy by ignoring evidence that is not only scientific, but human testimony, the first thing you do is jump back on the thought "The government did it, because....." When you have immersed yourself into the "Truther" movement, then you accept every part of the theories tossed out there.

For those of us who have seen the truth, heard the truth and accept the truth, it is black and white for us. We trust physics, construction, and architecture. And for your information, I am not a dude.

You keep ascribing to the theory of bombs. Well put up or shut up is all I can say. Prove there were bombs. Prove that the smell of burning jet fuel is just sulphur. Prove the plane parts around the buildings were just bomb casings. You are the one saying it, so prove it. That's right, you can't because it is not true. Just accept the planes hit the buildings and exploded, compromising the steel framework that held the buildings up.

So to prove my point again...this time without linking to the evidence already shown to you....

Big plane flying 200 mph
15,000 plus gallons of fuel
Hits tower
Rams into the building causing internal damage
Eruption causes explosion
Explosion sends debris flying
Gravity pulls debris down
Shockwave blows out windows in lobby
Shockwave compromises structural support
Floors descend
Fire causes vacuum that sucks air into fire
Fire gets hotter
Flammable material falling onto lower floors
Heat is bending steel support beams
Heat and pressure cause steel support beams to give way
Building collapses because the force of gravity pulls it down.

What more is there to understand?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by WarminIndy
So are you "Truthers" going to say the entire FDNY was involved in the conspiracy when they said that burning jet fuel was flooding the elevator shafts?

I've asked this question so many times over the years, whenever it gets brought up... and I never get a definitive answer. For some reason, it's an easy claim that some people make, but they fail to provide any accurate information about it.

How much jet fuel was flooding which particular elevator shafts?

You made the claim, so be specific now, WarminIndy. No handwaving or sidestepping - just answer the question.

The entire amount that was not initially lost in the first explosion. Would you like the link again for the video of the firemen stating there was jet fuel in the elevator shafts? And if you crashed your car tonight and it burst into flames, would witnesses be able to say how many gallons of gas was in your car? Let's see, it was filled with fuel before take-off at an airport only 8 miles away...gee, perhaps 15,000 plus gallons?

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by WarminIndy
So are you "Truthers" going to say the entire FDNY was involved in the conspiracy when they said that burning jet fuel was flooding the elevator shafts?

I've asked this question so many times over the years, whenever it gets brought up... and I never get a definitive answer. For some reason, it's an easy claim that some people make, but they fail to provide any accurate information about it.

How much jet fuel was flooding which particular elevator shafts?

You made the claim, so be specific now, WarminIndy. No handwaving or sidestepping - just answer the question.

in Tower 2, it was elevator shaft B. all the way down to the 40th floor.
The entire amount that was not initially lost in the first explosion. Would you like the link again for the video of the firemen stating there was jet fuel in the elevator shafts? And if you crashed your car tonight and it burst into flames, would witnesses be able to say how many gallons of gas was in your car? Let's see, it was filled with fuel before take-off at an airport only 8 miles away...gee, perhaps 15,000 plus gallons?

Originally posted by WarminIndy
I am addressing the "Truther" aspect from every juncture they claim is false.

When you asked for physics, you were given physics. When you asked for architecture, you were given architecture. When you asked for an understanding of forces on the building, you discounted it by saying "That is impossible, because the way I think is....".
So to prove my point again...this time without linking to the evidence already shown to you....

Big plane flying 200 mph
15,000 plus gallons of fuel

Building collapses because the force of gravity pulls it down.

What more is there to understand?

We understand that you are really good at demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.

The plane that hit the north tower was doing 440 mph.

The plane that hit the south tower was doing 550 mph.

Where did you get 200 mph from?

It was about 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane weighing 34 tons? Where did you get 15,000 gallons.

What does BIG PLANE mean? Compared to lots of other planes they were big. Compared to the towers, not so much. Buildings don't have to fly so they have the edge in DENSITY.

The planes were about 150 tons total, including fuel. The buildings were over 400,000+ tons. That should be just the structural steel and concrete but there is still argument about the concrete. Since we don't know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level arguing about the physics is problematic. Anybody claiming the physics is solved is either STUPID or a LIAR.

Considering that you cannot even get the speed of the planes in the ballpark your credibility is questionable.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by WarminIndy
I am addressing the "Truther" aspect from every juncture they claim is false.

When you asked for physics, you were given physics. When you asked for architecture, you were given architecture. When you asked for an understanding of forces on the building, you discounted it by saying "That is impossible, because the way I think is....".
So to prove my point again...this time without linking to the evidence already shown to you....

Big plane flying 200 mph
15,000 plus gallons of fuel

Building collapses because the force of gravity pulls it down.

What more is there to understand?

We understand that you are really good at demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.

The plane that hit the north tower was doing 440 mph.

The plane that hit the south tower was doing 550 mph.

Where did you get 200 mph from?

It was about 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane weighing 34 tons? Where did you get 15,000 gallons.

What does BIG PLANE mean? Compared to lots of other planes they were big. Compared to the towers, not so much. Buildings don't have to fly so they have the edge in DENSITY.

The planes were about 150 tons total, including fuel. The buildings were over 400,000+ tons. That should be just the structural steel and concrete but there is still argument about the concrete. Since we don't know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level arguing about the physics is problematic. Anybody claiming the physics is solved is either STUPID or a LIAR.

Considering that you cannot even get the speed of the planes in the ballpark your credibility is questionable.

psik

So what you're saying is....even though I underestimated the speed...a faster plane would cause more damage?

And the amount of fuel came from the design specs of Boeing 767, which is almost 16,000 gallons. I posted that link last night. The plane took off after fueling at Newark, only 8 miles away from Manhattan. It was bound for San Francisco.

So I will accept 400 miles per hour. That seems right.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
So are you "Truthers" going to say the entire FDNY was involved in the conspiracy when they said that burning jet fuel was flooding the elevator shafts?

The entire amount that was not initially lost in the first explosion. Would you like the link again for the video of the firemen stating there was jet fuel in the elevator shafts? And if you crashed your car tonight and it burst into flames, would witnesses be able to say how many gallons of gas was in your car? Let's see, it was filled with fuel before take-off at an airport only 8 miles away...gee, perhaps 15,000 plus gallons?

The planes were not FILLED with fuel and they were not flown straight from the airports to the target.

The planes were only filled to reach their destinations plus whatever safety margin. Airlines don't want to spend money flying fuel around and if there is a crash they don't want a lot of extra fuel to burn. So planes are probably only close to full on takeoffs of trans-Pacific flights.

The plane hit the south tower 900 feet up the building. Now for something to fall straight down an elevator shaft without hitting the sides how little horizontal velocity must it have? JUST ABOUT ZERO!

Now if a plane flies into a building at over 400 mph how much horizontal velocity is the fuel going to have? Even when the wings are ripped off and the fuel flies out of the tanks it will still be doing over 200 mph. So how can this fuel slow down to ZERO VELOCITY to fall down an elevator shaft? And then there were ONLY TWO elevator shafts that ran the entire height of the buildings. So how could all of the fuel that did not explode find its way to just those two shafts?

So whatever fuel got to the shafts would have been on fire and bounce around and flow down the sides. How long would it take burning jet fuel to flow 900 feet down the sides of elevator shafts and how much would burn away before it got to the lobby?

9/11 is a scientific travesty with all of the obvious questions that make the official scenario ridiculous.

psik

Originally posted by WarminIndy
The entire amount that was not initially lost in the first explosion.
Let's see, it was filled with fuel before take-off at an airport only 8 miles away...gee, perhaps 15,000 plus gallons?

So you make a claim that there was jet fuel flooding elevator shafts... but you can't specify the amount of jet fuel with any accuracy... right... and I am just supposed to believe you.

You don't have a very good track record here so far, WarminIndy. Remember, you still want us to believe that there was a vacuum between the floors, created by the fires. Even wmd_2008 told you to 'STFU' about that and he happens to support the official story!!!

reply to post by WarminIndy

We have all heard the "truthers" claim that no Jews were in the building

Speak for yourself buddy, I have never heard that before, so no, we haven't "all heard" that claim. Please find a quote from this thread where somebody mentions the lack of Jews in the towers. Better yet, find a quote from this entire website where somebody makes that claim. Stop generalizing too, it makes you look stupid.

we have heard that the FBI made the personal phone calls imitating victims.

Again, just like I said in my previous response, nobody in this thread has said that. In fact, I have never seen a single person mention FBI making personal phone calls imitating victims until you brought it up in this thread.

When you asked for physics, you were given physics.

"Yes, I'd like some Physics please", "One Physics coming right up"

When you asked for architecture, you were given architecture.

"Could I please get some architecture to go with that?" "Sure, we've got an order of Physics with a side of architecture, will that be all?"

When you ascribe to the "Truther" philosophy by ignoring evidence that is not only scientific, but human testimony, the first thing you do is jump back on the thought "The government did it, because....." When you have immersed yourself into the "Truther" movement, then you accept every part of the theories tossed out there.

If you want to talk about human testimony, I would be more than happy to provide you with human testimony that contradicts the official story and backs up us crazy truthers perspective.

For those of us who have seen the truth, heard the truth and accept the truth, it is black and white for us. We trust physics, construction, and architecture.

If that's the case, here's a buttload of people that you can trust: Patriots Question 9/11:
220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
1,500+ Engineers and Architects
250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
400+ Professors Question 9/11
300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
400+ Medical Professionals

You keep ascribing to the theory of bombs. Well put up or shut up is all I can say. Prove there were bombs.

My next thread will contain that as well as many other things, once it's finished I'll be more than happy to "put up or shut up".

Prove the plane parts around the buildings were just bomb casings. You are the one saying it, so prove it.

Where are you getting these insane ideas from? I have never seen a singe person mention the theory that the plane parts were indeed bomb casings.

That's right, you can't because it is not true.

But you didn't give us a chance to respond.

Just accept the planes hit the buildings and exploded, compromising the steel framework that held the buildings up.

Um........no, but good try.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

The same can be said of every issue regarding the events of 9/11 - including the physics questions bandied about. And not just for you. Every truther is in the same boat. And yet they make declarations about this and that as if they understand things better than the professionals that investigated the collapses, and thise that did their own independent studies.

That's where you're wrong. I base my opinion off of the facts, evidence, and experimentation, most of which is provided by people who are much more experienced and knowledgeable in those fields than me. Many professionals have reached different conclusions than what the official story pushes.

Now you're beginning to see that you're not as well versed as you need to be to make proclamations about how the towers were CD'ed.

You may have questions, and that's fine. But truthers also need to recognize that they're out of their depth when answers are provided that disagree with their position on 9/11.

I may also have opinions too, don't forget that opinions aren't limited to controlled demolitions experts, architects, engineers, and so on.

Ah, then you've already had the answer, from someone else - cuz they were of virtually identical construction.

.....OK, so I guess I will post this again since you either didn't understand what I was saying or didn't read it:

The planes hit at different angles and different speeds with different masses. There were different amounts of jet fuel in each tower. Fires were distributed differently in each tower and burned at different temperatures. The top section of each tower had different masses. The top section of the south tower fell at a different angle than the north tower. Yet the collapse of the towers was identical.

The construction of the towers were virtually identical. Do you know what wasn't identical? All of those things in the above post: Both the pre-collapse and mid-collapse conditions of each tower. Despite all of those differences, the collapses were identical.

I'm not talking about the buildings construction being different, I'm talking about the conditions that supposedly led to the collapses being different yet the collapses being identical.

Originally posted by WarminIndy

So what you're saying is....even though I underestimated the speed...a faster plane would cause more damage?

And the amount of fuel came from the design specs of Boeing 767, which is almost 16,000 gallons. I posted that link last night. The plane took off after fueling at Newark, only 8 miles away from Manhattan. It was bound for San Francisco.

So I will accept 400 miles per hour. That seems right.

Yeah, a faster plane would cause more damage. That does not mean it could cause enough damage.

Why don't you want to know the tons of steel on every level of the building? Is that because you already decided the plane should win? The average is 860 tons of steel per level though we don't know how it tapered up the building.

I bet 200 mph is near the stall speed of that plane. It would fall out of the sky trying to go that slow. Airplanes are not like cars. Filling the tank is STUPID when it is not going to be used in the flight and is not for safety margin.

Your saying 200 mph means you did not do research RELEVANT information before you shot off your mouth and you demonstrate that you make ridiculous assumptions so why should anyone pay attention to your opinion? If anything you demonstrate the mentality of people that have kept such a simple problem from having been solved in NINE YEARS.

You BELIEVE what you prefer when facts which are either obvious or easy to research would indicate your BELIEFS are absurd. And then you have the nerve to defend them by advertising your ignorance.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The average is 860 tons of steel per level though we don't know how it tapered up the building.

Just so that the OSers don't try to claim the steel didn't taper here is NISTs own core data info (that has been dismissed by OSers lol)...

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

It shows the size of every one of the 47 core columns using an animated gif file...

This is column CC501...



Pay attention to this OSers, and then try to explain how those 47 columns, tied together with numerous cross bracing, could telescope down through an increasing path of most resistance?

The aircraft and fires are irrelevant to this.

Originally posted by ANOK
Pay attention to this OSers, and then try to explain how those 47 columns, tied together with numerous cross bracing, could telescope down through an increasing path of most resistance?

Straw man. Can you quote the section in the official explanation where it is stated that the columns telescoped down? (no you can't, it is a fabricated fantasy so that you can reject the official explanation).

There is one thing I do know how to do and will input my expertise on this...

I went to film school. I took Studio Production, Audio Production and Video Editing. I was an A student. I have made short films. I know how to use a camera and how to produce live video. In fact, I have worked with people who have produced documentaries, Disney Films, the Family Channel and movies produced in Europe.

"Truthers" with no video experience at all suddenly started saying the videos were digitally altered so it made it "look" like planes hit, while "bombs" were exploding. What I will say now is that is bull crap.

It is impossible to edit video when the video is live, meaning that what you are seeing happening is actually happening when you are seeing it. There is NO editing software that can do that. And I have used both Adobe Premier Pro and Final Cut Pro, both used extensively as the industry standard. If you go to any film school, you will learn to use both of them. For your film portfolio you must have when you graduate, you must show proficiency on both of these programs. Adobe Premier Pro is cross-platform, whereas Final Cut Pro has only been made cross-platform with the latest release.

When you have no less than 5 live news streams from New York City alone all capturing the plane hitting the second tower, and not to mention the videos captured by people on the street and people in buildings nearby.

But "Truthers" will have us believe that all those people who witnessed this were actually just government agents. That what they did was this...."bombs exploded, but the government created a digital image that they then streamed over the news"....do you see how retarded that concept is?

Helicopters from the news channels in New York City were flying and their cameraman captured the planes hitting, they were taken from different angles because they were in different locations. One thing that you learn in film school is this...when you are filming with a camera, the direction in which your light source comes from will change the light and color of what you are filming. That is why understanding how light works is fundamental in film production. So you see different angles and different lighting conditions. I don't think I should have to draw any pictures to get you to understand this.

www.youtube.com...

So when are hearing people say "explosion"..of course, because the plane exploded. For this to be a digitally altered event from that many angles as it is streaming live....IMPOSSIBLE.

So if planes hit, what would the damage be?

Originally posted by WarminIndy
There is one thing I do know how to do and will input my expertise on this...

I went to film school. I took Studio Production, Audio Production and Video Editing. I was an A student. I have made short films. I know how to use a camera and how to produce live video. In fact, I have worked with people who have produced documentaries, Disney Films, the Family Channel and movies produced in Europe.

"Truthers" with no video experience at all suddenly started saying the videos were digitally altered so it made it "look" like planes hit, while "bombs" were exploding. What I will say now is that is bull crap.

The man talking about 200 mph airliners says bull crap! I am so impressed!

The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about video either. Why don't you watch this video? It has a little bit about physics.



I am sick of all of the crap about edited videos too. It is just a stupid distraction from the simple but conclusive.

psik