Why there were no planes at the WTC

Originally posted by brainsucker
PD2: Can you comment about the transparent plane a bit. Thanks.

Dude the reason it looks like its transparent is because of the blur and speed of the plane. Think of waving your hand back and forth really fast and you see your hand through in a way because of the "ghost image" or as being transparent.

"By your logic, bullets shouldn't pierce their targets; they should either bounce or explode. "

No, no, no, no...
A bullet acts like the "plane" (And the NIST model), it could undergo fragmentation and pieces could bounce or not and penetrate or not whatever material you choose.

I know that everyone understands the NIST model, your spin will not work.

By the way... I'm not creating any model here, we are looking into the NIST model (Desintegration, piercing and deflection), just a remainder.

Sorry, but this mythical "motion blur effect" extends well into the tail, and the wings (The WTC corner is clearly seen behind). The motion blur could make the edges diffuse, yes; but how is that way into the wing the plane is transparent? By the way... There is not even motion blur to begin with there.

Averaging of colors does not explain why I can clearly see the WTC corner behind the wing; nor any other artifact will explain that, cristal clear transparency.

Those are just a few --different-- frames, there is a very interesting thing with that video and the camera panning start... Work it out.

Originally posted by brainsucker
"By your logic, bullets shouldn't pierce their targets; they should either bounce or explode. "

No, no, no, no...
A bullet acts like the "plane" (And the NIST model), it could undergo fragmentation and pieces could bounce or not and penetrate or not whatever material you choose.

I know that everyone understands the NIST model, your spin will not work.

By the way... I'm not creating any model here, we are looking into the NIST model (Desintegration, piercing and deflection), just a remainder.

are you really serious??

i said take a physics course and your questions would go away.

it's called momentum; the plane has more momentum than the area of the building it crashed into...

also, the force in which the plane applied to the area of the building it hit is greater than the force that the area of the building applied onto the plane.

the plane wins. no deflection, no bouncy bouncy, just plain ol' physics at work.

that is why when you shoot someone with a bullet, it goes through their skin, unlike shooting kevlar. the resistance in kevlar causes a greater force to push back onto the bullet, keeping it from penetrating the material.

if that plane had hit a solid wall of steel that was 20ft thick, it would not penetrate the wall. the planes hit thin shafts of steel on the edges, with glass in between...much less resistance than a plane going 600mph.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by brainsucker
PD2: Can you comment about the transparent plane a bit. Thanks.

Dude the reason it looks like its transparent is because of the blur and speed of the plane. Think of waving your hand back and forth really fast and you see your hand through in a way because of the "ghost image" or as being transparent.

I think for this effect to happen the way this picture shows the plane would have to go in and then come out real fast again at this point you would have this transparency effect from back and forth.


just makes sense that way since there is no stretch transparency.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by selfless]

[edit on 2-10-2006 by selfless]

EDIT: my french is killing me hehe

[edit on 2-10-2006 by selfless]

Originally posted by psilogod

Originally posted by brainsucker
"By your logic, bullets shouldn't pierce their targets; they should either bounce or explode. "

No, no, no, no...
A bullet acts like the "plane" (And the NIST model), it could undergo fragmentation and pieces could bounce or not and penetrate or not whatever material you choose.

I know that everyone understands the NIST model, your spin will not work.

By the way... I'm not creating any model here, we are looking into the NIST model (Desintegration, piercing and deflection), just a remainder.

are you really serious??

i said take a physics course and your questions would go away.

it's called momentum; the plane has more momentum than the area of the building it crashed into...

also, the force in which the plane applied to the area of the building it hit is greater than the force that the area of the building applied onto the plane.

the plane wins. no deflection, no bouncy bouncy, just plain ol' physics at work.

that is why when you shoot someone with a bullet, it goes through their skin, unlike shooting kevlar. the resistance in kevlar causes a greater force to push back onto the bullet, keeping it from penetrating the material.

if that plane had hit a solid wall of steel that was 20ft thick, it would not penetrate the wall. the planes hit thin shafts of steel on the edges, with glass in between...much less resistance than a plane going 600mph.

i just think that for a plane to hit the beems that supports such a big building would indeed have a reflecting oposition.

Originally posted by selfless
I think for this effect to accure the way this picture shows the plane would have to go in and then come out real fast again at this point you would have this transparency effect from back and forth.


just makes sense that way since there is no stretch transparency.

Try using your arm and make a big swing fast enough. Don't need to move your hand or arm back and forth. Take a picture of it as you do it.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by selfless
I think for this effect to accure the way this picture shows the plane would have to go in and then come out real fast again at this point you would have this transparency effect from back and forth.


just makes sense that way since there is no stretch transparency.

Try using your arm and make a big swing fast enough. Don't need to move your hand or arm back and forth. Take a picture of it as you do it.

but in that situation of the plane how can it create transparency if the plane is not yet over the line of the building and there is no stretch transparency effect?

"the plane wins. no deflection, no bouncy bouncy, just plain ol' physics at work."

Are you stating that the NIST model is wrong? It shows MASSIVE deflection...

By the way... The ol' trick of the glass is not going to work, we all know that the WTC sides where mostly hard, very, very hard steel. It is inherent to the --tube-- structure.

Your theory (You ignore the NIST simulation, of course) is that the plane wraps itself into the tiny windows, and the massive columns do not act as a collision target, and it simply dissapears into it right?

I've read that stuff around here lots of times. It's very mythical (Well in the line of all the official explanations).

Please show proof that the NIST model is wrong because you are stating that "the plane wins" hence no deflection is seen.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by psilogod

Originally posted by brainsucker
"By your logic, bullets shouldn't pierce their targets; they should either bounce or explode. "

No, no, no, no...
A bullet acts like the "plane" (And the NIST model), it could undergo fragmentation and pieces could bounce or not and penetrate or not whatever material you choose.

I know that everyone understands the NIST model, your spin will not work.

By the way... I'm not creating any model here, we are looking into the NIST model (Desintegration, piercing and deflection), just a remainder.

are you really serious??

i said take a physics course and your questions would go away.

it's called momentum; the plane has more momentum than the area of the building it crashed into...

also, the force in which the plane applied to the area of the building it hit is greater than the force that the area of the building applied onto the plane.

the plane wins. no deflection, no bouncy bouncy, just plain ol' physics at work.

that is why when you shoot someone with a bullet, it goes through their skin, unlike shooting kevlar. the resistance in kevlar causes a greater force to push back onto the bullet, keeping it from penetrating the material.

if that plane had hit a solid wall of steel that was 20ft thick, it would not penetrate the wall. the planes hit thin shafts of steel on the edges, with glass in between...much less resistance than a plane going 600mph.

i just think that for a plane to hit the beems that supports such a big building would indeed have a reflecting oposition.

not really...

there are joints in the building...it's not like the beams are one solid beam...then i might believe you, but they are connected by bolts that could give under a great amount of force easily.

I'm pretty much gonna just stop right here and just have those that don't believe that planes didn't crash into the building.

www.youtube.com...

This is pretty much enough.

Originally posted by brainsucker
"the plane wins. no deflection, no bouncy bouncy, just plain ol' physics at work."

Are you stating that the NIST model is wrong? It shows MASSIVE deflection...

By the way... The ol' trick of the glass is not going to work, we all know that the WTC sides where mostly hard, very, very hard steel. It is inherent to the --tube-- structure.

Your theory (You ignore the NIST simulation, of course) is that the plane wraps itself into the tiny windows, and the massive columns do not act as a collision target, and simply dissapears into it right?

I've read that stuff around here lots of times. It's very mythical (Well in the line of all the official explanations).

Please show proof that the NIST model is wrong because you are stating that "the plane wins" hence no deflection is seen.

i'm not denying some deflection, on a much smaller scale. but the plane didn't just hit the building and bounce off which is what it sounds like you wanted to see happen.

Originally posted by psilogod
not really...

there are joints in the building...it's not like the beams are one solid beam...then i might believe you, but they are connected by bolts that could give under a great amount of force easily.

here is a rather mainstream source.
www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

as you can see these beems are prety solid in design and they should be considering it was a very tall building.



edit: shortened quote to relevant content

[edit on 10/3/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Pardon me: as NIST shows... NIST shows huge amounts of deflection.
Remainder: the video does not show ANY deflection (Even with the "plane" totally inside the buidling).

www.youtube.com...

Yo check this out, its the freaking ghost plane. Look how it makes itself transparent in the beginning on the footage. And look what the engines on the plane do when it reacts to impact.

Originally posted by brainsucker
Pardon me: as NIST shows... NIST shows huge amounts of deflection.
Remainder: the video does not show ANY deflection (Even with the "plane" totally inside the buidling).

what is this NIST crap you're talking about? computer simulation? who cares.




what's you're point in all of this? if there was no planes, then what was it? it doesn't change the fact that 3000+ people are dead and the WTC is history.

i don't doubt the govt had some sort of involvement, but your claim makes no sense.

"Planes" dissapear and are shown very bizzare on every camera shot.
Yes... We can start checking all the footage; the results will look very similar to that shown on the first page. So, what is going on here?

Nice psilogod, nice...

¿Who cares about the official explanation? I do care... Because it does not even start to resemble the video footage and I am interested in knowing why is that.

First it was the magical plane trough a window tour, then we enter the NIST ignore physics to the max world, so better put our heads in the sand and forget it.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]

[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]

Originally posted by johnlear
Are you saying the military paper I posted was fake? This was not a proposal it was a statement of fact. It was operational.

Actually, I never mentioned your weblink, but you seem to be treating it as proof that holograms were used on 9/11, which it isn't. It basically affirms that their holographic projector does indeed project a hologram. It includes no technical data and no real useful information.

We can surmise from this page that the image it projects would have to be travelling at the same speed and trajectory as the aircraft carrying the projector. That aircraft would either need to be relatively close by, or the projector would need a range of many many miles.

Further, the plane only appears transparent in a few zoomed-in frames. In the majority of the footage, the planes do not appear transparent.

Originally posted by brainsucker
"By your logic, bullets shouldn't pierce their targets; they should either bounce or explode. "

No, no, no, no...
A bullet acts like the "plane" (And the NIST model), it could undergo fragmentation and pieces could bounce or not and penetrate or not whatever material you choose.

I know that everyone understands the NIST model, your spin will not work.

By the way... I'm not creating any model here, we are looking into the NIST model (Desintegration, piercing and deflection), just a remainder.

Whether you're doing it intentionally or not, you're completely letting go of common sense in favor of a substandard explanation of physics in relation to high-velocity impact. The NIST report being a bad joke doesn't make your data correct.

I notice you've dodged my previous question twice now, I'd be interested in your answer.

Don't even give these "no planes" people a chance, they are insane.

What on Earth do you think everyone saw on 9/11? A hologram?? News flash, holograms can not make SHADOWS.



[edit on 2-10-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Shadows? Please, please show us one of those "shadows".

No shadow here:
www.youtube.com...

No shadow there:
youtube.com...

Aside from the huge anfo explosion shadow.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]