The 9/11 Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgTq-AgY ... _embedded#!

erase reality in realtime, that is. i'm not a "no planer", but i'm also not convinced there wasn't "something" used to confuse the issues. like, MANY of the video feeds show a fuzzy gray black blob or show disappearing wings. i would believe it's possible if i saw other plane pictures/videos that are similiar, but usually a plane shows up clearly as a plane.

'thanks" janet jackson's tit for building in even more standard delay time.

Fascinating! Mostly it was very clean but the grate on the pavement showed some artifact. The signature of the process might be evident in some cases. I noticed also that it was necessary to choose objects which are fully surrounded by a relatively uniform background.

All the more reason to question what you see.

newton wrote:'thanks" janet jackson's tit for building in even more standard delay time.

Hahaha, I give thanks to her tit at least once a week. Only the one, mind you.

I don't know how they actually do it... but it's a graphic editing process where you copy and paste pixels from another region of the image. If there is a regular pattern it will repeat of there isn't too much perspective. You can remove or add clouds to sky for example.... removing an object from a uniform field is trivial.

It's all there in photoshop.

I hate to have to admit I'm a no planer. I still can't believe that a plane came screaming down the Hudson, engines going full bore, craft emitting a sonic boom being over the speed of sound under 5,000 feet, and not a single 911 call about it. Yet Capt. Sully, gliding down to the river, with both engines cut off by bird strikes, generated dozens of 911 calls. In fact, if the official story is to be believed, only a handful of firemen and a camera man spotted the first plane. Which is pretty absurd. Notice that they appear to turn to look at where they supposedly hear the sound of the jet. But, depending on the height of the aircraft and it's speed (supposedly supersonic at that point), by the time they hear the sound, the air craft would be 3 seconds advanced from over their heads. That puts it behind the telephone building already. Unable to see what it is, no less it's trajectory, what is there to prompt the cameraman to quickly focus on the WTC? Surrounded by tall buildings everywhere, he can have no clue that there will be anything for him to see anywhere.

That brings us to the impact itself. Had the plane been completely and perfectly perpendicular to the building face, some sort of penetration, of the type shown, might have been possible. But that wasn't the case. The aircraft was not perpendicular to the building face, the nose of the craft was slightly below and to the west of the tail. Thus, when the nose met the resistance of the building face, the rest of the craft, supported and resisted only by air, should have rotated quite rapidly in the direction of the smaller angles.

Thus the aircraft should have "broadsided" the building, with the result of leaving a huge portion of debris outside the building to be taped raining down to the streets below. My guess is that someone able to work up the figures, will soon be releasing their data, showing how the aircraft should have behaved on impact. The impact angles and speeds are easily obtained over at the 911 pilots for truth site. Happy hunting.

Obwon wrote:I hate to have to admit I'm a no planer.

I hate to read you are one :p

Obwon wrote:I still can't believe that a plane came screaming down the Hudson, engines going full bore, craft emitting a sonic boom being over the speed of sound under 5,000 feet, ... (supposedly supersonic at that point) ...

This is the first time I read the claimn that AA11 was supersonic. According to Wikipedia, the aircraft was "traveling at about 404 knots (465 mph; 748 km/h)". Speed of Sound at 20° is 1,236 km/h = 768 mph. That "is nearly independent of pressure or density for a given gas". So it would appear that you are quite wrong here.

Obwon wrote:and not a single 911 call about it. Yet Capt. Sully, gliding down to the river, with both engines cut off by bird strikes, generated dozens of 911 calls.

I would think that after 9/11, New Yorkers would be much more alarmed by the sight of low-flying airliners that before 9/11. What do you think?

Obwon wrote:In fact, if the official story is to be believed, only a handful of firemen and a camera man spotted the first plane.

Can you cite where in the "official version" this claim is made - that ONLY a handful of firemen and a camera man spotted the first plane? I was so far under the apprehension that various media outlets already had callers on the phone and live on the program that described seeing the first plane even before the second plane hit. It seems that, again, you are very wrong here.

Obwon wrote:Which is pretty absurd. Notice that they appear to turn to look at where they supposedly hear the sound of the jet. But, depending on the height of the aircraft and it's speed (supposedly supersonic at that point), by the time they hear the sound, the air craft would be 3 seconds advanced from over their heads. That puts it behind the telephone building already. Unable to see what it is, no less it's trajectory, what is there to prompt the cameraman to quickly focus on the WTC? Surrounded by tall buildings everywhere, he can have no clue that there will be anything for him to see anywhere.

Hmmm. I call conjecture. We had a couple or three military air bases pretty close to where I live, and we spotted Phantoms, Harriers, even Starfighters, more or less daily. I can't say what speed maximum they were flying at when they passed low over my home town - slower than Mach1 certainly, but faster than 500 km/h no doubt.
I can tell you that we never had trouble finding the source of the noise in the sky.
True, would be trickier with tall buildings in the way like in Manhattan, but impossible? Hardly.

Obwon wrote:That brings us to the impact itself. Had the plane been completely and perfectly perpendicular to the building face, some sort of penetration, of the type shown, might have been possible. But that wasn't the case. The aircraft was not perpendicular to the building face, the nose of the craft was slightly below and to the west of the tail. Thus, when the nose met the resistance of the building face, the rest of the craft, supported and resisted only by air, should have rotated quite rapidly in the direction of the smaller angles.

Thus the aircraft should have "broadsided" the building, with the result of leaving a huge portion of debris outside the building to be taped raining down to the streets below. My guess is that someone able to work up the figures, will soon be releasing their data, showing how the aircraft should have behaved on impact.

It's been done before, using advanced dynamic simulation tools. Purdue University, if I remember correctly. Result was that plane would penetrate staright into wall as observed. I think your private, probably uneducated imagination here is shaped not by physical reality but by other influences.

Obwon wrote:The impact angles and speeds are easily obtained over at the 911 pilots for truth site. Happy hunting.

I'd rather you go to actual sources of such information, I believe PFT is not in particularly high regard around here (meaning: Most of us are aware of several gross distortions of reality committed by the rank and file of that group).

Well put, Oystein.

We are seeing a spate of incredulity-based posts and even threads. I have to remind our new members that there are countless places where vague discussions based on impressions can be knocked about to and fro until the cows come home, but there are very few places like this one. Maybe one. It doesn't stay that way by random accord, it has to be steered, unfortunately.

Obwon, this -

Obwon wrote:Had the plane been completely and perfectly perpendicular to the building face, some sort of penetration, of the type shown, might have been possible. But that wasn't the case.

is a very bold statement. It's just the kind of thing that, IMO, that needs to be followed with

"... and here's the 147 page study detailing the results of a number of full scale impact simulations which contradict Purdue's results, along with airline/building impact case studies, all of which support my position. Have a look at this sheila!"

in which case you can't claim you've really proven the point but at least you gave it a serious try. Then others would be able to discuss the relative merits of conflicting work and, who knows? You might be right. Doubt it. But a good, solid argument might show otherwise.

Try to keep it at high level. Sometimes people around here jump through some serious hoops just to demonstrate some small point. Look at femr2's impact study, which only tackles angles. It may not be correct, but it is compelling and it is conducted in the proper fashion for an inquiry of that scope. More important, the scope is limited to something reasonably small and within means.

The bolder the claim or the greater the inherent uncertainty in or complexity of the scenario, the more and better the explanation required, especially if it takes an obviously controversial position. newton threw this out because it is interesting and relevant to the discussion of image manipulation in real time, which would be germane to video fakery. So, sure, it's a point for discussion but be prepared for a so-so reception when arguing from a personal standpoint of disbelief.

Being a no-planer is not so bad as say, a leper. But, when a leper takes a swig from a bottle then offers it to you...

The jets were not supersonic. If you can't get that basic fact correct, where to go from there? After that, I guarantee you I wouldn't read a 147-page study in support of your position. Quality over quantity, and quantity in sufficient quantities!

Having said all that, it is odd that Naudet was able to quickly bring the top of WTC1 into center frame, leading the jet, and stabilize it for a shot he didn't know was coming. I'm not saying it means anything, but it IS weird. And that's where I'll leave it. I don't believe Naudet was in on it.