The 2nd Plane and the Lack of Deceleration
Here is the DATA we are presented with:
A) officially traveling 540 mph on impact, the "UA175" plane failed to noticeably decelerate in several videos of the plane hitting the south WTC tower, e.g.
Further--
1) initially, the "plane" slid cleanly into one side of the tower, without explosion and without any large pieces breaking off and without any major deflection of debris backwards
2) the plane "disappears" inside the tower, an explosion forms deep inside the tower
3) a large explosion forms on the opposite side of the tower from the initial impact, some of this explosion shoots back out through the impact hole
4) some small debris exits on the opposite side of the tower from the initial impact but no large part of the "plane" comes out the other side
5) a large plane-shaped hole appears where the plane went in, the building is barely damaged on the far side where the explosion occurred, indicating the plane stopped or disintegrated inside
B) In a test crash at 500 mph, an F4 Phantom jet does not decelerate noticeably as the plane smashes into a concrete wall and disintegrates, e.g.
Further--
1) the debris from the plane shoots exclusively backwards
2) no hole is made in the concrete wall
"APPARENT" SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THESE TWO DATA POINTS:
1) both planes are traveling similar speeds
2) both planes disintegrate as they crash
3) neither plane undergoes significant deceleration upon impact
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THESE TWO DATA POINTS:
1) "UA175" makes a hole in the shape of itself in the object that supposedly causes its destruction, the F4 doesn't make a hole in the object it strikes
2) we can't see "UA175" disintegrate, but we can see the F4 disintegrate
3) there is no deflection backwards of large "UA175" debris, unlike the F4 where we can a see huge debris cloud deflect backwards
4) we can see what causes the disintegration of the F4, but the nature of the structure that causes complete disintegration of "UA175" is not apparent
5) the F4 looks real, "UA175" looks cartoonish
6) there are strange white blotches next to the "plane" that come and go as the "plane" enters the tower, possible indicating editing of the impact sequence
What is most striking about "UA175" crash, is that it PUNCHES THROUGH steel columns and concrete floors WITHOUT SLOWING DOWN OR NOTICEABLY DISINTEGRATING.
The lack of slowing or disintegration as the plane PUNCHES THROUGH a strong obstacle suggests the plane is INVINCIBLE.
Does anyone disagree with this conclusion?
Yet, how can an invincible plane THEN disintegrate against the same material that it punches through?
Wouldn't this violate normal physics?
Thus, the lack of slowing or disintegration as the plane PUNCHES THROUGH a strong obstacle should immediately raise suspicions about the nature of the plane and this footage.
Now, one possibility is that the plane is really DISINTEGRATING as it impacts, but we simply can't see it disintegrate in the footage (for whatever reason).
However, the disintegration then must be occurring without any major deflection backwards of the debris AND without any explosion of the liberated jet fuel at the point of impact.
I submit that this ALSO violate normal physics.
Does anyone disagree with this conclusion?
I submit that "UA175" is not a real aircraft, and is most likely a computer generated image (CGI) inserted into footage of the building exploding.*
Does anyone disagree with this conclusion?
If you do disagree, you need to explain how the plane is defying physics.
*This conclusion is not based solely on this data.
A) officially traveling 540 mph on impact, the "UA175" plane failed to noticeably decelerate in several videos of the plane hitting the south WTC tower, e.g.
Further--
1) initially, the "plane" slid cleanly into one side of the tower, without explosion and without any large pieces breaking off and without any major deflection of debris backwards
2) the plane "disappears" inside the tower, an explosion forms deep inside the tower
3) a large explosion forms on the opposite side of the tower from the initial impact, some of this explosion shoots back out through the impact hole
4) some small debris exits on the opposite side of the tower from the initial impact but no large part of the "plane" comes out the other side
5) a large plane-shaped hole appears where the plane went in, the building is barely damaged on the far side where the explosion occurred, indicating the plane stopped or disintegrated inside
B) In a test crash at 500 mph, an F4 Phantom jet does not decelerate noticeably as the plane smashes into a concrete wall and disintegrates, e.g.
Further--
1) the debris from the plane shoots exclusively backwards
2) no hole is made in the concrete wall
"APPARENT" SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THESE TWO DATA POINTS:
1) both planes are traveling similar speeds
2) both planes disintegrate as they crash
3) neither plane undergoes significant deceleration upon impact
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THESE TWO DATA POINTS:
1) "UA175" makes a hole in the shape of itself in the object that supposedly causes its destruction, the F4 doesn't make a hole in the object it strikes
2) we can't see "UA175" disintegrate, but we can see the F4 disintegrate
3) there is no deflection backwards of large "UA175" debris, unlike the F4 where we can a see huge debris cloud deflect backwards
4) we can see what causes the disintegration of the F4, but the nature of the structure that causes complete disintegration of "UA175" is not apparent
5) the F4 looks real, "UA175" looks cartoonish
6) there are strange white blotches next to the "plane" that come and go as the "plane" enters the tower, possible indicating editing of the impact sequence
What is most striking about "UA175" crash, is that it PUNCHES THROUGH steel columns and concrete floors WITHOUT SLOWING DOWN OR NOTICEABLY DISINTEGRATING.
The lack of slowing or disintegration as the plane PUNCHES THROUGH a strong obstacle suggests the plane is INVINCIBLE.
Does anyone disagree with this conclusion?
Yet, how can an invincible plane THEN disintegrate against the same material that it punches through?
Wouldn't this violate normal physics?
Thus, the lack of slowing or disintegration as the plane PUNCHES THROUGH a strong obstacle should immediately raise suspicions about the nature of the plane and this footage.
Now, one possibility is that the plane is really DISINTEGRATING as it impacts, but we simply can't see it disintegrate in the footage (for whatever reason).
However, the disintegration then must be occurring without any major deflection backwards of the debris AND without any explosion of the liberated jet fuel at the point of impact.
I submit that this ALSO violate normal physics.
Does anyone disagree with this conclusion?
I submit that "UA175" is not a real aircraft, and is most likely a computer generated image (CGI) inserted into footage of the building exploding.*
Does anyone disagree with this conclusion?
If you do disagree, you need to explain how the plane is defying physics.
*This conclusion is not based solely on this data.
posted by spooked at 10:53 PM
7 Comments:
is it more likely that this phony looking plane could defy physics or is it more likely that this phony looking plane defies physics and looks phony because it is phony?
i like to watch it 1 click at a time. that truly is a ghostplane and it almost looks like an oil painting or like an old disney animation from 50 years ago.
h.
Hey Pinch--
either put up or shut up!
answer the questions, Mr. Naval aviator.
we know you're out there!
you know, they never once presented any data or anything at all. they said "this is what happened" and they showed that foolish CNN clip a couple of times and 1 or 2 other clips a couple of times. then they again said "this is what happened" and the march to war began.
never in the last 6 years do they show on TV the images of the plane striking the tower or the towers "collapsing".
fuckers.
absolute power corrupts absolutely.
the thing is; when you see that CNN clip on TV at regular speed it looks horrifyingly real.
only when it is slowed down and zoomed in does the fakery become apparent.
extra kudos to webfairy for originally slowing it down and zooming in on it.
and a tip of the hat to bs registration for continuing the video analyses of 9/11.
ha.
3) neither plane undergoes significant deceleration upon impact
Just one quibble so far:
Obviously the aircraft in the second video example decelerates! The aircraft speed goes to zero. That is a huge deceleration. In fact that is 100% deceleration!
A force must be applied for any object to stop moving. Otherwise the tendency of the object is to continue at whatever speed it is traveling. That is inertia. And the energy (of the force) implied in that slow-down, the change (delta) between the speed of 500-whatever mph and zero mph, is what breaks up the real aircraft in the second example.
In contrast, we know in the first example, the "aircraft" is not real.
Why?
Because it hits an immovable (relatively) object and not only does it not stop, but it does not slow down.
What is implied in that fact?
That there is no force applied, which clearly insinuates a depicted situation which is not real, considering what you are supposed to be looking at is an aircraft traveling at top speed hitting what was one of the most massive man-made object on planet Earth.
"Reasoning" along the lines of the unreal situation...if there is such a thing...("reasoning" rather than reasoning)......
If there is no force applied, there is no reason for the "aircraft" to break up.
There is also, similarly, no reason for "it" to slow down nor any reason for there to be a hole in the building......
unless that "building" were made of smoke, butter, cellophane or pixels.
Addendum:
I forgot: if it were made of butter or cellophane, there would be a hole of some kind made. Even with smoke, you might make a hole of some kind. Unless the "plane" were a ghost.
Obviously the hole in the actual building (not the image of an hole) was made by something other than the image of a plane - and in any case the actual hole was not large enough for a 767.
new article on DIRECTED ENERGY in Forbes, by Matthew Swibel...
http://members.forbes.com/global/2007/0423/032.html
Post a Comment
<< Home