Why no planes could have struck the towers
There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must assume that it remained intact going through the outer wall.
It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to pieces and fall into the street.
I will deal with this first.
REACTION/deflection
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
That means that the force received by both objects in a collision will be equal.
Now what determines how much force goes into the objects? Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force received by EACH object.
If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did not break up.
I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what it would take to penetrate all those outer wall beams.
Any remaining kinetic energy would be retained in any parts that had penetrated the wall and parts that had fragmented, the fragments undergoing a deflective process with their remaining energy.
Some of the energy would convert to sound, heat and light.
The heat would ignite any fuel spilled from the wings, a large amount of which would be vaporised instantly with the impact.
Then there is
TERMINAL BALLISTICS.
If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane also, causing deceleration and deflection.
The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble, in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through Kevlar.
AERODYNAMICS.
The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and tail plane.
The deceleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact to determine the direction of tumble.
And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving us another, separate reason for the plane to tumble.
With the diagonal rise of the nose being suddenly stopped upon penetrating the building, the rear of the plane should have continued diagonally upwards, causing it to tumble roof-on into the building, probably right-wing first due to the extra lift on that side due to the bank of the aircraft, the wing on the outside moving faster.
And as the bank of the plane means it should have been moving up and to the left then the fuel should have continued in that direction when the tanks ruptured, rather than go straight through any hole made by the impact.
Then there are the glaring anomalies.
People trying desperately to prove planes always show a picture of a wrecked CFM56 engine in a NY street, an engine that could never have been fitted to a 767.
And photographs of aircraft wheels, where the tires have the wrong number of tread grooves to be from a 767.
Yes, it's a good question, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
And the engine at the Pentagon was a JT8D which is also wrong for the aircraft we were told hit the building.
I think it likely that these engines were used in ordnance that was custom-made for the job.
Then there is the cherry on the top of the planehugger sundae-
A photo of a truck that has had "AIRCRAFT PARTS" spray-painted on the back.
WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT ONE PROVE, ALEX?
In fact, if they WERE collecting aircraft parts in that truck, why would they go and spray that on it?
Do you think they might have lost it otherwise?
None of the plane videos show a CRASH.
There were no planes that hit the towers.
There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the towers.
And what about the fake eyewitness videos, mostly with the same pathetic voice actress who can't even change her act from one take to the next.
Who made those?
And why?
Check 3 of them out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4PyME86eJ0
This is obviously an organised effort to provide proof that there were people who saw a plane hit the tower.
And then there is the matter of the videos of the planes.
None of the videos show a crash, the plane just enters the building in a totally impossible way.
Not one of the videos has a correct image of a 767.
The one touted as the best, and often used to “prove” that remote-control gear was fitted to the plane is a composite, using a tail plane that is both at the wrong angle and the wrong orientation.
It is analysed here:
http://911review.org/flight175photo.html
And different videos show the planes in different positions at the same time. They disagree.
Even the images of the planes don't look right.
Stills from a video of the 2nd hit show an aircraft that looks "set into the building"- there is no damage to the building in between the left engine and the fuselage, where the wing can no longer be seen (It is supposed to have already entered the building) and there is no damage to the windows that are right next to the parts of the aircraft that has already penetrated the wall.
This is impossible.
Also the left tail plane is missing in this shot.
Another still shows the left wing is missing from the image:
Yet another still shows the right wing to have passed into the building yet the wall where it has gone through is still undamaged:
The poor quality of the video can not account for the missing wing; the face of the building is visible where the wing should be.
And none of the videos show a CRASH as discussed above.
Here is a link to a clip of the 2nd hit that is particularly popular, it must have had the pause button used on it MILLIONS of times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXsXp4DUUn4
When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS ignore these most basic evidential facts I seriously doubt their intentions.
Do you not think our truth movement would include WELL-PLACED psy-op agents?
They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge?
For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must assume that it remained intact going through the outer wall.
It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to pieces and fall into the street.
I will deal with this first.
REACTION/deflection
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
That means that the force received by both objects in a collision will be equal.
Now what determines how much force goes into the objects? Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force received by EACH object.
If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did not break up.
I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what it would take to penetrate all those outer wall beams.
Any remaining kinetic energy would be retained in any parts that had penetrated the wall and parts that had fragmented, the fragments undergoing a deflective process with their remaining energy.
Some of the energy would convert to sound, heat and light.
The heat would ignite any fuel spilled from the wings, a large amount of which would be vaporised instantly with the impact.
Then there is
TERMINAL BALLISTICS.
If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane also, causing deceleration and deflection.
The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble, in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through Kevlar.
AERODYNAMICS.
The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and tail plane.
The deceleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact to determine the direction of tumble.
And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving us another, separate reason for the plane to tumble.
With the diagonal rise of the nose being suddenly stopped upon penetrating the building, the rear of the plane should have continued diagonally upwards, causing it to tumble roof-on into the building, probably right-wing first due to the extra lift on that side due to the bank of the aircraft, the wing on the outside moving faster.
And as the bank of the plane means it should have been moving up and to the left then the fuel should have continued in that direction when the tanks ruptured, rather than go straight through any hole made by the impact.
Then there are the glaring anomalies.
People trying desperately to prove planes always show a picture of a wrecked CFM56 engine in a NY street, an engine that could never have been fitted to a 767.
And photographs of aircraft wheels, where the tires have the wrong number of tread grooves to be from a 767.
Yes, it's a good question, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
And the engine at the Pentagon was a JT8D which is also wrong for the aircraft we were told hit the building.
I think it likely that these engines were used in ordnance that was custom-made for the job.
Then there is the cherry on the top of the planehugger sundae-
A photo of a truck that has had "AIRCRAFT PARTS" spray-painted on the back.
WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT ONE PROVE, ALEX?
In fact, if they WERE collecting aircraft parts in that truck, why would they go and spray that on it?
Do you think they might have lost it otherwise?
None of the plane videos show a CRASH.
There were no planes that hit the towers.
There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the towers.
And what about the fake eyewitness videos, mostly with the same pathetic voice actress who can't even change her act from one take to the next.
Who made those?
And why?
Check 3 of them out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4PyME86eJ0
This is obviously an organised effort to provide proof that there were people who saw a plane hit the tower.
And then there is the matter of the videos of the planes.
None of the videos show a crash, the plane just enters the building in a totally impossible way.
Not one of the videos has a correct image of a 767.
The one touted as the best, and often used to “prove” that remote-control gear was fitted to the plane is a composite, using a tail plane that is both at the wrong angle and the wrong orientation.
It is analysed here:
http://911review.org/flight175photo.html
And different videos show the planes in different positions at the same time. They disagree.
Even the images of the planes don't look right.
Stills from a video of the 2nd hit show an aircraft that looks "set into the building"- there is no damage to the building in between the left engine and the fuselage, where the wing can no longer be seen (It is supposed to have already entered the building) and there is no damage to the windows that are right next to the parts of the aircraft that has already penetrated the wall.
This is impossible.
Also the left tail plane is missing in this shot.
Another still shows the left wing is missing from the image:
Yet another still shows the right wing to have passed into the building yet the wall where it has gone through is still undamaged:
The poor quality of the video can not account for the missing wing; the face of the building is visible where the wing should be.
And none of the videos show a CRASH as discussed above.
Here is a link to a clip of the 2nd hit that is particularly popular, it must have had the pause button used on it MILLIONS of times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXsXp4DUUn4
When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS ignore these most basic evidential facts I seriously doubt their intentions.
Do you not think our truth movement would include WELL-PLACED psy-op agents?
They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge?
posted by Coffinman at 3:02 PM
5 Comments:
Thank you, coffinman, I've been looking for that video. One concern I have -- this blog raises a concern about footage created after 9/11 and says only the footage actually shown on television that morning should be used.
http://www.total911.info/2006/11/on-importance-of-vintage-documentation.html
Do we know when this video was created? Is this a vaid concern? This is the best shot I've seen, that's for sure.
Webfairy is the person who gave us clear video from the lined original.
You can get copies of the different stages of the process at the Ghostplane's homepage:
http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/index.htm
I wouldn't worry too much about particular videos re the planes because none of them look right and the physics deny the impact of planes.
But there is much evidence to be found in the faked videos.
Buildings that move to hide things from one version to the next etc.
Plenty proof of fakery.
Thanks for explaing that, Coffinman. You mentioned physics professors in your article. I have looked at some engineering papers and found them to show that the planes could not have penetrated the external columns without much more destruction and deceleration.
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/
I get the impression from your article you would be able to analyze these papers better than me.
Go to this page and look at picture #2087, then compare it with this video:
http://webfairy.org/2hit/newjetcrash.htm
All of the buildings in the foreground have been shuffled about.
Check out the green roof.
You and your minions are clearly insane,or blind, but most likely both.
Way to apply all your physics incorrectly.
It really is quite pathetic.
Post a Comment
<< Home