Slow motion closeups from the day
that changed our lives
Blob(s)11
Pavel
Slideshows
Edna Cintron
When Pigs Fly
Bluebeam
CameraPanet
Khashoggi
Bldg 7
93
NO PLANE
Ghostplane
Glow
Missileout
911 Foreknowledge
Insane
Second Hit Gallery
Pull It
Bombs
Birds
Pentagon
Demolition
CrimeScene
Real Plane Debris
Flight 587
big fake
UAV
nick nack
FCS
WING cartoon
Mindblower
Hague Hoax
Flapjack
Flashies
Exotic Weapons
Hutchison Effects
Hague Hoax
Flashvid Theatre
Halloween
Deflection
DemolitionX
Curtainchewer
Gumbel
Jumpers
Real
Peggy's Pix
Video Archive
| Excellent work by "Brainsucker" originally posted at AboveTopSecret -- Trolls and Tellytubbies removed from this version. | ||
Why there were no planes at the WTC |
||
|
||
|
Why there were no planes at the WTC In physics deflection is the event where an object collides and bounces against a plane surface. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection 
Now let's review NIST simulation in order to know if they account for deflection: 
Big image: http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3176/nistcutql8.png It is time to test a physical collision in the "real" world and look for the deflection; the laws of physics are not mutable so we know for sure that we will be seeing a deflection process: 
Big image: http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/3096/planewingcutwj9.png At this point we've got two possibilities: + The laws of physics did not apply at the WTC. + There is no plane driving any deflection process. PD: But there is more to it... 
Big image: http://img429.imageshack.us/img429/9356/transcutbr0.png [edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker] |
||
|
We are talking about a MASSIVE deflection process here:
missing, gone, none, zero, null. Please point out where the massive deflection (As shown in the NIST simulation) is taking place. PD: Of course I'm not saying that the CG must bounce on one piece, I'm looking for the physical process described by NIST (Second image); I have not found it. PD2: Can you comment about the transparent plane a bit. Thanks. [edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker] |
||
|
||
|
The NIST simulation goes against this statement: "there is no way a plane could possibly reflect/bounce off, the force involved would, as was seen, destroy the plane. " Because clearly the "plane" is destroyed on impact and some pieces bounce off acording to the known laws of physics (Deflection), as you can see on the PBS documentary. You are twisting the laws of physics; ie: inventing new ones. The expected behaviour of the collision is well simulated by NIST... The problem is that in the "real" world that behaviour could not be seen. Of course letting aside the magical transparent plane. [edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker] |
||
|
||
|
It is amazing how you discount the NIST simulation
showing the deflection... We've got a theoric simulation and a "real" experiment that do not match at all. Two choices: a) The NIST simulation is wrong. b) The WTC video is wrong. PD: On the transparent plane... The picture speaks by itself, the "plane" (CG) is transparent... There is much more in there: the processed camera panning, etc. A total fabrication folks. |
||
|
||
|
"Its not that the NIST was wrong, its just that it
doesn't apply in this situation." Of course, the detailed simulation by NIST of the WTC impacts does not apply to the WTC impacts. Doublespeak at the maximum level. On the camera... That camera is making a neat transparency effect on 10s of frames and 100s of pixels each (On multiple videos of the event too, not just this one). Its quite interesting that TV cameras usually does not apply transparency masks when recording NASCAR or F1 cars . |
||
|
||
|
More on the "simple" deflection model: We do not need a complex model (ie: particle system simulation; already provided by NIST) because the simplest model, based on the well known deflection, shows the problem quite well. In fact both models are NOT mutually exclusive. I suspect that in the light of the --absence of deflection-- NIST hacked the model to downplay the process, and make it appear more like the "reality". This was two folded: go in line with the big hole (Very difficult) and try to account for the zero deflection seen (Impossible). I do not know how It was done and I do not doubt that the technology explained by John Lear exists (Because I have seen amazing civilian-tech holograms). Some posible scenarios: CG digitally dubbed: I would expect more quality on the dubbing process. Holographic tech: This accounts for the "eyewitness" and transparency. Experiment (Beware): 1. Get a glass. 2. Throw it against the wall. 3. Glass desintegrates. 4. Each piece undergoes collision (With the wall and/or other pieces). 5. Lots of different deflections. ie: the NIST model. |
||