*New 9/11 Theory*.."The Ball Theory"!

As odd as it sounds it is a interesting theory.

Check it out!

www.richplanet.net...

I know people who saw the second plane hit with their own eyes. I'll never believe any analysis like this. It's like that old saying, "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes." Well, those people I know certainly believe their own eyes and I believe them.

Also, in the few frames just before the so-called "ball" hits the second tower, you can clearly see it has wings. They keep looping the footage just before the wings becomes resolved on the video and only show those few frames very quickly, but if you go back and check it yourself you will see the wings. Go on, check it. Wings on the "ball," they are there but these guys are lying and manipulating the footage by looping forward and back just before they become clear to make it harder to see.

[edit on 8/5/2010 by LifeInDeath]

reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX


THERE IS A THREAD on this already (two, maybe).

And, that video?? Nonsense, sorry.

It's isn't "new", just more of the same re-hashed baloney from before.

It even admits it!! Mentioning the thoroughly trashed "Simon Shack" numbskull!

Looks like someone forgot to take their meds........

We need less theories.

And more evidence.

Why can no one come to a consensus or show inarguable proof of anything?

Originally posted by thedman
Looks like someone forgot to take their meds........

...or took too much of them.

What is it with these people that drives them to come up with the most absolute cockamamie ideas for this thing? I guess there is no limit to the imaginations of some people - pods and forward-spraying fuel sprayers (to increase the damage, apparently, as if a 3/4 fueled 767 traveling at 500 knots wouldn't do enough damage) and destructo beams from space and lasers and "dustification" and now orbs or balls or whatever this dude is calling them.

What's next? The Sta-Puff Marshmallow Man!

Hey it wasn't my theory lol.

I just thought it was interesting.

And name calling gets you where exactly?

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by thedman
Looks like someone forgot to take their meds........

...or took too much of them.

What is it with these people that drives them to come up with the most absolute cockamamie ideas for this thing? I guess there is no limit to the imaginations of some people - pods and forward-spraying fuel sprayers (to increase the damage, apparently, as if a 3/4 fueled 767 traveling at 500 knots wouldn't do enough damage) and destructo beams from space and lasers and "dustification" and now orbs or balls or whatever this dude is calling them.

What's next? The Sta-Puff Marshmallow Man!

You want my answer Trebor....Money, money, money....MONEY....as the song goes...Isn't it obvious, this guy is a Alex Jones clone....hmmm Jones motives are?.?.?.?...Money. Look at the "Store" sections on any of these web sites named after themselves there packed full of merchandise....Can any one say Egomaniacs....I believe it is classical definition traits we're looking at here.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it, these guys could care less if they were talking about 9/11, aliens, or whatever as long as they can generate profit while being the front man. There's never a single scrap of valuable evidence found or discovered at these sites.

Btw, for the believers of this theory, as TOS mentioned in the other thread about this, isn't just a little to convenient that the same path the "ball" took was aligned with the jets path.....but ahh yes, the aircraft was photo-shopped on top of the ball. It's as if these people think there were no eye witnesses that day.

I agree with the previous poster also, you can clearly see the wings the closer it gets and this is on my lodef screen. Can you imagine what the original film looks like, probably so clear you can make out the paint scheme and see the windshield on f175. The whole theory is outrageous IMHO.

Funny how the first image they focus on besides the narrator is of alex jones, who is 100% against the no planes stuff.

There's a word for that...

The "ball" is just due to pixelation of the video, due to the high rate of speed of the aircraft. As the "ball" gets closer, you can clearly see wings attached to it and it becomes more clear that it is in fact an airplane.

IMO, it is theories such as this that discredit the entire truth movement. It allows TPTB and their media arm, to group all people actively seeking the truth with the ones who come up with outlandish theories.

With that being said, people should be free to theorize how they wish, though it is only going to disrupt any real effort to uncover the truth and bring those responsable to justice.

--airspoon

reply to post by trebor451

Looks like someone forgot to take their meds........


...or took too much of them.

Where can the rest of us get the stuff this clown been taking ?

reply to post by airspoon


I am not completely convinced of this "ball". My eyes tell me that there may be wings on it. If you look very carefully at the ball as it travels down the path to the tower there seem to be vestigial indications of a wing on the ball's right at a couple of moments. The lack of wings might be a video property of some sort. I'm not a technical expert in video.

One thing that did catch my attention though was the assertion that the video presenter had calculated the speed of the craft that hit the South Tower as 221 mph. I'm assuming that this was done using the accurate geometry that his 3D model afforded him.

That is the first realistic estimate of aircraft speed I have heard in connection to these incidents and make me think that using such models it might be possible to calculate the speed of the craft that hit the North Tower as well.

If nothing else about this presentation is true, an accurate calculation of aircraft speed is an important contribution to the truth movement.

Thanks to the OP for posting this video.

Oh, and a big shout out to all the debunkers.



[edit on 6-8-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


It seems that, in this statement, it is apparent you know and understand nothing about flying the Boeing 767:

...the assertion that the video presenter had calculated the speed of the craft that hit the South Tower as 221 mph.

(my emphasis)

This effectively destroys his credibility (as if he had any to begin with...).

221 MPH = 192 Knots (We use kts for all airspeed references).

This is well below the "clean" (no slats/flaps) minimum maneuvering speed for the Boeing 767, at the estimated weight (discussing UAL 175 here).

Unless the airplane is very, very light...virtually no payload, and minimum (about 8,000 to 12,000 pounds) fuel, you will never see a safe "clean" speed that low.

There is NO WAY the terrorists were flying it that slowly...and they certainly weren't bothering to slow down for any reason, and extending the slats and flaps!! Their intent was clear...kinetic energy, and as much as possible at impact.

But, you might have accidentally pointed out his MAJOR reason, and thus his MAJOR flaw: (It's ALL flawed, so hard to pick a "major")...

I'm assuming that this was done using the accurate geometry that his 3D model afforded him.

So....this is totally without merit, sorry.

AND, you may certainly feel free to ask around, check with other airline pilots (if you know any personally), or just trot down to the airport and look for some:

That is the first realistic estimate of aircraft speed I have heard in connection to these incidents...

Rubbish.

Pilots know better.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Rubbish! Rubbish! Rubbish! or as they say in France . . . garbaaazhh!

I don't know how many "authoritative" pronouncements I have read out of the keyboards of debunkers, but usually somebody comes along, just as authoritative on the other side of each statement. I think I'll wait on this one.

Of course the video presenter doesn't believe a 767 was featured at the South Tower, which means that the 221mph. figure might not be so out of the ballpark.

Are you implying that the broadcaster slowed the video down to give the impression, inadvertently, that the plane was flying that slow? Or simply that the video maker's calculations must be wrong?

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Are you implying that the broadcaster slowed the video down to give the impression, inadvertently, that the plane was flying that slow? Or simply that the video maker's calculations must be wrong?

Umm, I was a little confused about this assumption, that is that he tracked the plane at 221mph.

How exactly do you track a objects speed correctly when it is traveling basically straight at you?

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
How exactly do you track a objects speed correctly when it is traveling basically straight at you?

I think that could possibly be done with a laser rangefinder, but that is not what we are talking about here.

The maker of the video claims to have calculated the speed of the "ball" using a computer model drawn to scale and a film of an object traveling along a certain path toward the object upon which the model is based, i.e., the WTC.

He uses the model to triangulate upon the object to find its distance from the WTC at a given time and then measures the time it takes to travel the distance to the WTC. He then converts that ratio, feet/seconds into miles per hour.

Weedy says that's rubbish because the 767 couldn't possibly be going 221 mph. and any pilot will tell you so.

That's why I asked him if he thought the video maker had erred in his calculations or whether the broadcaster had slowed the video down, since without question a 767 must have hit the south tower, because everybody saw it with their very own eyes. ''

reply to post by ipsedixit

Or simply that the video maker's calculations must be wrong?

Yes. That.

It should be clearly obvious this person failed miserably. In fact, ALL of the "no plane" hoaxers fail equally miserably.

Amazing that they get any positive feedback at all...tribute to the apalling lack of logic and reason that sometimes infests this debate. It is likely due merely to the absence, in most cases, of the depth of experience, knowledge and understanding needed to fully grasp all of the intricacies.

There are many fields of expertise involved, and few people have the capacity to encompass much of it, lacking the background.

But, these sorts of major events of such historical significance always seem to attract the most outrageous fringers, with ever-increasingly outlandish concepts and misconceptions. Unfortunately, for every one of those, there seems to be a handful who are bamboozled by the BS.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
But, these sorts of major events of such historical significance always seem to attract the most outrageous fringers, with ever-increasingly outlandish concepts and misconceptions. Unfortunately, for every one of those, there seems to be a handful who are bamboozled by the BS.

His method seems pretty straightforward to me. What do you think he did wrong?

reply to post by ipsedixit


This ATS member's THREAD is a far better examination of the UAL 175's speed, than that "Rich" guy's.

BUT, one merely has to see him cite "Simon Shack" in the very first part of the video to see he's full of it.

AND, this nonsense about the alleged "ball"?? :shk:

Apparently clueless regarding video pixellation anomalies as well.

Utterly worthless "analysis" (and that's a generous term, why it's in quotes).

reply to post by weedwhacker

I think that debunkers who attack the notion of a "ball" in the OP's video are not in error. I don't think that the aircraft in the video was a ball. I think it was a winged aircraft. That being said, I am disturbed by the apparent lack of indications of a cockpit in the high contrast video footage.

767s have cockpits. Where are the cockpit windows?

I know. Pixillation, tiny detail, blah, blah, blah. OK. Still it leaves room to "wonder" if perhaps, due to the apparently slow speed of the aircraft, if this might not be a drone of some kind.

A Global Hawk is a drone with no cockpit windows. There may be other such aircraft who could accomodate an airpeed of 221 mph. with no problem. Eyewitnesses have differed as to the size of the aircraft.

I think that the video maker (Richard D. Hall) made one huge error. He failed to realize that the focus of his video should have been the speed of the aircraft. He should have spent more time, using diagrams and numbers to make it crystal clear how he arrived at his speed calculation.

You haven't given us a critique of his method. I would be extremely surprised if anyone caught him in an error on that part of his presentation. The concepts and math involved are pretty pedestrian.

He assumes that the aircraft was travelling in a straight line, when it is obvious from his comparison of his modelled trajectory to the path of the aircraft in the video, that the aircraft's path was an arc of an oval (probably not a true ellipse). His trajectory is a line between two points on the oval and drawn inside the oval. That choice would tend to reduce the calculated speed by a fraction of the actual speed but only by a small fraction, nowhere near enough to account for the difference between the generally accepted estimates of speed and his calculated result.

Debunkers are always asking for the math. Well, this guy gives them the math, but they don't want to deal with it. Instead we get the time tested ad hominem argument.

Have you tried to check his calculations Weedy?

Edit: Weedy, what would you say if he had calculated a speed of 241mph.? Could a 767 do that comfortably? The video maker's choice of a straight line trajectory, instead of the true arc of the oval that the aircraft flew, might have been enough to reduce the calculated speed of the aircraft by as much as ten percent, which would push the true speed into a range that any pilot could tell one was possible for a 767.

That would be inconvenient.


[edit on 7-8-2010 by ipsedixit]