What could this Be?? 911 - Second Strike Footage... Wing Disapears

The reason the wing disappears is video compression. The plane is the only object moving at a significant velocity. Video compression often works by taking peices of future and past frames that are motionless and re-using them in current frames to reduce filesize, so we have a mixture of the static blue background and the moving plane due to video compression - either that or colour compression or reflection on the wings reflecting the colour of the sky. Plenty of other camera clips show the wing intact, one would expect the wing to disappear in every piece of footage if it actually did.

Having said that I don't believe the planes that hit the towers were the planes we were told they were, and certainly were not piloted by amateur suicidal hijackers on a jihad. In fact these Boeing cannot travel at the speed at which they were travelling on 9/11, they would fall apart from over stress on the airframe.

The precision is too great for a human controlling them manually thus they were guided electronically. Further more, the planes should of exploded upon impact with the facade, yet the planes didn't explode until they were completely inside the building which is the hallmark of a bunker buster.

So one must conclude that these were no oridinary planes that hit the towers (or Pentagon) but rather a very large bunker busting missile that was made to look like a plane.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
The reason the wing disappears is video compression. The plane is the only object moving at a significant velocity. Video compression often works by taking peices of future and past frames that are motionless and re-using them in current frames to reduce filesize, so we have a mixture of the static blue background and the moving plane due to video compression - either that or colour compression or reflection on the wings reflecting the colour of the sky. Plenty of other camera clips show the wing intact, one would expect the wing to disappear in every piece of footage if it actually did.

The issue I have with this is that for this to be correct then the multiple cameras that took the footage from multiple angles must have had the same settings to reproduce the same effect. Then the data compression must have used the same algorithm for the footage from different cameras and different angles to pick up the same anomaly at the same moment.

If that is indeed the truth then it also points to the fact that the video had been edited by the same process. Which would also point to the fact that all the video we have has been altered.

Nice to be back on topic

Korg.

A few different camera angles do show the wings disappearing, but its not consistent (i.e same place, same time). Also compression really varies from video to video. There are many settings that can be tweaked with regards to the compression so I wouldn't expect any two videos to compress in exactly the same way. Also there are some wildly different compression algorithms.

reply to post by Insolubrious



100%, absolutely correct:

The reason the wing disappears is video compression.

100%, absolutely mistaken:

Having said that I don't believe the planes that hit the towers were the planes we were told they were, and certainly were not piloted by amateur suicidal hijackers on a jihad.

Enormous, incontrovertible mountains of evidence disagree with this "opinion".

Also, a false assessment, coloured and biased by an improper understanding, fed from a certain source which shall remain nameless, lest they get more of the attention they crave:

In fact these Boeing cannot travel at the speed at which they were travelling on 9/11, they would fall apart from over stress on the airframe.

Many, many, many examples of other models of Boeings (and other manufacturer's airliners) exceeding the "maximum" airspeeds and simultaneously experiencing very high g-forces (not a factor on 9/11). It is actually the g-forces, and/or a combination of g, and speed, that contributes to major structural damage. HOWEVER, airplanes don't suffer immediate and total devastation, just by exceeding those speeds, or g's....it takes time, and often a repeat and long-repeated occurrence.

More incorrect "opinion":

The precision is too great for a human controlling them manually thus they were guided electronically

You have it backwards. A human at the controls has far more ability to finesse, while steering, than any "electronics" can....AND, the Boeings simply do not have the autopilot control authority to manipulate the controls, in the ways seen, during the parts of the flights when they were being flown manually. It is very, very evident, in the FDR data (the only two we have) from American 77 and United 93. Between the times when the autopilots were engaged, and then when they were disengaged, and being hand flown.


More false assumption:

Further more, the planes should of exploded upon impact with the facade, yet the planes didn't explode until they were completely inside the building which is the hallmark of a bunker buster.

Nope. Nope. The initial impact with the "facade" (which provided minimal resistance, in the fractions of seconds as the penetration sequence progressed) did not cause the opening up, and the contact of the fuel vapors with the hot ignition sources (engines) immediately....it takes, as noted, those several fractions of a second.

Please watch this very carefully (keeping in mind that the action is slowed down, for better comprehension and visualization). Note, especially, the segment showing the fuel, isolated in the respective fuel "tanks", and the fluid dynamics as it is let loose, during the impact and destruction sequence:





Your main problem with THIS idea:

...but rather a very large bunker busting missile that was made to look like a plane.

.....is that it's a complete fantasy. Saying that, without even the merest shred of evidence to corroborate it, amounts to pure speculation, absent any sort of basis in real "theory", nor precedent.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
What I can't understand about Anti-Truthers that claim they don't believe the OS...

So they believe that the collapse was not natural and that it was demolition right??

So if the WTC was planned demolition... why do they then think that it was Terrorist in 767's?? I mean surely to leave such a weak chain in a carefully laid plan would be foolish.

In other words, if you believe that the WTC was demolished it is then logical to think that the planes themselves were not of the origin the OS states.

It is simple deductive reasoning, and is totally unreasonable of someone to say they don’t believe the OS but they do believe it was terrorists in 767's.

So tell me exactly what the anti-thruthers actually do believe??

Korg.

You are not listening. I'll leave you to your fanasty.

The "Purdue simulation of jet colliding with World Trade Center" is nothing more than a sophisticated roadrunner cartoon.

Here's a proper simulation - a real physical test:



The plane explodes up against the wall, it doesn't pass through the wall to leave a roadrunner style cut out.

Anyone with some military experience will know why they use DU tipped missiles instead of aluminum passenger planes to penetrate hard targets, and the WTC was certainly a hard target - designed to take multiple impacts of jet airliners.

According to weedwacker, this plane should of punched through the wall first and exploded later.

reply to post by Insolubrious


That is because it's a solid block of concrete, specifically designed to not allow penetration by an airplane, in a high-speed impact.

Check out the reason for that test, and video. It was to check a design for future nuclear power plant structures, to make them impervious to either suicide airplane crash attacks, or the accidental crash too.

It is useful to show how an airframe structure reacts when hitting an immovable object. BUT, the exterior of the WTC Towers' structure wasn't "immovable", not when hit by an airplane with all of that kinetic energy...much more than the F-4 in the video. KE = Weight (mass) + velocity Same as "momentum" and "inertia". Physics.

Online calculators are available to estimate, plugging in variables. I low-balled, used 250,000 lbs and 450 MPH....figure was something like 850,000 Tons of force. Nearly 2 million pounds. The vertical exterior columns where they were joined at their bolts and welds couldn't withstand that, and the aluminum cladding facade certainly couldn't either. Hence, penetration, and THEN explosion.

The video used the laws of physics and a high-powered computer to do the calculations. As close to "real world" as is possible. If they had had access to a even better computer, like a "super", then they could refine it further, and more accurately. But, that was pretty good.

Funny, the "truth movement" like to claim that the laws of physics were "broken" on 9/11...yet some reject a video showing physics in action??? :shk:

Your calculations are backwards, or biased to the plane. What would you expect to happen if the building was travelling through the air (or just a few floors) at 500mph and hit a stationary plane? Do you know how much force that would equate to? The laws of physics are the same, it matters not which of the two objects are in motion, the outcome is the same.

See newton's third law.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Insolubrious


The world trade centers were meant to "remain standing" in terms of withstanding an aircraft impact. And they did, for upwards of an hour, almost 2 for the North Tower. It was the additional fire that lead to the failures.

So has it been proven that the plane was real yet? Or is there still an opposing faith in every single video from 9/11 being video-edited by the government, without a single drop of raw footage?

reply to post by Insolubrious


You are misunderstanding Newton, and not fully reading up in your link, regarding his "Third Law". Not your fault, it's all over the Internets, from those foolish "9/11 conspiracy" websites. You just fell for their BS, is all:

What would you expect to happen if the building was travelling through the air (or just a few floors) at 500mph and hit a stationary plane? Do you know how much force that would equate to?

Would be a considerable difference, since the building (section of just the few floors) likely has a different mass than the airplane's ~250,000 pounds. AND, the airplane is stationary, in that example. None of its individual component parts will have any momentum, no kinetic energy...so as the aircraft structure is destroyed, the individual pieces will react differently than in the reverse situation, of the airplane in motion into a stationary building....

The laws of physics are the same, it matters not which of the two objects are in motion, the outcome is the same.

See newton's third law.

Yes, "Newton's Third"....just went over this with someone else, recently.

Reading from your same Wiki link (because it's handy)...a bit further down is where the "meat" of a more refined example of the Third Law is explained:

Newton's laws are applied to bodies (objects) which are considered or idealized as a particle[, in the sense that the extent of the body is neglected in the evaluation of its motion, i.e., the object is small compared to the distances involved in the analysis, or the deformation and rotation of the body is of no importance in the analysis. Therefore, a planet can be idealized as a particle for analysis of its orbital motion around a star.

In their original form, Newton's laws of motion are not adequate to characterize the motion of rigid bodies and deformable bodies. Leonard Euler in 1750 introduced a generalization of Newton's laws of motion for rigid bodies called the Euler's laws of motion, later applied as well for deformable bodies assumed as a continuum. If a body is represented as an assemblage of discrete particles, each governed by Newton’s laws of motion, then Euler’s laws can be derived from Newton’s laws. Euler’s laws can, however, be taken as axioms describing the laws of motion for extended bodies, independently of any particle structure.

Newton's Laws hold only with respect to a certain set of frames of reference called Newtonian or inertial reference frames..... The explicit concept of an inertial frame of reference was not developed until long after Newton's death.

In the given interpretation mass, acceleration, momentum, and (most importantly) force are assumed to be externally defined quantities. This is the most common, but not the only interpretation: one can consider the laws to be a definition of these quantities.

Any University level physics department instructor or professor could be consulted on this topic. I think the consensus is that the example of the "moving" building and the "stationary" airplane is too complex, considering the bodies involved, to be simplified into the idealized form of the "Third Law".

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Okay, so I believe that either the goverment hired a terist or either was behind this it's self. If you look closley at the details, you can see that not everthing adds up. (You'd think the gov't would be a bit smarter..) While it could be lighting, or even the way the pixils in the video align; I think it's something deeper. But why argue over it. Whether we like it or not the goverment keeps more things than you'd imagine from us. Were just gonna have to take it one step at the time.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


But the only question I have is; Why would the goverment fake the plane? I understand thats not exactley whats happening but I mean there IS something behind it all but Im starting t believe just this video is a hoax. But Im really glad you took the time to share this.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

That is because it's a solid block of concrete, specifically designed to not allow penetration by an airplane, in a high-speed impact.

You mean like the WTC was???

Statements by Engineers

Source - 911research.com

Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001. The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting. Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

John Skilling

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3 A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4

So it turns out the towers were designed to withstand impacts from 707's... which if I'm not very much mistaken is not that different in size as a 767....

I could go on if you wish, there is a wealth of evidence and quotes from the designers and builders of the WTC that refute the towers could collapse given a single jet liner crash...

Korg.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
I could go on if you wish, there is a wealth of evidence and quotes from the designers and builders of the WTC that refute the towers could collapse given a single jet liner crash...

Korg.

The Man who built the Twin Towers

Leslie Robertson, direct quote:

"We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two."

www.bbc.co.uk...


Video link:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
I could go on if you wish, there is a wealth of evidence and quotes from the designers and builders of the WTC that refute the towers could collapse given a single jet liner crash...

Korg.

The Man who built the Twin Towers

Leslie Robertson, direct quote:

Well the speed and the conclusions are incorrect...

Here are the actual stats..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2ac3348b19cd.gif[/atsimg]

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eed355cf43a9.jpg[/atsimg]

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

Source: - 911research.com

Korg.

more vids showing this definately was a hologram if you ask me

reply to post by Korg Trinity


This ground has been covered, extensively already.

The "9/11research" website posts actual specifications of the two models of Boeing, but neglects to point out the differing circumstance of any "anticipated" Boeing 707 impact with one of the Towers.

(Not to mention, there is controversy over whether or not the ACTUAL engineering calculations were really performed, or not. Some think the statement RE: the B-707 was just a marketing ploy, designed to make it seem as if they really did the calculations. It is highly possible that the person who made any statements about airplane impacts did so off-the-cuff. You will find many opinions about this, online).

But, having written the above, it is fairly well established that ANY B-707 impact calculations did NOT consider the fuel, and resulting fires....and, generally assumed any such impact accident would be UNintentional.

Only times a jet is down that low, below 1,300 AGL, is either right after takeoff, or during maneuvering for landing approaches. In BOTH instances, the airspeeds will be quite low. This will alter the IMPACT FORCES that were seen from the HIGH SPEED impact of AAL 11 and UAL 175. Impact force will increase as the square of the velocity. 120 MPH impact, versus 240 MPH, is FOUR times more force. 120 MPH versus 360 MPH is EIGHT times. 120 MPH versus 480 is SIXTEEN times. (Those numbers, for example).

Also, weights. The general consensus was IF a B-707 might accidentally, crash would likely occur during approach phase, when down to minimal fuel loads, at the end of a flight. AAL 11 and UAL 175 had been fueled, for departure from gates, for the six-hour (roughly, plus required reserves) flights across country. Fuel burn-off from takeoff to impact was minimal....they still had a LOT more fuel onboard than they would have for a normal approach and landing.

AND, of course...their speeds.

Your comparison is invalid for all those reasons. AND the uncontained, unfought fires. Doubt that was considered, in the late 1960s-early 1970s either. Unanticipated. Fires from not ONLY the fuel, but all the furnishings, to include a great deal of products and substances, common in our modern day, that didn't exist thirty years prior.......

Why in the world are we continuing to project such ignorance? I know it appears that the wing disappears, but come on! All we need to do is admit that seeing is believing!?

If that were so true, then why would ANYONE EVER question the NIST report? Aren't we supposed to be good little subjects before the crown!?

Seriously, I believe there's sooooo much more to nine eleven as well. I know someone's lying, a lot of people are lying. . .the entire government is lying. But the wing DID NOT disappear just prior to impact.

The problem with so many people is that they only see what they believe, and if they don't see it, they will find it no matter how wrong they could be.

I truly apologize. I am not usually this much of a grouch. I am just getting tired of how silly it's all getting these days.