It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
....failed to watch the video, where it shows a larger gash than is shown on any of the news reports.
Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.
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.
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Tvision
What you have is optical illusion - trick of light and shadows as plane moves in and out of bright sunlight
and as the angle of the wing toward the camera changes will get effect that it "disappears"
Unfiortunately conspiracy loons play up this aspect as "prroof" no planes were involved
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by abbott360
Utter rubbish.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
"Morgan Reynolds" (@ 3:20, interviewed on FNC) is deluded. As are many others at that silly organization, "Scholars 4 truth". We saw Jim Fetzer come here, already, and try to spread his brand of the same "no planes" nonsense.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Rest of that video (yours?) is just slick misdirection, with higher-than-normal production values, for the so-called "truth movement" fanatics.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
"No-Planes" is a well-known hoax.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
In fact.....it is funny to watch, because there are quite a few so-called "truthers" who detest those who make such claims.....and these same people accuse the "no-planes" advocates of being shills and plants, sent to intentionally discredit the entire "truth movement".
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
the APPALLING "Simon Shack". He has been thoroughly spanked on his September Clues videos, and his deceptive tactics exposed. This one on previous page in this thread is no exception, showing his deception in full bloom.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Additionally, the "Simon Shack" video (pointed out by another ATS member, referring to the "black plane"....which, contrary to "Simon Shack's" claims, IS a function of THAT particular camera and ITS exact video settings and location at time of filming....and YES!!! The shadow of the building was a factor for one camera, because of the angle of the shoot, compared to the other camera).
Originally posted by weedwhacker
But, you mentioned the "Naudet video"?? Did you mean the one of American 11? Because, the video here by appalling "Simon Shack" only discusses United 175's impact event. AND, as to the damage as the airplane impacted, and entered the building, there "Shack" GETS IT WRONG!!! Yet again.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
And, I don't see any examples that you mentioned, about the "gash" appearing larger, or smaller, in different videos.
But, on that topic of the impact damage to the building facades, "Simon Shack's" video discusses what he dismissively calls the "Roadrunner Effect". :shk: More deception, or just plain stupidity on his part. He overlays graphic text mentioning "Newton's Third Law". Either "Shack" is utterly ignorant of physics, or he expects and hopes that those viewing his crap videos are, or that they just take his words at face value, and never bother to FACT CHECK, or apply common sense to his "claims".
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
Not serious, are you?
First, it's that APPALLING "Simon Shack" again!!!! The man is a loon, and he intentionally deceives, by disingenuously using footage that's edited (and commented on, by HIM) to support HIS idiotic claims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I already showed you how his earlier "September Clues" got totally busted. Hope you watched it??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Originally posted by weedwhacker
No need to even watch the entire ten minutes, his first example of deceptive practices is in the first minute.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Watch the first clip (and, he inadvertently helps ME point out his deception, with the yellow arrow he conveniently added).
On the first clip, note the camera angle on the action, and the field of view. When the airplane (denoted by his arrow) comes into frame, until it impacts....flying ACROSS at an almost right angle to the camera....just watching the YouTube scroll bar timer, is SEVEN seconds. He says it's "almost level"...indeed, looks to me in a very slight descent...so, that IS "almost level", in terms of altitude changes.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
THEN, he flips to the other angle, where the airplane is coming almost directly AT the camera...watch the time, again. Here he also helps us out, with that arrow. The airplane in frame, in the RAPID and steep descent, at 00:36. BUT, impact, was it SEVEN seconds later??? NO!!!! That was at 00:51....FIFTEEN seconds later!!!
Originally posted by weedwhacker
SO, the second "head-on" video shows EXACTLY what it would look like, from that angle. Measure the distance the yellow arrow drops, in the last seven seconds, in the "head-on" clip. How many stories on the building did you count, in that time? THAT would estimate the altitude change, in the last SEVEN seconds....then, look at the first clip again. When you consider the various effects of angles, and differing lenses, they show the SAME event, and the same airplane.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
That is the deception, and it's what Simon Shack excels at....either because he's seriously deluded and actually believes this crap, OR because he's found a way to make money off of the gullible.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
He even agrees, in the "comments" section on YouTube, with another poster who talks about "seeing satan" in the smoke!!! He's a loony, or he's laughing all the way to the bank. Why not check it out, follow HIS money!??
edit on 26 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Note
Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
reply to post by Anttyk47
please ! because its time to just put up or shut up im 50/50 on this subject right now as a start,please bring me up to date.
My daughter had a friend and a teacher on boared of the first plane,only 12 years old and had just one an art contest and was going to newyork for a competion..WOW! I just relized why i dont like this subject now..had to catch a tear there...lol,but yea , a simple art contest,lil dude just WANTED TO FREAKING DRAW FOR A BLOODY LIVING,but its kool,but yea ,google it up because it needs to be resolved by the way ,its amazing what a shot this person has at the towers ,with those bad actors,street closed already,uhm,wiered huh,timing is always weired when it comes to cracking codes..funy how the man looks behind him like hes waiting for it to happen.funny