Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11? [HOAX]

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Listen. If this is too difficult for you, then explain how a real Boeing 767 can pass through its own length into a massive steel-and-concrete building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air? Do you also believe that steel-and-concrete provides no more resistance to a plane's trajectory than air?

reply to post by FDNY343

 

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

Are you telling me that the frame rate of a amateur video camera is accurate enough to make an absolute determination that the plane never slowed as it impacted the building? Sorry, I think some of this technical stuff is getting you very confused. Beer cans, brick walls, cars, trees, wow.

Here's a great idea: I'll pick the tree, you pick the car, and we'll conduct an experiment to see which of us is closer in his conception! Describe in detail what would happen when your car hits my tree?

reply to post by FDNY343

Well, there are some 40 films of this, all of which show the same thing. That's not enough for you?

reply to post by hooper

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Listen. If this is too difficult for you, then explain how a real Boeing 767 can pass through its own length into a massive steel-and-concrete building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air? Do you also believe that steel-and-concrete provides no more resistance to a plane's trajectory than air?

reply to post by FDNY343

 

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

Would you be able to detect the deceleration of the plane in any of the videos? How much would you be able to detect?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
This is pretty odd. The buildings were 208' on a side and were square. If you study the second slide of the Powerpoint at twilightpines.com... you will get the idea. Those floors were steel trusses filled with concrete and connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other. Do you also claim that your "revved up" car would pass through such a massive tree undamaged? I am afraid that, like the official account, you are trading in fantasies. What we see in the video footage cannot have happened as it is shown. Try to become better grounded in reality.

Again, you're creating a strawman. Nobody claims the plane is undamaged. But at 733 fps it takes 2/10th of a second to enter the building. Do you expect to see damage being done to the plane on the INSIDE of the building? Do you have x-ray vision? I don't. Maybe with my PhD I get that power?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
This is from a legal affidavit submitted in a court case related to 9/11. What is here you don't get?

reply to post by weedwhacker

 

The fact that you forgot to tell us it was dismissed WITH prejudice?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Here's a great idea: I'll pick the tree, you pick the car, and we'll conduct an experiment to see which of us is closer in his conception! Describe in detail what would happen when your car hits my tree?

reply to post by FDNY343

 

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: added phrase

Fine. 1988 Ford Tempo. POS car. I had one.

Your tree? Humm.......24" around Turkey oak.

Car's curb weight - 2723 lb /1237.73 kg.

Car traveling at 733 fps or 223 mps

Kinetic Energy = 30,775,537 joules.

You think the tree is going to stand up to that? Not even close.

These are not subtle issues. Its velocity should have fallen to zero. The frame rates are fine.

reply to post by hooper

Originally posted by JimFetzer
These are not subtle issues. Its velocity should have fallen to zero. The frame rates are fine.

reply to post by hooper

 

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: rewording

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

How quick should they have fallen to zero? You parently think instantly. This is absurd to say the least.

That's not the tree I would pick. You are telling me that the bumper, the lights, the hood, the wheels, the suspension, the engine and all of that would have passed through this tree of yours without leaving parts all over the place? You can pull lots of cons here, but no one is going to buy that!

reply to post by FDNY343

There was NO deceleration, FDNY343. None. So get over it. We are watching a fantasy.

reply to post by FDNY343

backinblack already answered you. That was politics. We are talking science and aerodynamics.
reply to post by FDNY343

Originally posted by JimFetzer
That's not the tree I would pick. You are telling me that the bumper, the lights, the hood, the wheels, the suspension, the engine and all of that would have passed through this tree of yours without leaving parts all over the place? You can pull lots of cons here, but no one is going to buy that!

reply to post by FDNY343

 

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

It most likely would have. But, the tree would also be laying on the ground.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
There was NO deceleration, FDNY343. None. So get over it. We are watching a fantasy.

reply to post by FDNY343

 

So, you're telling me that they somehow made me and the dozen or so other people that were around me, see something that didn't exist? Horse****.

Again, don't avoid the question. Just answer it. Do you expect to see a measurable deceleration in 2/10th of a second?

Why or why not. List any assumptions, and show your math.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
backinblack already answered you. That was politics. We are talking science and aerodynamics.
reply to post by FDNY343

 

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

Why don't you just use the quote function? This way, we know exactly what you're replying to?

Ok, so you handwave that away, what's next? When you get this new investigation, (since I am assuming that is what you want) what happens when that comes back with the same conclusions? Are you gonna do the same thing?

reply to post by JimFetzer


Nope, it is not. Now, if per chance there happen to be a high speed camera focused on the buildings at the time of impact then it would be a different story, but there wasn't. So your assertion that the plane experienced zero deceleration from the impact is not testable based on existing information. Dead end.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Here's a great idea: I'll pick the tree, you pick the car, and we'll conduct an experiment to see which of us is closer in his conception! Describe in detail what would happen when your car hits my tree?

reply to post by FDNY343

 

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: added phrase

Are you familiar with the term "analogy"? A car striking a tree is not analogous to a plane striking a building. Again, the tree is vitrually solid, the towers were not. Since you like bricks so much, how about a car striking a typical masonry wall? Any car, just make sure its traveling about 600 feet per second.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
These are not subtle issues. Its velocity should have fallen to zero. The frame rates are fine.

reply to post by hooper

 

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: rewording

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

Really? At what point should it have fallen to zero? The exact moment that the leading point of the plane made contact with the facing point of the building? So basically you're saying the plane should have bounced off the building? Or maybe just shattered into a million pieces leaving the wall unscathed?

reply to post by hooper


I want to point something out, just occurred to me.

The (ONE) video example "Jim Fetzer" used, in that link to "DiscloseTV", was very deceptive. And, its point? the "back-and-forth", was nonsense, and totally non sequitur..


BUT, one thing that is relevant, stood out to me...and puzzled me. It was the "apparent" length of the fuselage, in that video, in the still frames. As I am exquisitely familiar with the dimensions, and appearance of the Boeing 767-200, and its proportions....and, the fuselage length looked a bit "elongated", to my eye.

Now, it makes sense....that was a factor, in THAT particular camera, due to shutter speed, for each frame (typical NTSC video records at 30 frames/second, correct?). Airplane speed, roughly (averaging) 750 feet/second, and given the range and distance, from the camera's plane of recording on its CCD....in each "frame" there is some "elongation" due simply to the movement, of the airplane, that blurred a bit, in each frame capture.

So, that is settled, and explains any instance of similar size/shape distortions. Low-quality consumer grade video cameras, is the problem in 99% of these so-called "no planers" claims and "evidences".

AS TO the ridiculous notion (which, seems to me, is derived from watching Warner Brothers cartoons) that the airplane, at those velocities, should have demonstrated any significant deceleration, in that extremely short time-span of impact sequence (about 2/10 of a second!)??

Utter rubbish!

EVERY component on the airplane has the same forward momentum, as it is attached to the complete structure. Once things began to break apart, their momentum remained...and, the kinetic energy of each "piece" will vary, based on its mass. So trajectories will differ, as a result. But, NOT in just the short time span of 2/10 of a second!!!

For those who continue to insist that UAL 175 should have exhibited some sort of "deceleration", I can only say....find and watch and time ANY video example of high-speed impact sequences. The F-4 on the rocket sled is the most-often repeated one...just YouTube search for it, it is a fine example. I'd also suggest looking into what car companies and insurance companies do, in their research. Of course, in all of THOSE cases, we have the vehicles (airplane, cars) impacting rather solid objects, and therefore not being engulfed into them, as was the case with the WTC Towers. The Towers were, obviously, HOLLOW buildings. As is any building....the vast majority of the interior space is....well, empty space!!! ("empty", save for air molecules...).


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, and also to address something to "Jim Fetzer" that I had noted before....I saw another "loaded innuendo" question regarding the strobe lights, in the videos of United 175. Again, pure distraction (and possibly, just ignorance of the cameras' limitations, again...especially in daylight).

So, here is a video, again consumer-grade quality camera, of daylight operations, and airplanes that without a doubt have their white anti-collision strobes on. These, since are landings, are also MUCH closer to the camera, than most of the scenes of United 175. You will note the difficulty the camera has in resolving the flashes of the strobe lights accurately:



Oh, and I just know that someone is likely to complain that those examples are too "nose and tail on"...so, here, even MORE close-up, telephoto views, from the sides:



You can catch glimpses of the strobes, in some, but it's due to chance and frame rate, again of the camera, and the flash rate of the strobes. You will note that some Airbus airplanes have a distinctive "double-flash" sequence style, and they tend to get recorded by the camera more noticeably.

There are plenty more video examples........

reply to post by weedwhacker


I concur, however, that is not say that there was no deceleration, if there was it probably could only be measured in milliseconds and none of the records that we have are sufficient for the purpose of measuring deceleration in milliseconds.