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

Well, the building is like a tree rooted to the ground by virtue of its construction. I have offered the comparison with a car traveling at hight speed impacting with an enormous tree. No one expects it to melt into the trunk. And I have also offered the thought experiment of the plane impacting with a single acre of concrete on a truss suspended in space. Take your pick. Either way, the outcome is catastrophic for the plane, not the building or the slab in space. You are the one deluding yourself.

reply to post by FDNY343

Originally posted by JimFetzer
I'm sorry. I wasn't sure you were serious. Some of the firemen at certain key positions were in on it. Others, who may have figured out something funny was going on, were not keen on losing their jobs.

Are you ****** serious!??!?!?!?!?!? That is about the DUMBEST thing I have EVER heard anyone say, EVER.

You think that if ANYONE in the FDNY thought that 9/11 was all a big sham, and got 343 of their brothers killed, that they would not be screaming from the rooftops? WTF?

We will run into a burning building to save a complete strangers life, but when one of our own is killed, you think we would remain silent?

Horse *****!

Do you not understand that members of FDNY have been complaining about poor radio reception for years? But, you think they would be silent on the death of 343 of their own?

That is absolutely ******** retarded.

Originally posted by JimFetzer

I will get back to you with more, but it seems to me the combination of Leslie Raphael's study and the actual images seem to me to carry more weight than any absence of protest from firemen, who may well be staying as far away as they can from 9/11.

Yeah, because we are so afraid that we would lose our jobs. Do you not realize that FDNY is UNION?!?! It's almost impossible for us to lose our job. Short of gross misconduct, or something very serious, we are in for life.

The fragile airplane, which is made of aluminum, might be compared with an empty beer can hitting a brick wall. Do you expect the beer can to effortlessly pass through the wall? The less dense object does not prevail in an interaction like this. While some parts of the plane would have entered the building, including the engines, most of the plane would have crumpled, where the wings and tail would have broken off, with seats, bodies, and luggage falling to the ground. Moreover, the friction of the impact would have ignited the fuel in the wings, which would not have only exploded later after the plane had completely entered the building. We are obviously viewing a video fantasy.

reply to post by Alfie1

Well, you would have to ask each of them why they have or haven't spoken up. Lots of people know that 9/11 was an inside job and have not spoken up. Perhaps you could encourage them to speak out? But this is a distraction from the more basic arguments that I have been making, even about Flight 11. Did you go back to my Powerpoint and look at the time-sequences slide of the plane approaching the North Tower? and did you like the extension of the cookie-cutter cut out that was added on?

reply to post by FDNY343

I thought we were discussing video fakery, not the Pentagon. We can turn to the Pentagon later.

reply to post by tommyjo

Originally posted by backinblack

lol, ohh I doubt that mate...
Polls show more and more people questioning the OS every year..

You are in the minority..

Citation needed. Thanks.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Actually...

...but would an amateur pilot have been able to control the aircraft at those speeds and hit the targets?

"Amateur" is a rather vague term...but (since I think you said you have your license? Then you should be able to relate) ... merely "pointing and steering" is just not that difficult. When all you are doing is looking out the windshields, and manipulating the controls ("steering") in order to keep the target you are aiming at in the proper relative position.

As you know, when you learn to fly, the added dimension of "vertical" gets added to the equation, when compared to your experience with automobile driving, and just aiming "left/right". It is something that most people grasp quite quickly, in an airplane, the visual cues to "aim" where they wish to go, both left/right and up/down.

So, basically....when aiming at something with the airplane, when the "target" remains fixed in place, in your windscreen....and grows in relative size as you approach, that means you are on an intercept course to impact. As you look at it, if it begins to "drift" any which way, this means your aim is askew...so, the instinct to correct back is quite intuitive. Even with relatively low-time and experience.

This just popped into my head, as a possible analogy....for computer users! How long did it take you, (users) to get accustomed to using your mouse, and manipulating the cursor icon around the screen?? THAT is a prime example of hand/eye coordination, in multiple planes of motion, and you can see that it is easily grasped.

The plane would be acting unusually...

No, not really. My (rather long) post from yesterday touched upon a few possible high-speed regime stability problems that can crop up. "Mach tuck" is one, but that is dismissed in this case, because it isn't relevant....the speed, as a percentage of Mach (the "Mach Number") was in a very normal range. Hang on, there is an online calculator to show you:

www.hochwarth.com...

Plugging in 1,000 feet MSL, and (I used) 470 KCAS (knots calibrated airspeed), the Mach is only 0.72.

Mach tuck, also, is not a "bad habit" exhibited by the B-757/767 family...this is seen in airplanes with more pronounced wing sweep-back, usually...and those with T-tail arrangements for the empennage.

The only other high-airspeed phenomenon that has been touted by the "no planes" naysayers is something called "aileron reversal". You can look that up, of course...but, essentially, that is observed on some wing designs, when the aerodynamic forces acting on the ailerons, when they deflect into the airflow, is so strong that the structure of the wings actually twist, as the flex under the loads...and the twisting results in the opposite roll command than expected from the aileron control movement.

But, again....the 757/767 wings aren't prone to that, they are far more rigid and less subject to that sort of twisting. In any event, in the specific case of the 767, it has TWO sets of ailerons! OUTboard, and INboard.

The OUTboard ailerons, located nearer the tips, would be the "culprits" in cases of aileron reversal situations. BUT, the 767 flight control system disables the OUTboard ailerons above certain speeds. ONLY the INboard ailerons actuate for roll control...augmented by the flight spoilers, on top of the wings.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edit...I will always be an instructor, at heart. So, a diagram and stuff, to illustrate:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d74b0e8f7699.jpg[/atsimg]

And, this source:

LOCKOUT SYSTEM
At high speed, OUTBOARD ailerons are LOCKED

It isn't specific, there (this is a sort of "Cliff's Notes" for pilots, a systems review "cheatsheet" to act as a memory jog. Primarily used for the annual "You Bet Your Job" (LOL!) simulator checkrides you have to undergo, to remain qualified). But, "high speed" means mostly, any speed above the max speed for slat extension...assuming that you will be extending slats/flaps as you slow for approach and landing, of course.

(Found the specifics...the kind of arcane info that isn't something we have to memorize, but the aviation technicians -- aka "mechanics" -- who troubleshoot failures, and the engineers who dsigned it, know. From PPRuNe:

The B767-300...

(the 767-200 will be identical)

.... Aileron lockout is operated by an electrical actuator that aligns the the pivot points of the aileron quadrant input and output cranks. Thus, when locked out, rotation of the input crank produces no output crank movement. The left and right electric actuators are driven by two Stabiliser Trim/Aileron Lockout Modules (SAM) with one operating both ailerons and the other in standby. A logic cross-feed provides automatic selection of the controlling SAM (usually the Left.) Each SAM is fed with CAS data from its on-side Digital Air Data Computer via ARINC429 data bus. The controlling SAM generates discrete lock commands to both outboard aileron lockout electrical actuators and monitors actuator position for fault annunciation and control switching decisions.

The lockout is done to a speed schedule as follows:

1. Vc > 275 Kts CAS
2. Mach No. in the range 0.5M to 0.58M AND Vc equal to or greater than 235 Kts CAS

OR

3. MachNo. equal to or greater than 0.58M

Like I said....WAY too technical to require memorization....that HAD to come from some technical maintenance manual, somewhere! (Ooooph!)

_____
More, memory jogs....of fault indications, in the system, to be aware of when annunciated:

AILERON LOCKOUT EICAS msg + light failure in the lockout system :
- Fault in the Ailerons LOCKOUT system
- At High airspeeds (around cruise speeds), 1 or BOTH Outboard ailerons failed to LOCKOUT
- At Low airspeeds (around approach speeds), 1 or BOTH Outboard ailerons failed to UNLOCK

www.smartcockpit.com...

Exciting stuff, eh??
If I had access to my own stuff online, would use that...meanwhile, it's nice that others have put this out, it's handy-dandy for this purpose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


So, no....there would be no "unusual" actions on the part of the airplane. In fact, at the higher speeds, it has a very pleasant "feel" to the controls...a crisp, accurate response to just the most subtle of control wheel force. Remember, we think of controlling by exerting a "pressure" on the controls, and observing/sensing the response. Overt control movements are applicable in some cases, but it all comes down, eventually, to the sensations and sensory feedback...the old "hand/eye coordination" thing again. Very hard to put into words, but you can "feel" it intuitively when you fly for real. Pilots also utilize many other cues, auditory and inner-ear related (balance).

AND, the hackneyed phrase "seat of the pants". Hackneyed, but entirely apt.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The fragile airplane, which is made of aluminum, might be compared with an empty beer can hitting a brick wall. Do you expect the beer can to effortlessly pass through the wall? The less dense object does not prevail in an interaction like this. While some parts of the plane would have entered the building, including the engines, most of the plane would have crumpled, where the wings and tail would have broken off, with seats, bodies, and luggage falling to the ground. Moreover, the friction of the impact would have ignited the fuel in the wings, which would not have only exploded later after the plane had completely entered the building. We are obviously viewing a video fantasy.

reply to post by Alfie1

 

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

Did you really compare those planes hitting those buildings with a beer can hitting a brick wall? Or earlier I saw that you compared it to car hitting a tree, is that correct?

You posit that the plane is "less dense" then the building. However, we all know that unlike the tree and the brick, the building is not a solid. In fact, the outer walls were constructed of, if I recall correcty, 3/8" to 1/2" steel tube with an aluminum cladding. Almost sounds like the construct of the plane wings themselves. The concrete floors that were intercepted were only about 7" thick on average placed in metal deckpans with light reinforcing.

In other words, the World Trade Center towers were much like any other building in the sense that they were constructed as a box, not like the Great Pyramids at Giza.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The fragile airplane, which is made of aluminum, might be compared with an empty beer can hitting a brick wall. Do you expect the beer can to effortlessly pass through the wall? The less dense object does not prevail in an interaction like this. While some parts of the plane would have entered the building, including the engines, most of the plane would have crumpled, where the wings and tail would have broken off, with seats, bodies, and luggage falling to the ground. Moreover, the friction of the impact would have ignited the fuel in the wings, which would not have only exploded later after the plane had completely entered the building. We are obviously viewing a video fantasy.

reply to post by Alfie1

 

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

No-one has said the plane penetrated the Tower " effortlessly " there was enormous kinetic energy in the impact.

I note that you are not disputing my calculation that the impact was approximately equivalent to one hundred B 25 bombers crashing into the same place at 200 mph. And, as has been pointed out to you, one such " fragile "B 25 punched a 20 ft by 18 ft hole in the Empire State Building.

Well, eight (8) floors of 4-8" of concrete reinforced with steel wire mesh is not elastic, like rubber. Those eight floors provided enormous horizontal resistance. They were not spongy and would not give way during an interaction with a comparatively flimsy object like a flying beer can. If you haven't check out the first fifteen (15) slides of my Powerpoint by now, where I provide a diagram that makes it unmistakable that the plane WAS intersecting EIGHT floors of horizontal resistance at an acre of concrete on steel trusses apiece, you need to play catch-up!

reply to post by FDNY343

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, the building is like a tree rooted to the ground by virtue of its construction. I have offered the comparison with a car traveling at hight speed impacting with an enormous tree. No one expects it to melt into the trunk. And I have also offered the thought experiment of the plane impacting with a single acre of concrete on a truss suspended in space. Take your pick. Either way, the outcome is catastrophic for the plane, not the building or the slab in space. You are the one deluding yourself.

reply to post by FDNY343

 

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: Expanding the point.

The WTC was not a completly solid object. So, comparing it to a tree is absurd.

Secondly, I can almost guarantee that if I fired a car at a tree at about 733 FPS, it would cut right through the tree.

Again, the plane did not impact an ENTIRE acre of concrete. That is called poisoning the well. It is a logical fallacy. It impacted much LESS than an acre of concrete. 4" x's 8 floors is 32" of concrete. It did not hit it on the surface, it hit the concrete on the edge.

And yes, I agree that it would be VERY catastrophic for the plane. Nobody disagrees with that. However, that is a strawman. The plane did not survive intact.

PS. Don't call me deluded again. I don't do that to you, don't do it to me.

Check it out, Alfie1. It certainly looks "effortless" to me. You think what you see here is real?

www.disclose.tv...

reply to post by Alfie1

Its intricate lattice structure was extremely robust, among the best ever designed by the hand of man. Chuck Boldwyn has observed that balsa wood models with similar lattice designs have been able to support weights on the order of 4,000 times their own weight. You are underestimating the strength of the building.

reply to post by FDNY343

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.

reply to post by FDNY343

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The fragile airplane, which is made of aluminum, might be compared with an empty beer can hitting a brick wall. Do you expect the beer can to effortlessly pass through the wall? The less dense object does not prevail in an interaction like this. While some parts of the plane would have entered the building, including the engines, most of the plane would have crumpled, where the wings and tail would have broken off, with seats, bodies, and luggage falling to the ground. Moreover, the friction of the impact would have ignited the fuel in the wings, which would not have only exploded later after the plane had completely entered the building. We are obviously viewing a video fantasy.

reply to post by Alfie1

 

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

Well, using that logic, water can't cut steel, avalanches don't harm buildings, and there is no way that a bullet could work.

The friction of the impact would not be expected to react in such a short amount of time. For the spark to ignite that kind of fuel, the fuel must be vaporized first.

A Boeing 767 is 159' 2" long. The plane was traveling at approximately 733 fps. Using math, it would take about 2/10ths of a second to completly enter the building. Right? Ok.

Now, lso take into consideration that the fuel is stored in the wings of the plane. Now, the exact measurements from the nose to the plane's fuel tanks, I do not know. (Maybe weed has that kind of information) but for arguments sake, we will say it's about half the distance.

So, you expect the fuel to atomize and ignite in about 1/10 of one second?

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

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

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, you would have to ask each of them why they have or haven't spoken up. Lots of people know that 9/11 was an inside job and have not spoken up. Perhaps you could encourage them to speak out?

Yeah, I don't need to encourage them to get the courage to speak out. They have that all on their own. Way to handwave everything away.

Originally posted by JimFetzer

But this is a distraction from the more basic arguments that I have been making, even about Flight 11. Did you go back to my Powerpoint and look at the time-sequences slide of the plane approaching the North Tower? and did you like the extension of the cookie-cutter cut out that was added on?

I've seen that craptastic pile of dung you call a presentation. Question. Why don't you find better pictures? It seems that you find the absolutel worst pictures, then shrink them or cut them out, and it distorts them. It's another form of poisoning the well.

Why don't you put all of it into a pdf.? It would work better.

PS. The cookie cutter bit is....well......lacking anything of substanace.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, eight (8) floors of 4-8" of concrete reinforced with steel wire mesh is not elastic, like rubber. Those eight floors provided enormous horizontal resistance. They were not spongy and would not give way during an interaction with a comparatively flimsy object like a flying beer can. If you haven't check out the first fifteen (15) slides of my Powerpoint by now, where I provide a diagram that makes it unmistakable that the plane WAS intersecting EIGHT floors of horizontal resistance at an acre of concrete on steel trusses apiece, you need to play catch-up!

reply to post by FDNY343

 

No Mr. Feetzer, YOU need to keep up. How do you get an ACRE of concrete intersecting the plane? It did NOT hit the ENTIRE surface area of the floor. It his the EDGE of the floor, which even IF they were all 8" thick, that is still only 64" of concrete. NOT an acre.

Stop poisoning the well.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Its intricate lattice structure was extremely robust, among the best ever designed by the hand of man. Chuck Boldwyn has observed that balsa wood models with similar lattice designs have been able to support weights on the order of 4,000 times their own weight. You are underestimating the strength of the building.

reply to post by FDNY343

 

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: Additional example

I am sure that balsa wood could do that. But, how well does it resist my sledge hammer when it comes to lateral loads?

You're OVERestimating the strength of the towers.

Do we need to go back over the kinetic energy of the plane?