Questioning the 9/11 attacks...
Maybe you shouldn't stop counting the "air" frames before the plane actually hits the building.You count them right up until the nose reaches the edge of the smoke, then move the plane forward a few frames to start over again.It's pretty obvious that there would be more frames moving through the air if you didn't lie.
I like it!!
Nice work-- basically this is another way to show there was no deceleration upon "impact"
Chad, I'm counting how many frames it takes "Flight 175" to travel the length of itself, not how many frames it is seen flying through the air before it contacts the South Tower. So I didn't "lie."Maybe you can explain why the "plane" in this video travels the same speed through the skyscraper as it does through air.
Chad get out of town, your out of your element. Was is a high level military plane is that why it went through the building so easily ? Or was there a pod attached to the plane ? Why didn't any of the news casters see the plane before it hit ? Except a girl who on the other side of the city Chad ? Does she have super human eye sight Chad ? Think logically, do you own research. No one expects you to believe anything. We arn't one of you, and Killtown definately knew that when he started this blog. We have an obligation and that is to inform that public and that is it, after that its up to you. Think for your self.
It is obvious to anyone with a brain what happened here. The plane was travelling at nearly five hundred miles per hour through air and pierced the flimsy outer case of the building.Ask yourself this simple question and get your brains in gear,if you have a spear shaped object travelling towards a block of flimsy mesh steel of a flat building face, how difficult would it be for that five hundred miles per hour spear to penetrate the outer mesh of the that building?The answer is obviously,very easy and that is what happened.As for the apparent non de -acceleration of the pointed nose spear as it hit the building mesh, that is simply because at impact the tower swayed BACK giving the camera view the impression the speed was not decreased.Plus the camera itself was not entirely totally steady so YOU KILLTOWN OR WHATEVER YOUR REAL NAME IS!!cannot possibly accurately measure these things off the videos.As for the plane who's was body entering the building whilst the building itself seemed to be intact: this was solely because of the intenese bright sunlight that day that whited out the breaking up of the tower face as the plain penetrated the hole and the rest of the body of the plane landed inside the offices.The hole appeard in stages as the damaged material began to collapse, and only after the explosion did it come in full and was completed as debris and things came out, the face of that building was glaring white in the sunlight.So it is of chief importance to remember how bright the face of the towers was in the intense glower of the sun , and how that affected the cameras' possible field of detail.Maybe killtown and others like him would have done well to be in President Bushed reading class that day, who knows by now they may have actually learnt some thinking skills.
Wrong Tom. If you did your research you would know that a plane CAN NOT go even 300mphs let alone 500mph at 1000 feet. Do your own research, Google: Laws of Drag. Maybe you'll get your head set. Yeah your right the camera wasn't steady beacuse it's blue screen or some kind of multi-layered image. If you go to the WTC site today you CAN NOT line up this shot. Notice the BK sign on the left. The guy taking this shot had to have been crouching down or in a man hole. Tom go do some research about planes. You'll find out some things about drag and how planes don't fly top speed at take off height.
Yeah bright sunlight... Except the east side of the building is getting sunlight not the side that got hit. Stop resisting, there is no need to resist, we are here to allow. To allow all things to be possible.
Wrong Alex.Planes usually de-accelarate at take off height true because the only time they get at that lower height other than take off itself is when they are going to land.This case is different because they were not going to land on the ground they were aimed to land IN the building. You ever seen star wars and how they land in the mother ships, or in attack of the clones and how they land in the city buildings? and fly around near the actual city towers?Maybe one day we will design such high towered landing padds based upon the possibilties that 911 afforded us to see as possible. Even though it was a tragedy it could revolutionise air travel and overcome the problems of air port crowding .The speed therefore of under 300 miles per hour at a thousand feet is based upon the normal protocol and behaviour of passenger jet planes on the begining of descent leading to landing approaches. Plane manuals are not written for suicidal manics who are trying to crash into high towered buildings.Also plane safety speeds at different altitudes are not written for the guidance of suicidal maniacs to follow either. The speed therefore of under 300 miles per hour at a thousand feet has nothing to do with actual speed capabilty, and is only a guide of usual behaviour to do with safe landing approaches. SO YOU ARE WRONG.- back to school and my pet goat for YOU TOO. and use pen paper and books- google is full of good information that you never learnt only copied.The Laws of drag are in this case are not the question, there was no need to take into account landing speed for the plane was not interested in standard landing approach protocols and safety measures.The aim was to use the plain as a five hundred mile an hour spear of penetration into a perfectly for the objective a all purpose made wire metal spidey net.The five hundred miles an hour spear that was the plane easily seared clear right through the spidey net of flexible wire ntetting like a perfectly aimed missile loaded with combustable material ready to set the process of destruction in motion.The main part of the cia's and militairy industrial complexities budget was donated by arabs, so dont say they are too dumb or incapable of flying planes, I am sure many of those who are intent on doing such things are clever enough to fake their flying abilities as a cover story.And the tower was lighted up on the side of the plain hitting it, that is why it appears so whited out out as if it was actually a white building.I am not resisting anything, you are, and i dont need to allow anything.Tom
Who are you ? Your not John Lear. Planes can not fly top speed at 1000 feet. Simple as that. You ever see what a bird does to a plane ? it destroys it ? You ever see what fedex boxes do to cabins in windy airports ? whats the 3rd law of motion ?
Who are you?It is quite possible also to fly at one hundred miles per hour on land is it not?You talk of drag, drag on land does not stop speeds upto a hundred miles per hour so why do you think it is impossible to fly at one hundred miles per hour at one thousand feet or less through thin air without ground drag ?Ask a stunt pilot, or a race pilot.What you are saying is simply untrue, 100 miles an hour at one thousand feet and even less is totally possible.We are not living in the 18 century anymore.There is also the added problem with your silly arguments about birds.If birds were major problems to planes so are crane flies and nats.According to your outragous logic, windshields would be smashed constantly by crane flies, and hundreds of air plane crashes would be down to some the smallest creatures known to man.Can you imagine the news reporting day in day out tiny birds and flies caused yesterdays plane crash tragedy where over 100 people lost their lives!Total rediculous laughable nonsense!It does just not happen and the idea that birds regulary cause the kind of rare damage you point to as evidence, is just not the way things are!If the kind of freaky bird damage that you point to was the norm, many of the plane accidents would be results of this bird collision problem, and the fact is plane crashes are not constantly caused by birds or crow flies. neither is it true to say planes are constantly damaged by birds.It's total nonsense what you are saying and based upon a few very freaky cases with an extreme and unusual set of aorodynamic circumstances, circumstances that are not the norm.For birds to constantly cause minor damage to plain wings and the like because of some kind of collision is very very rare indeed, so rare as to be almost unheard of , except for a very very few cases.The towers were purposely made to take the impact of passenger jets like a spear breaking a wire mesh net , just as they did!That fact coupled with the perfectly alligned point of impact and the bright sunny day causing the white out effect, is the cause of your puzzlement when viewing the various optical illusons caught on video.Video films themselves are optical illusions they are not real, as you know, but what happened happened.Most mirros do not give a perfect reflection much less camera lenses and photographic film.Tom.
Man if you wanna talk aerodynamics your up against the worlds best. watch 911taboo. 586MPH at 35,000 IS THE TOP SPEED OF A BOEING AIR CRAFT!Willing suspension of disbeliefshould not be a mindstate for a breaking FUCKING news story.
Thanks for coming to my aid Alex. Yes your right, i am trying to argue just 1000 feet and your figure of 35000 really help me a lot.For it is not true that the higher you get the faster you can travel!Thanks for injecting you insight.scientific truth will not be assialed by ignorance much longer i am sure.Tom.
Alex, Are you really that crazy alex jones guy?
scientific truth will not be assialed in a fantasy land where planes can fly top sea at sea level. Do you know what Resonant Frequencies are ?
Killtown, I couldn't find an email address to contact you. I have linked to you from my sitehttp://fight-tyranny.blogspot.comI have been in contact with Simon Shack , he is linked there also. Thought I would just let you know a fellow "No Planes" believer loves the killtown blog! Please feel free to delete this ramble from the comments.
I'm curious how much deceleration you think you should see for an object 155 feet long that is traveling 733 feet per second?That plane was traveling almost 5 times it's length every second.
Post a Comment