Thursday, October 16, 2008

Air versus Skyscraper"-The Shortest, Simplest, Most Devastating, Most Subversive 911 Truth Video?

" Air versus Skyscraper"-The Shortest, Simplest, Most Subversive 911 Truth Video?





For my money,this video analysis, by "Killtown", of a purported "amateur" video shot on 09/11/01, of flight 175 magically disappearing whole into the South tower at the WTC, has to be the shortest, simplest, and therefor the most subversive analysis of one of the main events of that day vis a vis the official story and similar "truther" stories which refuse to question both the validity and authenticity of the media broadcasts for that morning.


K.I.S.S.


"K.I.S.S." ["Keep It Simple, Stupid"] is the acronym that comes to mind here. This analysis works so well simply because it is _so_ simple, short, and therefor so powerful - my initial reaction upon viewing was [while slapping palm against forehead], " Of course! How could I have been so stupid as to NOT see this?".

Maybe your reaction will be similar.Enjoy!

2 comments:

  1. The true traveler is he who goes on foot, and even then, he sits down a lot of the time.Flights to Toronto

    ReplyDelete
  2. Video frame rate versus speed of object are important, because it introduces sufficient error to mask deceleration. For example, assuming a frame rate of 24 frames per second, an aircraft length of 155 ft, and V1=600 mph and V2=525 mph, both velocities (and those in between) would have the aircraft travel its length in the same number of fames.

    The physics of the building should also be properly described. The tower walls were not solid steel. The wall assemblies had window gaps with little resistance. The wall assembly was composed of three hollow box columns connected together with spandrels, and with the built-in failure points of the bolts that connected the assemblies together. The wall assemblies were covered with aluminum cladding.

    When studying the actual damage of the building, the aluminum cladding demonstrates wingtip-to-wingtip damage. Behind that, you'll observe areas where entire wall assemblies were pushed out of the way (owing to the bolt failure points), where box columns were bent, and in some cases severed. The floors were (approximately) 13 feet apart.

    The points are that wall assemblies did not offer 100% resistance, and that once the walls were breeched by the leading mass of the aircraft, the resistance to subsequent mass of the aircraft would have been reduced significantly.

    Another point of physics that the NPTers like to malframe. They harp that the wings and tail should have bounced off of the structure. To a certain degree, they did but not as cohesive wholes. They tend to purposely misunderstand the physics involved by applying observations of relatively low velocity collisions (e.g., parking lot speeds, autobahn speeds) with what would be observed (in the MythBusters Rocket-slide videos and the Sandia F4 crash) at really high velocities. The energy available at very large velocities (velocity squared term) is sufficient to overcome internal structural energy of the material of the vehicle and therefore get shattered first before any bouncing may or may not occur. Close observation of the video and recognizing that from the distance to the camera, what appeared to be tiny pieces were actually much larger and were shattered wings and such.

    Included in the evidence of real aircraft are 10 different instances of fragments of aircraft wheel assemblies found in various locations. My favorite is an aircraft wheel embedded between two box columns of a wall assembly that it ripped out of the back-side of WTC-1 (remember the bolt failure points), was lying in the parking lot below, and was photographed from several angles before either tower was destroyed.

    My second favorite is the engine that rocketed out of the corner of WTC-2, hit a roof of a Park Place building, and then landed near Church & Murray.

    Let's be clear that not of the larger parts were ever serial numbered identified to match the alleged aircraft. For many other reasons including curious flight paths, incomplete take-off records, turned off transponders, speed & precision of flights, etc., some reasonable doubt exists whether or not the aircraft were the alleged commercial aircraft. But the evidence is there of physical aircraft being involved.

    // MCB

    ReplyDelete