| Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| BIG Problem for NPT [Crash Physics] | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 14 2009, 04:44 PM (2,102 Views) | |
| beatprophet | Oct 14 2009, 04:44 PM Post #1 |
|
In researching further I have come to the understanding that the interaction between flight 175's wings and the south tower may not have even been captured. The reason behind this is the technical properties of the video footage. In the park foreman footage flight 175 takes 5 frames to fly it's own length. With a boeing 767-200 being 159 ft in length, flight 175 is moving at a rate of app. 32 ft per frame. So that means Hezakhani's footage is leaving large amounts of the planes flight uncaptured. This is the same of all the videos of flight 175. What if the wings interaction with the south tower happened in one of those 32ft gaps. It would not have been captured by Hezakhani's or anyone els's camera. Edited by beatprophet, Oct 14 2009, 04:45 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| MAC | Oct 14 2009, 05:46 PM Post #2 |
|
What if the wings interaction with the south tower happened in one of those 32ft gaps. So you're admitting that the interaction between wings and wall (namely, evidence of an 'impact') is absent in the videos?  How is this a BIG problem for NPT though?.. Since you're having to speculate about 'uncaptured' flight footage due to frame rate limitations, then this is only a problem for RealPT. The RPTist is saying "why doesn't our real plane show any wing/wall interaction?" Not a problem for NPT that one. Besides.. wouldn't each camera be capturing different frames.. why would they all miss the 32ft gap of wing/wall interaction? And at the end of the day, we know those wingtips didn't sever the steel columns.. and unless they magically got sucked through the gaps between the columns then there should be something of those wingtips that we should see sheared off (eg, Meyers.. which is clearer).. and that bit of 'interaction' would surely last more than what we supposedly might miss in a single frame? Peace MAC Edited by MAC, Oct 14 2009, 05:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
| beatprophet | Oct 14 2009, 06:03 PM Post #3 |
|
"why doesn't our real plane show any wing/wall interaction?" That would be because of the poor resolution of the videos and the distance the videos were taken from and the framerate which leaves huge parts of the planes flight undocumented. |
|
|
|
| MAC | Oct 14 2009, 06:13 PM Post #4 |
|
Well, assuming that the frame rate does leave 'huge' parts of the planes flight undocumented (namely, evidence of an actual 'impact')... then even if those frames were somehow present we still wouldn't see very much anyway, because of the poor resolution of the videos and the distance the videos were taken from. MAC |
|
|
|
| beatprophet | Oct 14 2009, 06:30 PM Post #5 |
|
So that then begs the question MAC What evidence is there that flight 175's wings melded into the south tower without any resistance? I think we all know the answer is 0 |
|
|
|
| MAC | Oct 15 2009, 12:13 AM Post #6 |
|
This goes both ways then. What evidence is there that 'flight 175' 'impacted' and resisted the wall if you can't accurately see what's happening in these bad res videos? The evidence for resistance is also 0. And why else are you speculating about uncaptured frames? You too must believe there is a lack of interaction between wings and wall in order to try and find a reason for that. Therefore, you see what i see.. the plane slips through the wall.. and that doesn't add up, does it? Hence, speculating about uncaptured frames. If the videos aren't good enough evidence for NPT, then they're not good enough for RPT. MAC Edited by MAC, Oct 15 2009, 12:21 AM.
|
|
|
|
| achimspok | Oct 15 2009, 12:32 AM Post #7 |
|
 I put this here too. Do you see the gray cloud in the shape of the wing just inverse? One can estimate the size by using the columns of the south wall. (1 column = 1meter) So this is evidence for resistance, the sway is evidence for resistance... We should ask why that cloud is invisible in NPT "Hezarkhani never been there" videos. Seems like these videos easily miss a dust cloud of 10+ meters. Instead of thinking about the possible reason NPT call it "healing". |
|
|
|
| elephant room | Oct 15 2009, 12:34 AM Post #8 |
|
false a & b I think since the recent months' gathering of research here regarding the absence of evidence for fakery or "NPT" ... It would be more prudent to just call it reality instead of your "RPT" horse-schit. Edited by elephant room, Oct 15 2009, 12:34 AM.
|
|
|
| MAC | Oct 15 2009, 01:35 AM Post #9 |
|
achimspok We should ask why that cloud is invisible in NPT "Hezarkhani never been there" videos. Seems like these videos easily miss a dust cloud of 10+ meters. Instead of thinking about the possible reason NPT call it "healing". Well, you should ask the authors of those videos, then. I don't give a poop about the 'cloud'  Didn't realize it was an 'issue'. There's an explosion, there is clouds of s*** happening... whatever. But if you want to see a wing, then cool, go for it.I don't see a healing wall, only absence of a wing. Do you see the gray cloud in the shape of the wing just inverse?  No, I see a fast moving gif showing a blurry cloud emerging in the shape of a blurry cloud which will lead into a big fat explosion. I do see the wall bowing inwards though, whatever that indicates, i don't know.MAC |
|
|
|
| MAC | Oct 15 2009, 01:53 AM Post #10 |
|
Oops.. the term RPT is not popular, oh dear oh dear Thought i was being nice by not referring to you fellas as 'Planehuggers'.The point is that if the videos aren't good enough evidence for those who believe in no planes, then they're not good enough for those who believe in real planes. When i'm told that the videos are too low res to prove the wings slipped thru the wall, and then some wise guy pulls up a very low res zoomed in shot of the Hez vid and claims the engine is buckling (as proof of a real plane), then that's a double standard. If the videos aren't good enough evidence for NPT, then they're not good enough for RPT. And.. if NPT is a good enough name for no planers, then RPT is good enough for real planers. MAC Edited by MAC, Oct 15 2009, 01:59 AM.
|
|
|
|
| MAC | Oct 15 2009, 02:02 AM Post #11 |
|
achimspok/elephant Back to the thread topic.. Beat is asking.. What if the wings interaction with the south tower happened in one of those 32ft gaps. What is your take on that? MAC |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Oct 15 2009, 02:37 AM Post #12 |
|
Why not? They show exactly what would be expected from a real plane crash. And the videos don't contradict eachother, or the photographs, or witness testimony. Who claimed the engine was buckling? Ah, so if the videos don't support YOUR theory, they're inadmissible as evidence? Nice. Edited by broken sticks, Oct 15 2009, 02:40 AM.
|
|
|
|
| elephant room | Oct 15 2009, 03:49 AM Post #13 |
|
the "interaction" happened during these 23/33 gaps ... and during the 1/33th that was captured on the videos. Describe what you think they should look like for me please. We have no examples of these speeds and materials to reference, other than a filled soda can vs a thick steel beam ... |
|
|
|
| DrBabs | Oct 16 2009, 09:39 PM Post #14 |
|
Are you saying the 32 foot gap was big enough to avoid filming the zillions of pieces of the plane that would have bounced off the WTC exterior beams, if there had actually been a plane crash? Your theory doesn't make any sense. Videos of a plane crashing capture debris flying all over the place. The only explanation I've heard for the lack of debris was that there was actually a lot of debris, only that it kept flying forward in the direction of the plane flight. That isn't an impact. Bits and pieces would have been flying all over the place if it were, and your 32 foot gap in the story could not cover debris coming from an airplane much wider than 32 feet. The debris would have gone shooting out radially from the points of impact. Absence of debris at the south face of the WTC is evidence of absence of a plane in the videos. |
|
|
|
| DrBabs | Oct 16 2009, 09:44 PM Post #15 |
|
Do you mean a soda can filled largely with air? Because that is a model of an airplane. Yes, in a real airplane, there would have been some 30K gallons of fuel, but don't forget the fuselage of a plane, where the people sit. It's mostly air. And what would a mostly air filled soda can look like if you threw it really fast against steel beams? Much of it would collapse. Twist. Shred. Bits would bounce off in all directions. The soda can would get stuck partially in the beams, or fall mostly to the ground. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · 9/11 Research · Next Topic » |
5:08 AM Nov 24
