Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Last Resort, thanks for visiting!


Please feel free to join the forum and help contribute to a free and open investigation into the events of September 11th, 2001.


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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
NPT
Topic Started: Oct 4 2009, 09:58 PM (742 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

At the beginning of the year the reasons for NPT seemed obvious

1. Contradictory flight paths
2. No deceleration on impact
3. Significant delay in the ignition of fuel
4. Unlikely smooth entry
5. Impossible speed.

Since then,
Rasga made a good flight path model. (thank you)
Rasga made a gif showing a small amount of deceleration.

Either Ben Eadie or someone posing as Ben Eadie wrote this about the delay in the fuel igniting to my old youtube account. “This was not a movie where things explode on impact. Remember the fire triangle. Fule+Air+Heat / ignition. On impact the fuel has not had time to properly mix with the air at the correct ratio to ignite. It would take 20+seconds or even minutes to get the right aeration ratio to ignite. Also aircraft fuel is like diesel it requires another element to ignite, pressure or very intense heat.


Broken Sticks has come up with an explanation of the smooth entry, it seems Rasga and Achimspok also agree with this.


For me point number 1 has now been satisfactorily debunked.
But I would have thought there would be more obvious deceleration, clearly visible by playing the footage at normal speed.
The delay in fuel ignition seems impossible to me, if the fuel was in the wings shouldn’t it have ignited immediately like all the other plane crash footages available?
The impact is also totally confusing to me, I’ve thought carefully about Sticks theory but still can’t understand it, comparisons with cars hitting walls and f4 Phantom tests seem irrelevant.
The impossible speed still seems a valid issue.

Does anyone have anything to say about all this?


Sticks, is this the right section to post in? I didn't know where else to post it.













Quote Post Goto Top
 
RasgaSaias
Member Avatar

I have no reason to believe there were no planes anymore. Here's why.

The crash physics may seem surreal but:

1- There's a shadow from the South Tower the plane interacts with giving the illusion of a premature and clean penetration before the wings actually hit the wall.

2- Video quality won't let us see all the details. So its kind of deceiving relying on it to understand what really happened during the penetration.

3- The left engine from the second plane tilts to the left when hitting the wall. An example of interaction between the plane and the tower.

4- There is measurable deceleration upon impact. Unlike what we've been told for so long. And that's just the beguinning. It only decelerates completely when on the inside.

5- The south tower accelerates in the direction the plane was traveling after the impact. Newton was there after all.

6- There's a whole body of evidence proving an engine section from a real plane passed through the WTC2 and landed on the street. (But there are more plane debris)

7- All the videos and photographs show the same event from different perspectives. All the flight paths match.

8- Thinking that all those who say they saw a plane are lying or confused is absurd.

9- The delayed fuel ignition is very disputable. These conditions were never recreated.

10- The impossible speed won't invalidate a real but upgraded plane hitting the WTC.

So I'm convinced that something with the shape of a Boeing 767-200 did hit the south tower. The eyewitnesses saw it. It was recorded and photographed.
I know there are honest people out there who still think there's something wrong about it. I was one of them for quite some time.
But it's like Jeff said. It seems plausible at first glance. The arguments are persuasive for the open minded. That's how it begins.
However, when you scratch the surface and actually dissect everything point by point, you quickly start thinking otherwise.
And there must be something very well organized behind all the disinformation surrounding the NPT.
The behavior of some of the leading characters is highly suspicious.
There's something very wrong about the whole thing.
Edited by RasgaSaias, Oct 5 2009, 03:43 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User


I believe there was some sort of plane looking object, I don't think the witnesses are lying or mistaken.
and the engine ejected clearly points to a plane!

but the delay in fuel ignition is curious, what the youtube user calling themselves Ben Eadie wrote about 20+ seconds or minutes seems so improbable.
At the time I thought it was Ben Eadie writing to me, but now I'm not so sure.

the lack of obvious deceleration is also strange to me, but I struggle with physics.

I just wanted to say I am still very confused with what's being argued at the moment, and the comparisons people are making.

I'll just keep reading and hopefully things will become clearer in time.
thanks Rasga for taking the time to answer :)


Quote Post Goto Top
 
RasgaSaias
Member Avatar

You're welcome alibongo! ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ElephantRoom
Member Avatar

great convo alibongo!
alibongo
 
1. Contradictory flight paths
2. No deceleration on impact
3. Significant delay in the ignition of fuel
4. Unlikely smooth entry
5. Impossible speed.
... For me point number 1 has now been satisfactorily debunked.
I agree
alibongo
 
But I would have thought there would be more obvious deceleration, clearly visible by playing the footage at normal speed.
I was with you, but have really been considering how extraordinarily fast
this object was traveling ... along with what Rasga referenced about the source, quality/details on the vids.
That small amount shown in fairbanks & hez decel gifs is something.
alibongo
 
The delay in fuel ignition seems impossible to me, if the fuel was in the wings shouldn’t it have ignited immediately like all the other plane crash footages available? The impact is also totally confusing to me, I’ve thought carefully about Sticks theory but still can’t understand it, comparisons with cars hitting walls and f4 Phantom tests seem irrelevant.
I think the extraordinary speed is again the reason i find it hard to say this perceived explosion delay & impact oddity may not just be the difference between a collision at 100 mph & 500+mph...
as well as the difference between a plane colliding with a solid surface (cement, earth) as opposed to going perpendicularly into a non-solid surface (windows, frame).
alibongo
 
The impossible speed still seems a valid issue.
Yes, especially considering that we are told amateurs did this after a bloody (box cutters) overtake of the cockpit... from some former military (counter-terrorism) pilots.


rasga
 
3- The left engine from the second plane tilts to the left when hitting the wall. An example of interaction between the plane and the tower.
have you illustrated this?
rasga
 
5- The south tower accelerates in the direction the plane was traveling after the impact. Newton was there after all.
clearly an object here. nice work.

Alibongo,
Do you think there is any fakery involved in the videos/photography?

Cause I thought this entry was impossible when I was "certain" that the videos were fake.

My list of reasons become pretty bare over the last 3/4 of a year.
I, and other, repeatedly ask the 'persistent' defenders at pumpitout to defend ...
or at least clarify what evidence of fakery exists.

Non of them take a stab at it.
(Well, SparkOfLife tried, but it was real weak ... green screen crap)

So i guess my position was really defaulted to the fact that we are seeing the actual
plane (767/alternative plane) & wtc collision. Therefore, I have to step way back and
consider why I thought this impact is not what it should be.
It is because the same *people that convinced me of fakery after fakery,
repeated this explosion/impact "problem" over and over
(*fetzer, reynolds, keith ... us [pumpitout, taboo ... gulp, movement] )
Not experts.
And, not the way Shure has been so successful at verifying questions about speed.

... Ben Eadie is the name of a guy who is the subject in one of Shure's videos about speed.
Edited by ElephantRoom, Oct 7 2009, 07:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

ElephantRoom
Oct 7 2009, 07:01 AM


Alibongo,
Do you think there is any fakery involved in the videos/photography?

Cause I thought this entry was impossible when I was "certain" that the videos were fake.

My list of reasons become pretty bare over the last 3/4 of a year.
I, and other, repeatedly ask the 'persistent' defenders at pumpitout to defend ...
or at least clarify what evidence of fakery exists.

Non of them take a stab at it.
(Well, SparkOfLife tried, but it was real weak ... green screen crap)

So i guess my position was really defaulted to the fact that we are seeing the actual
plane (767/alternative plane) & wtc collision. Therefore, I have to step way back and
consider why I thought this impact is not what it should be.
It is because the same *people that convinced me of fakery after fakery,
repeated this explosion/impact "problem" over and over
(*fetzer, reynolds, keith ... us [pumpitout, taboo ... gulp, movement] )
Not experts.
And, not the way Shure has been so successful at verifying questions about speed.

... Ben Eadie is the name of a guy who is the subject in one of Shure's videos about speed.


No, I don't think the videos or photos were faked (I used to) Something that looked like a plane hit the south tower.

I'm slowly beginning to understand the impact, Sticks has spent a lot of time trying to explain it to me and I think I'm getting there. I've heard so many times the phrases we all repeated 'planes don't meld into steel walls, they crash against them' etc, it's hard to think about this with a fresh mind. Plus I read what G is writing on taboo, and it doesn't seem like he agrees with Sticks impact explanation. G is very bright and he understands the physics of this better than I do so i've just been listening to everyone and trying to make my own mind up.

The ignition delay is a big problem for me, and Ben Eadie's statement is totally confusing. I've been thinking about bunker busters/BLU penetrators because of the delayed ignition and the trouble I have understanding the impact. I know no one photographed a missile, but i'm thinking it could have been inside the plane.

I consider everything and my mind changes from day to day though!
I'm grateful to the people who have helped me try to understand all this, thanks Jeff, G, Sticks and Rasga.








Quote Post Goto Top
 
RasgaSaias
Member Avatar

ElephantRoom
Oct 7 2009, 07:01 AM
rasga
 
3- The left engine from the second plane tilts to the left when hitting the wall. An example of interaction between the plane and the tower.
have you illustrated this?
I forgot to lol.

Here they are:

Posted Image Posted Image

Edited by RasgaSaias, Oct 7 2009, 05:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar
Administrator
alibongo
Oct 4 2009, 09:58 PM
At the beginning of the year the reasons for NPT seemed obvious

1. Contradictory flight paths
2. No deceleration on impact
3. Significant delay in the ignition of fuel
4. Unlikely smooth entry
5. Impossible speed.
yeah, that was why i wanted to look into it, definitely

Quote:
 
Either Ben Eadie or someone posing as Ben Eadie wrote this about the delay in the fuel igniting to my old youtube account. “This was not a movie where things explode on impact. Remember the fire triangle. Fule+Air+Heat / ignition. On impact the fuel has not had time to properly mix with the air at the correct ratio to ignite. It would take 20+seconds or even minutes to get the right aeration ratio to ignite. Also aircraft fuel is like diesel it requires another element to ignite, pressure or very intense heat.

yeah, at the time i thought he was making no sense or got the wrong idea about your question or something.
now i think maybe he's describing how long it would take jet fuel to ignite WITHOUT an ignition source, like a reaction where just exposing jet fuel to oxygen for long enough would ignite it. maybe he is actually, it kinda makes sense you know.
Quote:
 
For me point number 1 has now been satisfactorily debunked.
yeah, totally.
Quote:
 

But I would have thought there would be more obvious deceleration, clearly visible by playing the footage at normal speed.
i don't think it would unless the plane and tower were a lot more rigid, but the plane isn't rigid enough, and even if it was, the tower would just give way even easier, unless it was a solid cube or something.
Quote:
 
The delay in fuel ignition seems impossible to me, if the fuel was in the wings shouldn’t it have ignited immediately like all the other plane crash footages available?

Maybe it IS normally impossible, i still don't know, but it doesn't necessarily mean no-planes in my opinion. i've not looked into it properly yet, but if a normal 767 couldn't fly like that, maybe it wasn't a normal 767, and something was done to the fuel-load or the fuel-tanks or something to prevent an explosion from happening too early, maybe because if it didn't look like the explosion and fire was inside then people wouldn't have bought the whole "fire brought down the towers" thing.
lol, maybe. like i say, i haven't looked into fuel tanks that much. every fuel-tank rupture i see in videos is completely different from the towers.
they either have a plane crashing into the ground and igniting (the ground is obviously a lot more dense than the tower's walls) or otherwise the engine being the ignition source, and on 911 the engines passed through the wall before they'd have come into contact with any fuel, so they probably wouldn't be the ignition source for the official story either. DEFINITELY worth looking into though i reckon. we should start a thread here or on pump about it.

Quote:
 

The impact is also totally confusing to me, I’ve thought carefully about Sticks theory but still can’t understand it, comparisons with cars hitting walls and f4 Phantom tests seem irrelevant.

i think the phantom test is good because it shows how aluminium behaves at such high speeds (ie, it can be paused showing the plane totally smashed at the front but the rear showing no sign of damage at all), which kinda helps understand the lack of visible deceleration too, because the back will only decelerate if the front slows it down, and if the front has turned to dust, then it won't slow the back down.

Quote:
 
Sticks, is this the right section to post in? I didn't know where else to post it.
this is a cool place to post it - i don't mind really anyway, its a good thread.

Edited by broken sticks, Oct 8 2009, 12:06 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Comments · Next Topic »
Add Reply