Title: Simulation Of Pentagoncrash
Moskito - October 10, 2006 07:14 PM (GMT)
911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
http://www.mikejwilson.com/
Sorry, wrong forum.
Can a Mod transfer this to the Pentagon-Forum?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
http://www.mikejwilson.com/
Sorry, wrong forum.
Can a Mod transfer this to the Pentagon-Forum?
Guussie - October 10, 2006 08:51 PM (GMT)
I wonder what the animation would look like if they implement the released FDR info of flight 77 into it.
johndoeX - October 11, 2006 01:08 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Guussie @ Oct 10 2006, 04:51 PM) |
| I wonder what the animation would look like if they implement the released FDR info of flight 77 into it. |
paranoia - October 11, 2006 10:14 AM (GMT)
by now i have seen the video from the thread title (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8) NOT THE FDR vid - several times, and honestly i have to laugh at their ridiculous claim of "newtonian physics".
newton's law of action and reaction states that for every action there is an equal opposite reaction, yet the action of a 300-500 mile an hour wing-contact with a 5 light poles only results in the poles tipping forward a few feet! thats nothing but pure bullshit...
the animation does not prove anything scientifically, it is only a visual representation of the "official" version of what happened, and it doesnt even depict that very accurately.
in the animation, none of the poles break in to two (or more) pieces as was supposedly the case that day, they stay intact and fall a few feet from where they were once attached. the creators very conveniently omit showing exactly how the wings would have caused the poles to rip into two and still land near each other. so they show you pics of broken poles, yet the animation shows poles that fall and land intact.
also the wings never show any damage from the repeated impacts with the poles, which in and of itself is a massive assumption. i challenge anyone to find PROOF that a plane can keep its wings intact, and maintain controlled flight towards its target after such impacts (with said poles). and dont try any of that momentum theory bullshit. the animation shows a level, controlled flight all the way to the impact with the building, as does the "security cam" view that is so explicitly dramatized for the sake of convincing the viewer of a 757 crash. so even "newtonian physics" dont believe it was a momentum driven, control-less crash, they attempt to establish a fully controlled flight. why? cuz the green (unscathed) grass forces them to.
either way, there isnt an ounce of real science in this animation. not one single study or actual testing was done to establish their so-called newtonian physics. not one pole was harmed in the making of that video, which to me is suspect. if you are gonna claim so boldly that you have newton's laws of momentum on your side, you better do some tests (as newton once did) to be sure that your claims hold water.
show me at least some sort of impact test against a pole. Then, depending on the results (which would most likely contradict the movie's assertions/claims), i might be inclined to agree. but just cuz some cartoon shows this miracle path doesnt mean that is by any means what actually happened. Even better, this movie does nothing to even establish that such an exact scenario could happen.
newton's law of action and reaction states that for every action there is an equal opposite reaction, yet the action of a 300-500 mile an hour wing-contact with a 5 light poles only results in the poles tipping forward a few feet! thats nothing but pure bullshit...
the animation does not prove anything scientifically, it is only a visual representation of the "official" version of what happened, and it doesnt even depict that very accurately.
in the animation, none of the poles break in to two (or more) pieces as was supposedly the case that day, they stay intact and fall a few feet from where they were once attached. the creators very conveniently omit showing exactly how the wings would have caused the poles to rip into two and still land near each other. so they show you pics of broken poles, yet the animation shows poles that fall and land intact.
also the wings never show any damage from the repeated impacts with the poles, which in and of itself is a massive assumption. i challenge anyone to find PROOF that a plane can keep its wings intact, and maintain controlled flight towards its target after such impacts (with said poles). and dont try any of that momentum theory bullshit. the animation shows a level, controlled flight all the way to the impact with the building, as does the "security cam" view that is so explicitly dramatized for the sake of convincing the viewer of a 757 crash. so even "newtonian physics" dont believe it was a momentum driven, control-less crash, they attempt to establish a fully controlled flight. why? cuz the green (unscathed) grass forces them to.
either way, there isnt an ounce of real science in this animation. not one single study or actual testing was done to establish their so-called newtonian physics. not one pole was harmed in the making of that video, which to me is suspect. if you are gonna claim so boldly that you have newton's laws of momentum on your side, you better do some tests (as newton once did) to be sure that your claims hold water.
show me at least some sort of impact test against a pole. Then, depending on the results (which would most likely contradict the movie's assertions/claims), i might be inclined to agree. but just cuz some cartoon shows this miracle path doesnt mean that is by any means what actually happened. Even better, this movie does nothing to even establish that such an exact scenario could happen.
johndoeX - October 11, 2006 10:23 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (paranoia @ Oct 11 2006, 06:14 AM) |
| by now i have seen the video from the thread title (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8) NOT THE FDR vid - several times, and honestly i have to laugh at their ridiculous claim of "newtonian physics". newton's law of action and reaction states that for every action there is an equal opposite reaction, yet the action of a 300-500 mile an hour wing-contact with a 5 light poles only results in the poles tipping forward a few feet! thats nothing but pure bullshit... |
behind - October 11, 2006 12:39 PM (GMT)
[salute]
UnderTow - October 11, 2006 03:10 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (paranoia @ Oct 11 2006, 06:14 AM) |
| by now i have seen the video from the thread title (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8) NOT THE FDR vid - several times, and honestly i have to laugh at their ridiculous claim of "newtonian physics". newton's law of action and reaction states that for every action there is an equal opposite reaction, yet the action of a 300-500 mile an hour wing-contact with a 5 light poles only results in the poles tipping forward a few feet! thats nothing but pure bullshit... the animation does not prove anything scientifically, it is only a visual representation of the "official" version of what happened, and it doesnt even depict that very accurately. in the animation, none of the poles break in to two (or more) pieces as was supposedly the case that day, they stay intact and fall a few feet from where they were once attached. the creators very conveniently omit showing exactly how the wings would have caused the poles to rip into two and still land near each other. so they show you pics of broken poles, yet the animation shows poles that fall and land intact. also the wings never show any damage from the repeated impacts with the poles, which in and of itself is a massive assumption. i challenge anyone to find PROOF that a plane can keep its wings intact, and maintain controlled flight towards its target after such impacts (with said poles). and dont try any of that momentum theory bullshit. the animation shows a level, controlled flight all the way to the impact with the building, as does the "security cam" view that is so explicitly dramatized for the sake of convincing the viewer of a 757 crash. so even "newtonian physics" dont believe it was a momentum driven, control-less crash, they attempt to establish a fully controlled flight. why? cuz the green (unscathed) grass forces them to. either way, there isnt an ounce of real science in this animation. not one single study or actual testing was done to establish their so-called newtonian physics. not one pole was harmed in the making of that video, which to me is suspect. if you are gonna claim so boldly that you have newton's laws of momentum on your side, you better do some tests (as newton once did) to be sure that your claims hold water. show me at least some sort of impact test against a pole. Then, depending on the results (which would most likely contradict the movie's assertions/claims), i might be inclined to agree. but just cuz some cartoon shows this miracle path doesnt mean that is by any means what actually happened. Even better, this movie does nothing to even establish that such an exact scenario could happen. |
Quoted For Truth (QFT)
[thumbsup]
Skorzeny - October 11, 2006 03:29 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (paranoia @ Oct 11 2006, 05:14 AM) |
| newton's law of action and reaction states that for every action there is an equal opposite reaction, yet the action of a 300-500 mile an hour wing-contact with a 5 light poles only results in the poles tipping forward a few feet! thats nothing but pure bullshit... |
All this talk of "no plane at the Pentagon" seems to be crazy. I agree that 9/11 was a Zionist conspiracy, but I haven't seen anything at all that makes me think anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
The CGI video shows the lamp poles tipping over, and that could not be possible in the real world, but so what? Showing them tipping over was just a shortcut in the animation. If he had really wanted to spend extra time showing the poles being cut in half, as we see in the photos, would that really be worth it? I don't think he expected anyone to think he was really saying that the poles tipped over.
UnderTow - October 11, 2006 03:52 PM (GMT)
but so what???
free_me - October 11, 2006 04:02 PM (GMT)
I love that animation. See that swirling, spiraling smoke out of the starboard engine? Matches perfectly with the stills off the security cam. Notice how the animation picks up pretty much at the point of where the FDR data ends (albeit just a hair lower in altitude :D )?
"..showing the physics of a dynamic situation to help offer explanations when a particular incident has a counter intuitive outcome..." Love that, too. (I think it's called 'propaganda.')
How can one not laugh at that? Well, maybe someone could talk Integrated Consultants into redoing their work with the FDR data? B)
"..showing the physics of a dynamic situation to help offer explanations when a particular incident has a counter intuitive outcome..." Love that, too. (I think it's called 'propaganda.')
How can one not laugh at that? Well, maybe someone could talk Integrated Consultants into redoing their work with the FDR data? B)
behind - October 11, 2006 04:03 PM (GMT)
Ralph Olmholt (757 pilot retired) said at his site: "There is no "300-Knot" damage to the pole - or any of the "downed" poles. For that matter, there is no "300 Knot" damage in any image of the 9-11 Pentagon"
I am not agree with everything he say at his site... but about the above word... I am totally agree.... it is just comon sense to find it out ;)
home.comcast.net/~skydrifter
I am not agree with everything he say at his site... but about the above word... I am totally agree.... it is just comon sense to find it out ;)
home.comcast.net/~skydrifter