Great New Youtube Video, Thought provoking and fun (if we can laugh about this mess) Options

[saturnaspider]

I got a kick out of this:

1978 Film Mocks 911 Crash Physics

Genghis, love him or hate him, has come up with a winner here, IMHO.

(The comments are cool also.)

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

P.S. I personally am in the former group re the G-Man.

This post has been edited by saturnaspider: Mar 5 2009, 07:01 PM

[saturnaspider]

Here's a comment that I left, FYI:

There were no plane parts found below WTC1 & 2 impact sides. There were only alleged non identified plane parts "found" beyond opposite to impact sides i.e. in keeping with the "planes" having gone "completely in one side and out the other" "like a BAD special effect." LOL

LOL indeed.

This post has been edited by saturnaspider: Mar 5 2009, 07:20 PM

[Sanders]

And comparing 9/11 to a scene from a MOVIE proves what? Absolutely nothing. I'm as suspicious as anyone about the plausibility of a passenger jet flying intact into a steel-framed building, but vids like this do not help us. No offense saturnaspider, but Pleeeaase can we all just ignore this.

[saturnaspider]

And comparing 9/11 to a scene from a MOVIE proves what? Absolutely nothing. I'm as suspicious as anyone about the plausibility of a passenger jet flying intact into a steel-framed building, but vids like this do not help us. No offense saturnaspider, but Pleeeaase can we all just ignore this.

I beg your pardon, Sanders but I believe that this youtube proves that experts pre 9/11 considered plane crashes and their depiction realistically and in accord to scientific principles. IMHO, The film shows, for those who have a hard time visualizing accurately after the 9// mindf**k , what a real crash of a jetliner into a skyscraper should look like.

Are you guys trying to sideline me? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

Either way, I deem it relevant and worthy of a look for my sincerely stated reasons.

Respectfully, Saturna. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[Sanders]

I didn't mean to offend you Saturnaspider, and no I'm not trying to sideline you. Yes, this vid shows what scene designers on a movie project believed a crash into a building should look like, and maybe it's realistic. But it doesn't prove anything.

Forgive me for taking that position, but it's my view that the biggest weakness in all of the NPT/Fakery material that's been put out is the tendency to freely mix up all kinds of evidence, both rational and highly skeptical.

I deem it relevant and worthy of a look for my sincerely stated reasons.

No prob.

[lunk]

Have there been any movies made of planes flying into buildings since 9/11?

[saturnaspider]

I didn't mean to offend you Saturnaspider, and no I'm not trying to sideline you. Yes, this vid shows what scene designers on a movie project believed a crash into a building should look like, and maybe it's realistic. But it doesn't prove anything.

Forgive me for taking that position, but it's my view that the biggest weakness in all of the NPT/Fakery material that's been put out is the tendency to freely mix up all kinds of evidence, both rational and highly skeptical.

That's cool. But you know, one man's meat... It resonated with me, and I just wanted to share. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[saturnaspider]

Have there been any movies made of planes flying into buildings since 9/11?

There were plenty. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) But you probably weren't talking about the WTC2 Impact vids though, huh?

[Sanders]

That's cool. But you know, one man's meat... It resonated with me, and I just wanted to share. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Again, no problem. I've stated my reaction as well. Mine came more from the comment @ the side than the actual footage from the movie, which stated "note newtons [sic] laws still applied in 1978" ... as if a movie necessarily accurately reflects the laws of physics. Now, if it was a tape of an actual airliner crashing into a building, that would be different.

[saturnaspider]

Again, no problem. I've stated my reaction as well. Mine came more from the comment @ the side than the actual footage from the movie, which stated "note newtons [sic] laws still applied in 1978" ... as if a movie necessarily accurately reflects the laws of physics. Now, if it was a tape of an actual airliner crashing into a building, that would be different.

I believe Genghis was meaning that the special effects guys modeled the crash with reference to the laws of physics.

I am baffled as to how people find it so hard to see that Newton's Laws and Crash Physics/Penetration Mechanics actually impeach the evidence for plane impacts on 9/11.

This to me is not a theory. No one has ever been able to give me a scientifically valid framework for how an aluminum airframe cleanly and entirely penetrated multiple steel beams, spandrels, floor trusses and composite steel and reinforced concrete floors. They can't because there is no scientific basis for this. According to science, such an event is impossible.

That there still is controversy over this issue is undoubtedly down to the hard work of the ceaseless perception management team behind the scam. Simon Shack, Fred and his crew, Killtown et al, have done plentiful harm by muddying the "no plane" waters, IMHO.

Well done whoever and wherever you are, guys! You are definitely winning on the propaganda front.(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

(Sanders, please note: I'm not addressing you here in any way (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

[rob balsamo]

Yeah. .cause we all know Hollywood is always scientifically and technically correct. Especially in the late 70's and early 80's

[Christophera]

I didn't mean to offend you Saturnaspider, and no I'm not trying to sideline you. Yes, this vid shows what scene designers on a movie project believed a crash into a building should look like, and maybe it's realistic. But it doesn't prove anything.

I'm in the same spot, no intent to offend. In fact I'm hoping you'll be able to see this coming from one who has seen your capacity to integrate factors in appreciation for real explanation when it comes to the Twin towers, or the built to demolish scenario with the concrete core as a precision engineered container for high explosives providing complete pulverization of the towers contents; as a similar integration of dynamics that will improve your effectiveness.

I'm into useful information, accordingly, I don't talk about planes, there or not there. I do understand the conceptual pull or sensation the NPT'ists invoke so am making an exception here.

Sanders hit the nail on the head. The crash is what screen designers concieved and could film. We can see that they slowed the impact down in order to have a more complex tangle of elements per frame. Dramatic but closer to a dream sequence/flashback than a real collision.

The plane was travelling about the same speed as a 45 caliber pistol slug. At that speed ordinary video takes 8 frames or thereabouts to depict the impact and entry of the plane. Human perceptions loose detail at less than 5 frames so the set designers slowed impact gets details that would otherwise be lost.

Aside from that, the inertia of the plane impacting the perimeter walls and bending then fracturing the 14" square box columns (thinner at impact elevation) has numerous factors NPT'ists leave out. One that is critical is the fact that the tower face was only 39% steel, the rest was glass. Also that the fuselage was 200 feet long and applied force for the entire 8 frames of video recorded and the parts that were not hitting steel were allowed to drag those that had and continue to apply force.

NPT'ist don't even know what happened to the engines. All engines are accounted for in the 9-11 data by logical analysis. Flight 11's right engine went through both concrete core walls but failed to penetrate the far side. The left engine must have hit the inner walls supporting the hallways and didn't make it out of the far side of the core. Flight 175's right engine skidded across the floor and popped out the far side of WTC 2 to land 6 blocks away. Little known is the fact that the left engine penetrated 2 core walls perpendicular to one another on the proper vector of the planes travel, vertically and horizontally, and bounced off of the inside of the east perimeter walls just as the fireball was forming. Below the forming fireball in video one can see a puff of concrete dust just to the right of center below the floor of impact.,

Forgive me for taking that position, but it's my view that the biggest weakness in all of the NPT/Fakery material that's been put out is the tendency to freely mix up all kinds of evidence, both rational and highly skeptical.

No prob.

NPT'ists for the most part have a big problem with generalizations, distortions and cherry picking to the point of unaccountability for a great deal of information.

If shear belief could make a conspiracy, their's would because they have no evidence except that video can be faked which only proves they can be fooled, not that 9-11 images of planes were faked.

[ogrady]

Thanks, Saturn.

In a 1978 movie the effects people deduced correctly that a plane can't fly through a building without breaking up. (IMHO)

Some of the rest of you seem to feel that aluminum is stronger than steel (oh, let's not forget that glass). At the very least this should signal a gigantic re-tooling of American industry (?). We can now have aluminum saws, diamond cutters, whatever...
(I'm not very industrially oriented, sorry).

So, the videos that show a plane flying, intact, through a building must be correct.

No one bothers to look at German Engineers Help the USA, which clearly shows that the plane did not fit in the holes, but whatever. MSM video doesn't lie, right. I mean, they lie about everything else but you have to draw the line somewhere!
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

Love the video.

[saturnaspider]

Love the video.

Me too, (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)