... "phantom" planes "melting" into buildings ...

[Make7]

 

... As can be readily observed in the diagrams below, the plane DOES decelerate when it hits the building: a small amount when the nose hits and a larger decrease when the wings and engine hit the wall. While the plane is in the clear the speed of the matched graphic overlay averages about 612 pixels per second. By the point of the last possible measurement, when the tail is just outside the building, the speed has decreased to about 502 pixels per second. That means that the plane in the Fairbanks footage lost about 18% of its speed, which is even greater than what Grossman claimed should be visible.

The conclusion is undeniable: The Fairbanks footage shows a physically realistic impact. ...

More at http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/175speed.html
 

- Make7

[LARED]

1. It should be interesting to see

how the holograms, missle, etc folks create a work around to maintain this aspect of the CT.

[Make7]

22. We shall see.

:popcorn: Make7

[KJF]

2. It is a great pity...

... that so much effort had to be put into showing this, when it could have been better used elsewhere.

Thank you for posting it.

[Make7]

21. Well, I have to agree with that

Eric Salter does seem to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort countering certain WebFairy claims.

However, it is probably a good thing to have someone offering a counter argument to some of those claims - they seem to get widely disseminated.

- Make7

[mrgerbik]

3. Does anyone actually

believe in this theory?

[LARED]

4. If you mean

that the planes were something other than the flight 175 and 11, the answer is yes. Some believe they were holograms, some missles, some phantom planes other than above.

BTW, I'm not one of them.

[mirandapriestly]

8. How does this show that planes Flight 175 and 11 were the ones

that hit the towers Lard? (I'm not saying they weren't , I'm asking you to provide evidence for what you are saying). I know that you will be able to do this, because you , or one of you, said that you were "objective" and "reasoned". Only someone who really was those things would ever make such a confident claim.

[LARED]

11. Flight 175 and 11 have already be shown to

have impacted the towers. I don't need to prove anything. The evidence is overwheling that it is true. Objectivity and reason work quite well in this case.

What this does show is that the notion that the planes melted into the towers or is a hologram is the product of someone's darkweaved imagination.

[mirandapriestly]

14. You said that the theory being debunked by

the OP was : "that the planes were something other than the flight 175 and 11" - but that is not what the pixel graph is showing , it only deals with the deceleration.
and, if the evidence that flight 11 and 75 is "overwhelming", why does Make 7 feel it's necessary to show a chart which proves the planes slowed down.?

[LARED]

16. You should read the link in the OP

you can then make an informed post.

Regarding MAKE7's purpose in posting this, you will need to ask him. I would guess it has something to do with those CT'er's that believe the planes did not slow down, hence "melted into the building" supposedly "proving the planes were not flight 175 or 11.

But, as I said you will need to address MAKE7 with that question.

[mirandapriestly]

19. I did read the link in the OP

and there is no reference to flight 11 and 175. You like to put things like "you should read the link in the OP" in the subject so as to create the illusion to those scanning the thread that I missed something that will vindicate you. It's hypocritical to support this graph based on pixels and superimposed jets, which, as a method, would never constitute "proof" if it were supporting something you did not agree with.

[Make7]

20. Point / counterpoint.

Previously posted by members of DU....

"in the footage of the first and second hits on the towers, the "planes" slide into the towers without slowing-- this is impossible according to laws of physics (unless the planes completely disintegrated upon impact-- but then they wouldn't have left plane-shaped holes)"

"the plane should slow very rapidly, but it doesn't AT ALL. That is a problem."

"what the videos show is the plane smashing full-speed into the WTC, the plane does not slow at ALL yet the plane disappears inside"

"So the only way the second hit would make ANY sense is if the plane smashed through the outer wall, then struck the core and tore apart. But since the core was 40 feet in, and the plane was 160 long, we SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE PLANE SLOW ITS ENTRANCE INTO THE BUILDING"

"Does the plane in the video show the slightest bit of slowing or distortion as it enters the building?"

To answer that last question - yes it does show "the slightest bit of slowing".

- Make7

[lightbulb]

24. Yes, Morgan Reynolds does

And it's such a pity.

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

[Sinti]

5. This has got to be the most ridiculous theory every proposed by anyone

Santa Claus at least was a real person at one point.

When a plane at high speed hits a structure, it can vaporize. The whole thing strikes me as disinfo, or someone having a good time with the minds of traumatized people.

Watch this video:

http://www.break.com/index/concreteplane.html

They were testing concrete protection on nuke facilities. The plane hits a concrete wall. What happens? It very nearly vaporizes. This is very similar to what happened at the Pentagon, as well. The speed is the deal, it's what causes the reaction you see. if the plane was going slower, as it would be, say, in a crash that someone was trying to control, the plane would be moving much slower, and crack-up, leaving a huge debris field of big pieces.

http://www.break.com/index/concreteplane.html

If you have such disdain for the inmates, why do you debunkers spend so much time in the asylum? Do you simply enjoy goading the madman with reflections of his own inner torture or what?

[mrgerbik]

6. Which is why

we need a proper, real investigation into this day. Theories like this are allowed to flourish, and not much is done to discount them. It hurts the process of true scientific scrutiny.

Two 9/11 truth sites that I ascribe to attempt this:
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
http://www.911review.com/

[Sinti]

7. I couldn't agree more n/t

[mirandapriestly]

12. The problem is

some pieces supposedly did not only survive, but, flew out the other side of bldg two and landed without any scorching and not that much damage. Parts of the unscorched fuselage were on a roof. This doesn't really fit with "vaporization". What do you think ? You have a better grasp of those things than I do..I sort of wonder about the motivation "the government" had for making that video. (Ok tin foil hat smilie face here)
I think the "no planers" took some definite anomalies, contradictions, and pictures that defy logic (to most of us) and jumped to the conclusion that there was no plane. There were pictures/videos that appear to have some faked footage; we have discussed them on DU. Sometimes I think they might be "disinformationists" because of a personal weird experience I had with them.
But the no plane theory does no one any good.

[Sinti]

23. Are you talking about WTC or the Pentagon hits?

With WTC, it was not a solid mass the plane was striking, but rather a cage-like steel structure, so more crack up would be expected. The second plane also did not hit "head on," so it's easy to see how pieces would have flown off, basically unscathed, because they flew off before the gas tanks exploded and spent no time in the fire :).

There are, in my opinion, several film clips that are retouched, if you will, out there. Taken one frame at a time, there are unexplainable anomalies, features that look "painted in", and they are not all in "real time", i.e., frames have been added, or removed from the original video. You won't notice these adjustments just watching, your eyes/mind will create a continuity, this is how animation works, your mind fills in the gaps.

If MIHOP is true, the perps would want to start up a campaign of disinfo immediately, and throw as much poison into the well of facts as they possibly could. This way, when people ask real, and reasonable questions, they immediately get associated with the "kook theories" and are disregarded as conspiracy nuts, or whatever. Therefore, I think it's wise to simply disregard the implausible, and things that take many people to achieve. No planes, planes landing and de-boarding passengers, pods (which are just shadows of the engines), missile at the Pentagon, etc.

The Pentagon strike, though, would have vaporized most, if not all, of the aluminum of the plane, but the engines are made of tougher stuff, generally containing titanium, and they would be the part responsible for the interior damage to the building's rings. They should have, and may have (though I don't know if they've told us), found parts of the engines deep inside the Pentagon, near where the final "punch-out" hole is.

If MIHOP is true, they also would not want to release the film of the Pentagon strike, to keep people after this extremely questionable (and I'm being kind when I use that word) theory of what happened there. If they saw the real tapes, they would see an airplane hitting the building, IMO. Everything that happened there, at least all the available evidence, fits perfectly well into the scenario of a plane hitting that building. The missiles did not launch, because the plane came in to low, they were designed for missile strikes coming in at a higher angle (Cold War stuff), it hit the building, made a huge hole, and the body of the plane was turned to something comparable to glitter.

Jets were not scrambled quickly enough, though, and the chain of command had been changed. The commanders on the ground had to sit on their hands and with for the Sec. Def., who was in a meeting with the Dep. Sec. Def. They knew what was happening, and didn't think they could do anything, what's up with that?

This post has part of a transcript from the DoD web site, regarding what they were thinking that day.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x63355#63363

[Ezlivin]

30. Problem with vaporization

In the video of the F-4 we have to bear in mind that we DO NOT see the final results of the crash. We do see the aircraft disintegrate, but we don't see what the area looked like two minutes (or so) afterward. It does appear that most of the plane "vaporizes", but we cannot make that determination with any degree of certainty unless we've actually examined the evidence.

Another point about the F-4 collision is the size of the aircraft. It is much smaller than a 757. Ideally we should see a 757 hitting a hardened target to better understand the physics involved.

Since none of the aircraft on 9/11 struck a specifically hardened target analogous to the one shown in the video, it's difficult to see an exact parallel.

And one last thing to note: Regardless of how hard the aircraft struck the target, the black-boxes should have survived. In fact, it was only on 9/11 that black boxes were unable to be recovered.

Black boxes, usually located in an aircraft's tail section, are designed to withstand an incredible amount of deceleration and heat.

• Crash impact - Researchers shoot the CSMU down an air cannon to create an impact of 3,400 Gs (1 G is the force of Earth's gravity, which determines how much something weighs). At 3,400 Gs, the CSMU hits an aluminum, honeycomb target at a force equal to 3,400 times its weight. This impact force is equal to or in excess of what a recorder might experience in an actual crash.


• Pin drop - To test the unit's penetration resistance, researchers drop a 500-pound (227-kg) weight with a 0.25-inch steel pin protruding from the bottom onto the CSMU from a height of 10 feet (3 m). This pin, with 500-pounds behind it, impacts the CSMU cylinder's most vulnerable axis.


• Static crush - For five minutes, researchers apply 5,000 pounds per square-inch (psi) of crush force to each of the unit's six major axis points.


• Fire test - Researchers place the unit into a propane-source fireball, cooking it using three burners. The unit sits inside the fire at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,100 C) for one hour. The FAA requires that all solid-state recorders be able to survive at least one hour at this temperature.


• Deep-sea submersion - The CSMU is placed into a pressurized tank of salt water for 24 hours.


• Salt-water submersion - The CSMU must survive in a salt water tank for 30 days.


• Fluid immersion - Various CSMU components are placed into a variety of aviation fluids, including jet fuel, lubricants and fire-extinguisher chemicals.

[vincent_vega_lives]

34. It hardly "vaporizes"

It disintergrates.

and The physical laws do not change with size.

[vincent_vega_lives]

33. Yes (n/t)

[Vickers]

35. "Fortunately, the pilot walked away with only a few bumps and bruises..."

"...and a broken right arm."

:rofl:

[mirandapriestly]

9. If someone graphed the pixels in the impact

to demonstrate anything that was LIHOP or MIHOP you guys would be all over them. Now, I'm not even a "no planer" although I think they raise some questions about the way the planes hit the towers and the way they look in photos. But this is silly.

[LARED]

10. We would be all over them for spreading

falsehoods. A valid reason IMO

[mirandapriestly]

13. More reasoned objectivity, I see

You don't hold yourself to the same standards of logic you demand of others (others that disagree with you that is).
your idea of objectivity and reasoning is "because I say so"

[LARED]

17. The problem in my humble opinion is that I use

standard logic and reason, depending on actual evidence and deduction rather than the nonstandard method of speculation and suspicion.

It's really has nothing to do with whether or not someone disagrees with me, it boils down to what are the facts. The CT'er does not depend on facts, they depend on creating holes where facts are obfuscated, misunderstood or revised to suit an agenda.

[mirandapriestly]

18. That is just preposterously untrue.

I mean, the "humble" part. Actually the rest too.

[dailykoff]

15. Groan.

Another "MIT professor" uses fourth-rate psychology to psychoanalyze away conspiracy theories. Please.

Meanwhile, exactly what undeniable conclusion is a screenshot of a diagram of an airplane on an out-of-focus background supposed to prove?

[spooked911]

25. The analysis in the original post is flawed

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/03/further-analysis-on-whether-speed-of.html
(hotlinks are in linked article)

"...three significant problems with their analysis:

1) they stopped measuring before the plane was all the way in,

2) they didn't account for variation in the speed per frame-- for instance, they show a decrease in speed of the plane in just three frames compared to four frames before impact: how do we know the decrease was not due to random sampling errors? When I previously analyzed the CNN footage, I noticed there were significant variations from frame to frame in terms of how much the plane moved, and there wasn't a consistent trend towards slowing (more on this below).

3) they seem to miss several frames of the Fairbanks video (which they used for the speed measure) that show the plane entering the building. If you look at the video here, with Quicktime, you can click through the frames easily -- and I count 10 impact frames. So they are measuring only one third of the total data available.

So with the Fairbanks video, I took two sets of measurements.

A) pre-impact movement of the plane-- how many millimeters the plane moves from left to right before it impacts the building, per frame. There were 14 frames here. I got an average of 1.6 mm per frame +/- 0.5 mm (S.D., Standard Deviation).

B) post-impact movement of the plane-- how many millimeters the plane moves INTO the building, per frame. There were 10 frames here. I got an average of 1.5 mm per frame +/- 0.7 mm (S.D., Standard Deviation).

Right off, these numbers didn't look very different, but just to make sure, I did a Student's T test to determine probability, and got a value of P = 0.624. This means that the probability that these two sets of numbers were the same by chance is well over 50%. Generally, P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant. So, the Fairbanks footage didn't really support the idea that the plane slowed upon impact.

But to be thorough, I analyzed two other sets of impact footage.

The second one I ananlyzed was the CNN footage, broken into frames here.

For this analysis, I simply measured the amount the plane length changed as it entered the building. If the plane slows upon impact, the plane length should decrease much less after a few frames than the early frames.

As the plane impacts, starting at frame 2, I measured the decrease in plane length in millimeters (on the video).

Here is what I got starting with the decrease from frames 2 to 3, and ending with the decrease from frames 12 to 13:
2, 3, 4, 7, 4, 8, 3, 7, 5, 5, 10

So, although the numbers jump around a bit, if anything, the length of the plane decreases by GREATER amounts (not lesser amounts as expected for slowing) the more the plane goes in. Clearly there is NO SIGNIFICANT SLOWING following the initial impact in this video.

Next I looked a third set of frames of the second hit, from Scott Myers:


This one is a little trickier, because we never see the whole plane, and have to adjust our measuring reference points a couple of times. First, I measured how much the nose advanced into the frame, then how much the bright spot on the wing-fuselage advanced, and then finally how much the tail advances into the building. This analysis is also tricky because of the angle (apparently the southeast CORNER of the building), and so we can't see exactly when the plane impacts. But since there not very many frames, it is safe to say the plane has impacted by frame 8.

Again, I got two sets of measurements.

A) pre-impact movement of the plane-- how many millimeters the plane moves from left to right before it impacts the building, per frame. There were 6 frames here. I got an average of 8.7 mm per frame +/- 2.3 mm (S.D., Standard Deviation).

B) post-impact movement of the plane-- how many millimeters the plane moves INTO the building, per frame. There were 5 frames here. I got an average of 6.8 mm per frame +/- 0.8 mm (S.D., Standard Deviation).

The P value was 0.115.

So, there was a slight trend towards deceleration upon impact in this footage, but this is not statistically meaningful.

CONCLUSION: THREE SETS OF VIDEO FRAMES ALL FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT THE SECOND PLANE DID NOT SLOW UPON IMPACT. RATHER THE PLANE ENTERED THE TOWER AT FULL SPEED AND CONTINUED AT THIS SPEED FOR THE LENGTH OF ITS BODY

[Make7]

26. What graphics software did you use?

Millimeters seems an odd choice for a unit of measure.

-Make7

[greyl]

32. Good question.

(not to mention that his calculations resulted in a tendency toward deceleration anyway)

[mhatrw]

27. Yes, those pods make everything EXTREMELY obvious!

How could anyone ever doubt such persuasive evidence?

[Make7]

28. huh?

what are you talking about?

[mhatrw]

29. What, don't you see the pods on that line drawing of the airplane?

All my lingering 9/11 questions have been answered because of this amazing piece of video analysis.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention. This is definitely the smoking gun that proves that OBL did it. If you squint carefully, you can even see his face in the line drawing!

[Make7]

31. Yawn... ( n/t )