Thursday, February 16, 2006

[911InsideJobbers] Re: Fuel vs. Explosion

Show him this, which I just put on my blog:

*The Second Hit Plane Did Not Slow At All Upon Impact*
If you look at the footage Webfairy has broken down here:
you can see how the plane moves frame by frame.

The plane takes ten frames to enter the building.

Webfairy explains here how she formatted the videos, and says the
videos were taken at 30 frames per second. This is consistent with
other sources.

Okay, so we know the length of a 767 is 160 feet.

This means it takes 1 second to show 480 feet traveled by the plane
(160 times 3 = 30 frames per second). So the plane is traveling 480
feet per second, which works out to 28,800 feet per minute and 5.45
miles per minute, which works out to 327 mile per hour-- AS IT ENTERS

So how fast was the plane moving before it entered the building?

The top left clip here shows the plane moving before it hits the
building. Since the plane is moving against a column of smoke, we can
use this as reference and see that the camera is not moving significantly.

Before it hits the building, the plane takes 12 frames to cross its
own length, or 160 feet.

This means it takes 1 second to show 400 feet traveled by the plane
(30 frames per second divided by 12 frames = 2.5/sec; 160 times
2.5/sec = 400 feet/sec). So the plane is traveling 400 feet per
second, which works out to 24,000 feet per minute and 4.5 miles per
minute, which works out to 272 miles per hour-- BEFORE IT ENTERS THE

Right before the impact, the plane takes about 12 frames to cross its
length, though this is trickier to measure as the camera is moving.
Nonehteless, it seems extremely unlikely in the few seconds before the
plane hits that it accelerated significantly -- so we can assume the
plane did not slow upon impact. If anything the plane accelerated upon
impact, but this may be due to the limitation in these types of
measurements. What is clear, however, is that the plane does NOT SLOW



1) the plane met no resistance upon impacting the steel building
(which is impossible)

2) the plane disintegrated sequentially as it entered the wall, and
this disintegration had no effect on the non-disintegrated part of the
plane (which seems impossible)

3) the plane was not real, it was a digital image inserted in the
footage of the building exploding.

Anyone want to pick a choice?

p.s. Oddly, the speed of the second hit varies widely from video clip
to video clip. The official speed was almost 600 mph, but I don't
believe this. I think it was probably going a more reasonable 300
mph-- although if the plane only existed on a computer, it is not
clear how meaningful this is!

--- In, "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@...>
> > --- Urspr�ngliche Nachricht ---
> > Von: "alexldent" <alexldent@...>
> > An:
> > Betreff: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Fuel vs. Explosion
> > Datum: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:25:43 -0000
> >
> alex,
> ralph is aware of holmgren's piece and all our other points.
> He used to be also a member of '9/11 science and justice alliance',
> but removed himself after 1, 2 years or so.
> He's not a rabid opponent, but sticks to his fireball- and pilot
> I think, he even believes the alleged planes had been remote-controlled,
> but i'm not sure about that.
> I forgot to add to him, that many video timelines also contradict
each other
> with the starting reaction/delay of this fireball compared with
> or 'vanishing' aircraft object, but i'm not sure if this will
convince him
> either.
> I think, he never watched any of these aircraft videos.
> He's stubborn since months on that.
> I also was dragged into this debate at hardevidence, after this group
> responded on some of my remarks after the 'retirement' of Russell
> This group has also Mark Bilk in it, who triggered the debate.
> I'm alone in there with my stand. It's a pure pentagon research
group and
> they tricked me now into this 'off-topic' discussion.
> >>>>1) you should ask him if massive explosions in the building
could have
> given a Richter signal
> 2) if fuel bombs also could have created the fireball
> 3) if plane wings are really good at cutting through steel columns--
> have him read Holmgren's piece on this
> 4) ask him if pre-planted cutting charges could have made the plane
> wing slices in the WTC
> 5) finally, why if there were no planes at the Pentagon and
> Shanksville, why he thinks there HAD to be planes in NYC
> --- In, "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@>
> wrote:<<<
> --
> Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko!
> Satte Provisionen f�r GMX Partner:

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

No comments: