Okay, So people say no plane ever hit on 9/11. How do you explain this, then? It's not a hologram, its not a fuckin lego plane, its not cgi, It's a plane. Who gives a shit if it just "Went right through the building like a ghost?" The Planes fuckin metal, it can go through buildings. It's not like plastic or somethin'. Like its gonna bounce off the building? My ass. 9/11: no conspiracy. Case closed.
WTF ?? IN EVERY VIDEO OF THE 1ST AND 2ND PLANE STRIKES YOU SEE THE FLASHES SECONDS BEFORE THE PLANES HIT. Those are fuckin missles i dont care what you say.
A B25 that weighed 30,000 pounds (technically a light aircraft!!) on landing approach.. IE slow!! Went straight through the exterior wall of the Empire State Building in 1945. A FORTRESS compared to the WTC. A 767 is 13 X heavier and was traveling at full throttle hitting a building described as a "Lightweight Lattice of exterior columns and 95% air... a big open box.
And you people have trouble understanding it plowing straight through??
@geterdonein01 Yes. I pride myself on being idiot proof. Especially when it comes to any topic on Sept 11th. Its like dealing with the Mental defective league.
Really? ok let's play. Care to explain the "cylindrical pod" located on the underbelly of craft just offset to one side between the wings that ignites just prior to entering the building?
@dobberdoss Um... NO!! because the landing gear were retracted you twit.
Where do you nuts come from? Your whole life is a Fail. All you "TM" whacks. I can't believe this sorry organization of misfits and losers still posts this nonsense.
@dobberdoss LOL!! You're the one who sees pods on aircraft that are nothing but the landing gear cowling. Not me!! If a plane that weighs 30,000 pounds can punch itself through the cement fortress of the Empire State Building. What do you think a plane that weighs 15x more going 3X as fast is going to do?? Double the weight or speed and the impact is not double. Its quadruple. Its 4X the force. A plane 15x heavier doing 560 mph??
I think you've used that irrelevant info before haven't you? Now can you show me ANY commercial boeing aircraft that keeps ALL it's landing gear in ONE offset position "pod"? You must see the pod because YOUR claiming it contains the "landing gear"!
Go ahead, keep digging your hole. By the time I'm done with you you will be known as the biggest twat on the face of the earth. So bring it on.........
@dobberdoss You must see the pod because YOUR claiming it contains the "landing gear"!
What??!!!
Claiming it contains the landing gear?? (WTF??).. Dude.. it DOES contain the landing gear. It is normal. Every commercial plane has it. Put a couple of model planes together with some testors glue (The kind your currently on!!) a child of 10 who does would know this.
Your a clueless twit. Sad thing is you don't really know it.
Simple question which I'll ask again, Show me a single "external mounted pod" on a commercial Boeing aircraft that contains landing gear that is offset between the underbelly and wings? You can gather YOUR evidence from where ever you like, I'll try making it easy for you.
If I'm a "clueless twit" then let's see you prove it with evidence rather than your deflective insults
@dobberdoss I don't know what the fuck you are talking about dude. Go hold a model of a 767 up to what you see in the video. There's no difference. In fact there is a video on YT that addresses this. The bottom of the plane has a darker paint job on it.
There is nothing there that is out of the ordinary. Its normal
Prove it?? I don't need to prove it because you don't understand what the hell you are looking at to begin with.
I work for Air New Zealand as a Turbofan Engineer here in Christchurch . THAT's why I KNOW your full of BS! I work on these planes everyday of the week! You never had a chance. lololololol
Again, keep digging that hole. ALL Aircraft Engineers must not only pass a physics exam but many others on an ongoing basis. YOU sound like yet another 9/11 couch potato retard who just can't admit when he's proven a dick by people with qualifications and experience. The scary one is you. You might actually become a parent or teacher and dumb down another generation of children like yourself.
@dobberdoss All your statements.. blah blah.. I don't really know what point you are trying to convince anyone of.. let alone yourself. The plane hit the building. It went clear thru it. 30 odd videos clearly show that. Friends of ours saw it happen in person.
To say other wise is ridiculous. I think YOU'RE ridiculous. Or stupid. Which is it?
@roquefortfiles Hes telling the truth i know this stuff the plane is not even the color of a 767 a 767 is white and blue this plane is black in fucking 9:00 clock sun light evey then is bright on 9:00 clock and no its not landing gear i been on airliners before never saw one landing gear in my life really not a AA flight you just need to wake up.
A friend of mine is a stills photographer and shot this plane and crash. Its been in magazines. Perhaps if you didn't spend your time looking at severely compressed video posted on YT. I have seen full resolution photos of it. You can read the United Airlines livery with no trouble.
Don't be a fool. There are far too many of them on YT.
@roquefortfiles No im not you are your feeling for bush and the goverment's lies a plane cant make a building fall the fire on the building was not the strong after the exsplontion (sorry for the bad spelling there)
and there was videos of people saying they heard a bang before the plame hit.
@Xxandrew01 Don't make the frequent mistake of thinking people support Bush simply because they don't believe the nonsense of the .. "Truth Movement". The WTC was designed to take the impact of a 707. Largest jet at the time. It was never... EVER designed to take a 767 fully fueled and hitting it at 560mph. The lead engineer has said this directly. Would you like a link to the video?!!
All that has to happen is for the steel to reach failure point. The building takes care of the rest!!
@roquefortfiles Look at one of loose change on one of them i forgot the video but ill find out which one and send it to you but on one of the part of the vid im talking about he put what the manger (sorry for the bad spelling again)said himself he said "the WTC was meant to outstand thunderstroms fires and planes)yes the guy that help made the WTC in the 60's and 70's said it himself it could not be caused by jet fual its a steel building and yet even WTC 7 fell with not plane hiting it.
@Xxandrew01 If you're going to spend your time trying to be informed. That's one thing. Where you get your information from is another. LOOSE CHANGE is hardly a credible source. The material they have on that video is laughably in accurate. The WTC was built to take 707..YES!!.. But it was not built to take multiple strikes from airliners and it was not built to take what hit it on Sept 11th. Far and beyond its design limitations.
@roquefortfiles Im trying to find it its hard looking at evey video trying to find that one part but im just gona look at part 1 again and BTY it was its a super steel building for god's sake.
"how could anyone possibly believe that this is a real indication of how aluminum slamming into steel and concrete would react,,,,,,,,ummm there is no reaction of the plane to the much stronger building"
LOL....I love the self-appointed "physicists" who apparently have never taken -let alone passed - a real physics course and the idiotic comments they post
Example: I can't pound a lead nail into this board no matter how I try; therefore, it proves that lead cannot penetrate wood
how could anyone possibly believe that this is a real indication of how aluminum slamming into steel and concrete would react,,,,,,,,ummm there is no reaction of the plane to the much stronger building,,,,,,,no newtonian mechanics means that this is not a real 767,,,,,,,but just an image of one,,,,,,,fading into the tower,,,,,,again I ask how could anyone who knows piss from paint possibly conclude that this is real????
@bigbopper993 well if you can show me a real plane crashing into some tower recently i can judge but iv not seen too many recently. what plannet are you from. your only source of comparrison comes from a movie. theres people saying it looks cartoonish. well thats cos the only time they've seen these incidents is in films and when they see it for real its a new experience on there eye and they've nothing to compare it to in reality. you're all getting boring now and disrespect the victims
@bigbopper993 explain newtonian mechanics to me, genius. Because I get a kick out of everyone of you who misinterprets Newton's 3rd law as if it should have ricocheted off WTC or something.
@hijrakom it wasn't the 1st time...they'd had 5 years from 1996 to 2001 learning. the 4 people that flew the planes were very smart people, the other 15 were the muscle men.
Did you watch the video link I posted below? Watch from 2:29 to the end. I just drew a line from that area to the building. As the plane dives before hitting, the explosion in the building is lined up with, what I observed, the missile. The blast from the planefollows the downward path seen before impact.
detonator goes off as the nose touches he building..........
bweazel has probaly a education in religion/history or law, or some other bias bullshit proffession. if you talk about logic(evidence like this video) then every thing he has mentioned is nonsense. from a scienctific point bweazel talks F8CKing Bollocks with no logic,u want Accuarcy?? u do a mathes/physics degree and calculate it.ooo ur just a troll on utube sorry there bweazel ....LOL
Loop hole. Haha. You know damn well I did not mean "answer" as in "respond". I meant "answer" as in "back up your ridiculous claim with some sources". You have not and you cannot. So stop replying to me asshole. You've wasted enough of my time already.
You previous response didn't even attempt to answer anything. You just said the same thing you've repeated about 3 times now. "The laws of physics precludes" blah blah blah. You don't give any reason why, you don't give any support to back up your claim, you just say it is so. I never accused you of making up any laws of physics, but I do accuse you of acting smarter than you really are and trying to bend physics to match your story. Have fun with your pods.
Accuarcy? Ummm. That's a laugh calling your responses accurate at all. They're ridicule. You don't answer, you just want to feel smart. And when you can't feel smart you just ignore the question. There's lots of people like you on youtube, sad to say.
Well. Your inability to even admit that some debunker videos may in fact debunk something shows that you think you're smarter than everyone. I never assumed you are stupid, but you're doing a great job showing people how pompous and full of yourself you are. What causes asymmetrical facade damage? Oh I dunno, how about the fact that the facade was constructed with modular pieces. They were uneven when constructed. This isn't a piece of paper we're talking about here friend.
What laws of physics would you be talking about? Because I'm pretty sure you just made the ridiculous claim. Don't even talk about the first impact. That image is so grainy and the "plane" is so tiny you can't possibly tell when it hits the building. Sorry if I was confusing when I said it was United 175. I meant it was dressed up to be Flight 175. Not American Airlines, like you said. A tip if I may. Watch the debunker vids too, even if you are a truther.
"all the potential energy converting into kinetic energy"
What potential energy ? lol. All directional energy was kinetic. If all the kinetic energy was converted to heat energy (which is what you are actually implying) then there would be no kinetic energy left, and the aircraft would instantly stop moving. It's gravitational potential energy would then be available for it to freefall to the ground outside of the building.
Muuahaha. So I did mean kinetic to heat. But aside from fixing my mistake you still didn't answer my question: What laws of physics disallow a moving object to have a bright flash of heat energy, when it collides with a stationary object? What causes the flash in the video I linked, since you say it's physically impossible?
The flash is supposed to be all the potential energy converting into kinetic energy. You can see an example on this video @ 0:25.
watch?v=8QOP4O_8dtc
I'm still up in the air on if the planes were real or not. Personally I think they were remote controlled since we see in that other video of an IR beam going across the building and the fire ball and the other building. Probably from a satellite. It was United 175 by the way. Not AA. And there is no attachment on the bottom.
Good job on the enhancement. I agree w / Jedediah...looks like some sort of explosion. You know, some ppl argue that that's from the impact or it's because of the camera angle. As I seem to recollect I've seen the same flash from several different angles...so, it'snot the camera angle.
Yes, missile is speculation. That's why I said "looks" =). Anyway, excellent enhancement. Can you do any better or is this as good as it gets? Thanks!
jedediah...I'm still trying to improve the focus, but it has to be done frame by frame using image forensic software, but the results are a minimal improvement. Will of course work on it.
uheardme...It's bob double deinterlaced (doubling framerate), levelled (colour spread from 0 to 255 for max colour resolution) and slight sharpening. All in virtualdub.
Notice how the 'appendage' is represented similarly to the engines as the plane penetrates the builiding but before the tail goes in? Stop the vid at :05. You can clearly see there are three white "poofs", two for the two engines and one at center-right.
Okay, So people say no plane ever hit on 9/11. How do you explain this, then? It's not a hologram, its not a fuckin lego plane, its not cgi, It's a plane. Who gives a shit if it just "Went right through the building like a ghost?" The Planes fuckin metal, it can go through buildings. It's not like plastic or somethin'. Like its gonna bounce off the building? My ass. 9/11: no conspiracy. Case closed.
malcolmmorin 4 months ago
that thing that flashes, thats ether being shot
bananabrain2 5 months ago
Haven't read any comments, why bother, the plane has something strapped to it and there is a flash before it hits, like it or not
MrDeamon1 5 months ago
there was a lil girl on that flight :'(
movieman175 10 months ago
@movieman175 I know :( But atleast it happened quickly..
ZeroFjernsynet 9 months ago
WTF ?? IN EVERY VIDEO OF THE 1ST AND 2ND PLANE STRIKES YOU SEE THE FLASHES SECONDS BEFORE THE PLANES HIT. Those are fuckin missles i dont care what you say.
riprandy318 11 months ago
A B25 that weighed 30,000 pounds (technically a light aircraft!!) on landing approach.. IE slow!! Went straight through the exterior wall of the Empire State Building in 1945. A FORTRESS compared to the WTC. A 767 is 13 X heavier and was traveling at full throttle hitting a building described as a "Lightweight Lattice of exterior columns and 95% air... a big open box.
And you people have trouble understanding it plowing straight through??
Easy!!!!!! (check video!!)
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
@roquefortfiles Wow! Someone on a WTC video that isn't a retard!
geterdonein01 6 months ago
@geterdonein01 Yes. I pride myself on being idiot proof. Especially when it comes to any topic on Sept 11th. Its like dealing with the Mental defective league.
roquefortfiles 6 months ago
@roquefortfiles ,
Really? ok let's play. Care to explain the "cylindrical pod" located on the underbelly of craft just offset to one side between the wings that ignites just prior to entering the building?
Let's test your "idiot proof" claim
dobberdoss 6 months ago
@dobberdoss Pod??.. LOL!!
Dude.. its called the landing gear cowling. Its supposed to be there!!
roquefortfiles 6 months ago
@roquefortfiles ,
LOL! were they trying to land then? YOU JUST FAILED! llolololol. Jezz, that was easy. What a fucking muppet
dobberdoss 6 months ago
@dobberdoss Um... NO!! because the landing gear were retracted you twit.
Where do you nuts come from? Your whole life is a Fail. All you "TM" whacks. I can't believe this sorry organization of misfits and losers still posts this nonsense.
roquefortfiles 6 months ago
@roquefortfiles ,
I suggest you give up trying to look smart while your behind.
dobberdoss 6 months ago
@dobberdoss LOL!! You're the one who sees pods on aircraft that are nothing but the landing gear cowling. Not me!! If a plane that weighs 30,000 pounds can punch itself through the cement fortress of the Empire State Building. What do you think a plane that weighs 15x more going 3X as fast is going to do?? Double the weight or speed and the impact is not double. Its quadruple. Its 4X the force. A plane 15x heavier doing 560 mph??
Are you kidding me?
Dumbo is bring up the rear!!
roquefortfiles 6 months ago
@roquefortfiles ,
I think you've used that irrelevant info before haven't you? Now can you show me ANY commercial boeing aircraft that keeps ALL it's landing gear in ONE offset position "pod"? You must see the pod because YOUR claiming it contains the "landing gear"!
Go ahead, keep digging your hole. By the time I'm done with you you will be known as the biggest twat on the face of the earth. So bring it on.........
dobberdoss 6 months ago
@dobberdoss You must see the pod because YOUR claiming it contains the "landing gear"!
What??!!!
Claiming it contains the landing gear?? (WTF??).. Dude.. it DOES contain the landing gear. It is normal. Every commercial plane has it. Put a couple of model planes together with some testors glue (The kind your currently on!!) a child of 10 who does would know this.
Your a clueless twit. Sad thing is you don't really know it.
roquefortfiles 6 months ago
@roquefortfiles
Simple question which I'll ask again, Show me a single "external mounted pod" on a commercial Boeing aircraft that contains landing gear that is offset between the underbelly and wings? You can gather YOUR evidence from where ever you like, I'll try making it easy for you.
If I'm a "clueless twit" then let's see you prove it with evidence rather than your deflective insults
dobberdoss 6 months ago
@dobberdoss I don't know what the fuck you are talking about dude. Go hold a model of a 767 up to what you see in the video. There's no difference. In fact there is a video on YT that addresses this. The bottom of the plane has a darker paint job on it.
There is nothing there that is out of the ordinary. Its normal
Prove it?? I don't need to prove it because you don't understand what the hell you are looking at to begin with.
roquefortfiles 6 months ago
@roquefortfiles ,
I work for Air New Zealand as a Turbofan Engineer here in Christchurch . THAT's why I KNOW your full of BS! I work on these planes everyday of the week! You never had a chance. lololololol
dobberdoss 6 months ago
@dobberdoss What does being an aircraft mechanic have to do with a plane hitting a building?
Take a physics class dude. How much of an idiot do you have to be to see this event photographed from 30 different angles..............???
And claim that what took place.... really didn't!!
You sound like a scary crazy idiot to me
roquefortfiles 6 months ago
@roquefortfiles ,
Again, keep digging that hole. ALL Aircraft Engineers must not only pass a physics exam but many others on an ongoing basis. YOU sound like yet another 9/11 couch potato retard who just can't admit when he's proven a dick by people with qualifications and experience. The scary one is you. You might actually become a parent or teacher and dumb down another generation of children like yourself.
dobberdoss 6 months ago
@dobberdoss I am not the one looking at 30 videos of this and having trouble understanding what I am looking at..
You are!!
roquefortfiles 6 months ago
@dobberdoss All your statements.. blah blah.. I don't really know what point you are trying to convince anyone of.. let alone yourself. The plane hit the building. It went clear thru it. 30 odd videos clearly show that. Friends of ours saw it happen in person.
To say other wise is ridiculous. I think YOU'RE ridiculous. Or stupid. Which is it?
roquefortfiles 6 months ago
@roquefortfiles Hes telling the truth i know this stuff the plane is not even the color of a 767 a 767 is white and blue this plane is black in fucking 9:00 clock sun light evey then is bright on 9:00 clock and no its not landing gear i been on airliners before never saw one landing gear in my life really not a AA flight you just need to wake up.
Xxandrew01 5 months ago
@Xxandrew01
A friend of mine is a stills photographer and shot this plane and crash. Its been in magazines. Perhaps if you didn't spend your time looking at severely compressed video posted on YT. I have seen full resolution photos of it. You can read the United Airlines livery with no trouble.
Don't be a fool. There are far too many of them on YT.
You're not another fool are you?
roquefortfiles 5 months ago
@roquefortfiles No im not you are your feeling for bush and the goverment's lies a plane cant make a building fall the fire on the building was not the strong after the exsplontion (sorry for the bad spelling there)
and there was videos of people saying they heard a bang before the plame hit.
Xxandrew01 5 months ago
@Xxandrew01 Don't make the frequent mistake of thinking people support Bush simply because they don't believe the nonsense of the .. "Truth Movement". The WTC was designed to take the impact of a 707. Largest jet at the time. It was never... EVER designed to take a 767 fully fueled and hitting it at 560mph. The lead engineer has said this directly. Would you like a link to the video?!!
All that has to happen is for the steel to reach failure point. The building takes care of the rest!!
roquefortfiles 5 months ago
@roquefortfiles Look at one of loose change on one of them i forgot the video but ill find out which one and send it to you but on one of the part of the vid im talking about he put what the manger (sorry for the bad spelling again)said himself he said "the WTC was meant to outstand thunderstroms fires and planes)yes the guy that help made the WTC in the 60's and 70's said it himself it could not be caused by jet fual its a steel building and yet even WTC 7 fell with not plane hiting it.
Xxandrew01 5 months ago
@Xxandrew01 If you're going to spend your time trying to be informed. That's one thing. Where you get your information from is another. LOOSE CHANGE is hardly a credible source. The material they have on that video is laughably in accurate. The WTC was built to take 707..YES!!.. But it was not built to take multiple strikes from airliners and it was not built to take what hit it on Sept 11th. Far and beyond its design limitations.
Want the link to the vid of the SE saying it?
roquefortfiles 5 months ago
@roquefortfiles Im trying to find it its hard looking at evey video trying to find that one part but im just gona look at part 1 again and BTY it was its a super steel building for god's sake.
Xxandrew01 4 months ago
"how could anyone possibly believe that this is a real indication of how aluminum slamming into steel and concrete would react,,,,,,,,ummm there is no reaction of the plane to the much stronger building"
LOL....I love the self-appointed "physicists" who apparently have never taken -let alone passed - a real physics course and the idiotic comments they post
Example: I can't pound a lead nail into this board no matter how I try; therefore, it proves that lead cannot penetrate wood
morons
robbopaloobop 1 year ago
oh my god, SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE DUMBASS POD BULLSHIT
ilovetheosmonds 1 year ago
how could anyone possibly believe that this is a real indication of how aluminum slamming into steel and concrete would react,,,,,,,,ummm there is no reaction of the plane to the much stronger building,,,,,,,no newtonian mechanics means that this is not a real 767,,,,,,,but just an image of one,,,,,,,fading into the tower,,,,,,again I ask how could anyone who knows piss from paint possibly conclude that this is real????
bigbopper993 1 year ago
@bigbopper993 well if you can show me a real plane crashing into some tower recently i can judge but iv not seen too many recently. what plannet are you from. your only source of comparrison comes from a movie. theres people saying it looks cartoonish. well thats cos the only time they've seen these incidents is in films and when they see it for real its a new experience on there eye and they've nothing to compare it to in reality. you're all getting boring now and disrespect the victims
ryanhart1985 1 year ago
@bigbopper993 explain newtonian mechanics to me, genius. Because I get a kick out of everyone of you who misinterprets Newton's 3rd law as if it should have ricocheted off WTC or something.
sixdgrs 11 months ago
pods are for remote control nothing else....
cancanbiker 1 year ago
the first time they are piloting a plane and they do it really very good with such precision . it''s strange!!!!
hijrakom 2 years ago
@hijrakom it wasn't the 1st time...they'd had 5 years from 1996 to 2001 learning. the 4 people that flew the planes were very smart people, the other 15 were the muscle men.
ryanhart1985 1 year ago
Did you watch the video link I posted below? Watch from 2:29 to the end. I just drew a line from that area to the building. As the plane dives before hitting, the explosion in the building is lined up with, what I observed, the missile. The blast from the planefollows the downward path seen before impact.
RuffleTheTeacher 2 years ago
watch?v=-VykHaarD14
2:29 to the end. Watch the area in front of the pod. Watch all the way to the impact.
Does the plane fly out of the shadow of the smoke at this point? What abot the expansion gasses seen in this shot?
Am I not seeing this right?
RuffleTheTeacher 2 years ago
If you watch at 0:03, if what is presumed to be a missile pod really is just that, then I think you can see a puff of smoke.
I know the mind can create what it wants to see, but it looks like the smoke expands beyond the edges of the aircraft.
Anyone else see this?
RuffleTheTeacher 2 years ago
detonator goes off as the nose touches he building..........
bweazel has probaly a education in religion/history or law, or some other bias bullshit proffession. if you talk about logic(evidence like this video) then every thing he has mentioned is nonsense. from a scienctific point bweazel talks F8CKing Bollocks with no logic,u want Accuarcy?? u do a mathes/physics degree and calculate it.ooo ur just a troll on utube sorry there bweazel ....LOL
JONthe13th 3 years ago
Loop hole. Haha. You know damn well I did not mean "answer" as in "respond". I meant "answer" as in "back up your ridiculous claim with some sources". You have not and you cannot. So stop replying to me asshole. You've wasted enough of my time already.
bweazel 3 years ago
You previous response didn't even attempt to answer anything. You just said the same thing you've repeated about 3 times now. "The laws of physics precludes" blah blah blah. You don't give any reason why, you don't give any support to back up your claim, you just say it is so. I never accused you of making up any laws of physics, but I do accuse you of acting smarter than you really are and trying to bend physics to match your story. Have fun with your pods.
bweazel 3 years ago
Accuarcy? Ummm. That's a laugh calling your responses accurate at all. They're ridicule. You don't answer, you just want to feel smart. And when you can't feel smart you just ignore the question. There's lots of people like you on youtube, sad to say.
bweazel 3 years ago
Well. Your inability to even admit that some debunker videos may in fact debunk something shows that you think you're smarter than everyone. I never assumed you are stupid, but you're doing a great job showing people how pompous and full of yourself you are. What causes asymmetrical facade damage? Oh I dunno, how about the fact that the facade was constructed with modular pieces. They were uneven when constructed. This isn't a piece of paper we're talking about here friend.
bweazel 3 years ago
Looks just like the video I linked. From what I can see it looks to me like the shadow is touching the building. I doubt you agree though.
bweazel 3 years ago
What laws of physics would you be talking about? Because I'm pretty sure you just made the ridiculous claim. Don't even talk about the first impact. That image is so grainy and the "plane" is so tiny you can't possibly tell when it hits the building. Sorry if I was confusing when I said it was United 175. I meant it was dressed up to be Flight 175. Not American Airlines, like you said. A tip if I may. Watch the debunker vids too, even if you are a truther.
bweazel 3 years ago
"all the potential energy converting into kinetic energy"
What potential energy ? lol. All directional energy was kinetic. If all the kinetic energy was converted to heat energy (which is what you are actually implying) then there would be no kinetic energy left, and the aircraft would instantly stop moving. It's gravitational potential energy would then be available for it to freefall to the ground outside of the building.
No. I did not make it up.
femr2 3 years ago
Muuahaha. So I did mean kinetic to heat. But aside from fixing my mistake you still didn't answer my question: What laws of physics disallow a moving object to have a bright flash of heat energy, when it collides with a stationary object? What causes the flash in the video I linked, since you say it's physically impossible?
bweazel 3 years ago
"What causes the flash in the video I linked, since you say it's physically impossible?"
Firstly I have not said it's physically impossible. That's just stoopid. It occurred. It's not physically impossible.
Secondly, speculating what caused it would be speculation. I am not going to speculate.
Next.
femr2 3 years ago
The flash is supposed to be all the potential energy converting into kinetic energy. You can see an example on this video @ 0:25.
watch?v=8QOP4O_8dtc
I'm still up in the air on if the planes were real or not. Personally I think they were remote controlled since we see in that other video of an IR beam going across the building and the fire ball and the other building. Probably from a satellite. It was United 175 by the way. Not AA. And there is no attachment on the bottom.
bweazel 3 years ago
Good job on the enhancement. I agree w / Jedediah...looks like some sort of explosion. You know, some ppl argue that that's from the impact or it's because of the camera angle. As I seem to recollect I've seen the same flash from several different angles...so, it'snot the camera angle.
Thanks again.
katyu16 3 years ago
Yes, missile is speculation. That's why I said "looks" =). Anyway, excellent enhancement. Can you do any better or is this as good as it gets? Thanks!
JedediahStryke 3 years ago
jedediah...I'm still trying to improve the focus, but it has to be done frame by frame using image forensic software, but the results are a minimal improvement. Will of course work on it.
femr2 3 years ago
Thank you =). Subscribing to your channel and awaiting further enhancement.
JedediahStryke 3 years ago
As soon as the nose makes contact, something shoot's out of that 'appendage'. Looks like a missile.
JedediahStryke 3 years ago
the poltergeist. what filters did u use?
uheardmebitch 3 years ago
uheardme...It's bob double deinterlaced (doubling framerate), levelled (colour spread from 0 to 255 for max colour resolution) and slight sharpening. All in virtualdub.
femr2 3 years ago
Notice how the 'appendage' is represented similarly to the engines as the plane penetrates the builiding but before the tail goes in? Stop the vid at :05. You can clearly see there are three white "poofs", two for the two engines and one at center-right.
JedediahStryke 3 years ago
thats a really good pic of the bottom of that plane
leadstring66 3 years ago