Señor El Once : "Imagine no plane" thought process
Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,
I know where you are going with the "imagine no plane" thought process, because I was fully there not all that long ago. I radically changed my tune from "no planes" at all (at the towers) to "no commercial planes" (for any of the 9/11 four.)
To your points or the points you might make:
- The single helicopter shot producing four different versions, one of them without a plane helped dupe me into NPT and still dupes me as blatant evidence of imagery manipulation.
- I was all over the many "miraculous" shots of the plane thereby being an indication of "No way! They faked it!" Upon deeper reflection based on my new premise of NCPT, all of those people filming needed a cue to tell them where to focus. Billowing smoke alone would be boring after the first couple of minutes. A true flying object was that cue, although a nugget of truth is that several of the clips indicate significant foreknowledge with regards to the "miraculous" multi-stage zoom-in's and panning and focus.
- September Clues pointed out that the many different versions of the 2nd plane seemed to depict different flight paths, and I was all over that big time, too. Until the video with overlayed 3D modeling that showed how the different videos really did depict a singular flight path (that was also consistent with radar data.) Being the video experts that they are, September Clues should have known this. In fact, they probably did know it, but true to their nature in promoting clever disinformation, they hyped these seeming flight discrepencies and duped me.
- Certainly radar data can be faked. But to fake two sources of radar data (FAA and military) and have these be in agreement with 44 some video perspectives and validated with 3D modeling, makes it less likely to be faked. Hell, they couldn't even fake the flight data recorder at the Pentagon correctly [e.g., discrepancies between two altimeters, no indication of pilot door ever being open in flight, etc.] and they had years to perfect this, while the multiple videos trickled out over the course of a week (or month).
- I could see such videos being edited to "clean" them up from things that we shouldn't see; I could see them being down-sampled several times to remove "clarity." But I can't see them being created from scratch in that time frame.
- The little puffs of smoke, etc.? I agree, it looks a bit weird, and very out-of-place for what we expect of a standard 767. But it wasn't a standard 767, on which we agree [although I say it was a "special plane" and you say it was fakery.] The nature of the puff's of smoke becomes more understandable when thinking the "special plane" was really a "special missile."
- Pentration was important to the ruse. Couldn't have a standard 767 -- flying much slower and with weaker materials -- splattering on the building's face like a bug on a windshield. Can't have it bouncing off or getting stuck part-way in, because these very realistic scenarios would not substantiate the ruse of significant structural damage to cause building decimation. In fact, some of these could leave portions of the aircraft for study before the towers came down, and might be lacking in terms of bodies, luggage, etc.
You wrote:
On the East wall we only see one little heavier object coming out with a tail of smoke, and the rest looks mostly like ‘fluttering’ pieces of aluminium cladding. From the North facade we again first see a little heavier objects coming out with smoke tails, following thereafter again with an object, this time having a tail of fire. We cannot see what these objects are. They do not appear to be shooting out with the velocity of more than 500 m/h.
Of course not. The distance from the action help make it appear not that fast. Beyond that, crashing into the South face, the core of the tower, and then the North face would have contributed to slowing the velocity of the object that broke away from the flying contraption.
Even when I was championing September Clues, I could smell from its "polish and shine" that much of it was too good to be true. I was a very formidable champion of it. Maybe it was because I support the under-dog. Mostly it was because it was not given sufficient analysis beyond ridicule to rule it out. I wanted each nugget validated or not, because dispensing with the whole thing in one go (which really is a massive smoking gun to media complicity) would have been according to the disinfo game plan. It took awhile for major premises of September Clues (and its NPT) to be disproven.
Señor El Once : choosing to believe the plane was a 3D projection
Mr. Tamborine Man wrote:
It was more the ‘drop’ that i thought happened a bit to quickly considering the alleged ‘object’s’ very high velocity of more than 500 m/h.
The 500 mph figure represents velocity before it hit the tower with engines still pushing it through the air. Upon entering the towers and velocity-squared term in the collision energy totally overwhelming the structural energy of the aircraft, the mass was shredded and no longer had engines to push individual pieces. The pieces flying out of the building could have been slowed by any number of object within the structure.
Maybe not with this video but certainly with others, you can calculate how fast it was going. The lateral speed (x-vector) would be representitive of the final push from the engines. The vertical speed (y-vector) would be from the force of gravity acting on it. The two vectors combined make up the overall velocity and probably increased.
This discussion including your details about plane wings and columns inside the building (yada, yada, yada) are to me, inconsequential. Why?
Because both you and I agree that the aircraft wasn't the stated plane. More importantly, my case really supes up the plane to make it more of a bunker-busting missile with a commercial plane's profile. I could very easily be duped into believing that it had other explosive features above and beyond jet fuel that were initiated once penetration occurred. Such added energy could change vectors of all components and could then very well be the impulse propulsion of pieces flying out the backside.
You should probably broaden your set of videos when trying to analyze this anomaly, and they should include some at near real-speed. Look for Mr. OneSliceShort's videos in various recent articles, as I'm sure he posted them.
I don't make anything of the object seemingly disappearing at 0:39, because (a) it was already hokey slow and (b) at 0:42 the clock stops and the music jam continues for a time longer than the stated 0:42 seconds, such is the extent of the imagery and YouTube manipulation.
i will explain why i think no plane impacted, and my reason for choosing to believe the plane was a 3D projection.
Let us hope that it is substantial and substantially more than Dr. Fetzer ever provided on hologram (which is a type of 3D projection.) I've stated before that Dr. Fetzers hologram links were wimpy-ass. Exploring them and expanding my own research never yielded anything that suggests the technology supports any form of 3D projection akin to what would be required.
hybridrogue1 : traction hallucination
hybridrogue1 says:
July 25, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Senor Once,
You have a quote from Dr. Sunder from a press conference as per decibels.
What instrumentation was used by NIST to measure Db?
ww
hybridrogue1 says:
July 26, 2012 at 4:58 am
Dearest Señor El Once, you say:
>“Without you and the errors found in your stilted arguments, my points would not have nearly the traction.”
To which I reply:
Your “traction” Señor, is mere hallucination.
……….
Also; as per Sunder, NIST and dB….never mind it was actually more of a rhetorical question, as I already know the answer.
I just wanted to see what you might spin up for us.
ww
hybridrogue1 says:
July 26, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Señor,
You have 1,040 lbs of explosives.
If you have determined you need 10 times this much for an upcoming demolition job, how many tons of this explosives do you need to add to your inventory?
ww
Señor El Once // says:
July 26, 2012 at 11:07 pm
4.68 tons need to be added to inventory.
1 Ton = 2000 lbs
Present Inventory = P = 1,040 lbs = 0.52 Tons
Required Inventory = R = (10)*(P)
Additional Inventory = A = R – P
A = (10)*(P) – P
A = (9)*(P) = (9)*(0.52 [Tons])
A = 4.68 Tons
hybridrogue1 says:
July 27, 2012 at 11:26 am
Dear Señor El Once,
Thank you so much for attending to the math problem I asked you about.
ww
2012-07-27 {via email}
Dear Mr. Whitten,
And so what was the purpose of this simple math word problem?
Got the latest updates to my blog. Substantial credit goes to you for being the yang to my ying.
What page are you on in Dr. Wood's textbook and what does the first complete sentence on that page say?
Slash-Slash
2012-07-27 {via email}
"And so what was the purpose of this simple math word problem?"
ANSWER: Just saving it as evidence.
"What page are you on in Dr. Wood's textbook and what does the first complete sentence on that page say?"
I just finished critiquing her preface. I then jumped to 'Toasted Cars'...
The first sentence reads:
ANSWER: "One of the most mysterious and unexplained categories of phenomena that occurred around the WTC complex on 9/11 was that of toasted cars.
I have read most of the Seismic chapter but only marked where my notes will come from with post-it tabs.
\\][//
Jim Fetzer : graduate of the Anthony Lawson School of Fantasy Physics and “Special” Planes
Jim Fetzer says:
July 28, 2012 at 10:53 am
So now Senor shows himself to be a graduate of the Anthony Lawson School of Fantasy Physics and “Special” Planes! I really thought he had more intelligence and understanding of physics to fall for anything like this. If the plane hit the tower at more than 500mph with the kind of steel-cutting capacities he claims for it, then–since it was 160' long and the width of the tower was only 208'–surely it would have cut through the entire building and come out the other side. Does he want us to believe that a plane that could enter this building even though it was intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8' concrete could come to a screeching halt INSIDE THE BUILDING? How dumb is that? I really can’t abide displays of ignorance of physics on this scale. It is not merely physically impossible but presumes that the members of this forum are WILLING TO BELIEVE ANYTHING. I no longer have any faith in this man, who has demonstrated his incompetence with the issues.
Señor El Once : a deep mole
Dear readers of Truth & Shadows,
Using our imaginations, let's water the seed that a hybrid planted that Dr. Fetzer is a deep mole. Would a deep mole write such ad hominem attack as his opening two sentences (from July 28, 2012 at 10:53 am)?
So now Senor shows himself to be a graduate of the Anthony Lawson School of Fantasy Physics and “Special” Planes! I really thought he had more intelligence and understanding of physics to fall for anything like this.
Would a deep mole conclude his short missive filled with depth and understanding with this ad hominem attack?
How dumb is that? I really can’t abide displays of ignorance of physics on this scale. It is not merely physically impossible but presumes that the members of this forum are WILLING TO BELIEVE ANYTHING. I no longer have any faith in this man, who has demonstrated his incompetence with the issues.
Or more imporantly, would a college professor (and former Marine Corps military officer) worthy of respect write such... filibuster?
If the plane hit the tower at more than 500 mph with the kind of steel-cutting capacities he claims for it, then–since it was 160' long and the width of the tower was only 208'–surely it would have cut through the entire building and come out the other side.
Oooh, Dr. Fetzer! Guess his old bones still got it for building strawmen.
He and I agree that the alleged UA 175 (Boeing 767) was involved in name only. The only condition imposed was that its outline resemble that of a commercial plane. From there, even he would probably say (and I would agree) that the photon interference creating the illusion of a visible boundry or "skin" hides a dastardly lie!
Where he and I deviate is what is under that skin. Photons and air in the case of holograms, no?
In the case of my special plane, well... it is really a missile with the lipstick of a plane, and beneath the lying skin could have been many wonders of military bunker-busting bomb marvels.
As seen by videos of many other bunker-busting bombs, coming out the other side would not have been the design intent of this plane-looking missile.
Does he want us to believe that a plane that could enter this building even though it was intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8' concrete could come to a screeching halt INSIDE THE BUILDING?
Nope, not at all.
I want us to believe that "a missile made-up to look like a plane" did all that.
Tamborine man : With this typical MO
Tamborine man says: July 28, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Hi Señor,
Thanks for your reply, and the way you so nicely formulated the ‘problematics’ down to the basics. Hopefully now everyone can clearly see that everything in fact simply boils down to the power of “imagination”only, and that alone.(Neither you or i would ‘know’ what took place inside the tower after the alleged impact).
So apparently you got no problems whatsoever ‘imagining’ a plane (however much it had been modified for your purposes), entering the tower as shown in the various videos. Having accepted this as a ‘fait accompli’, first then do you use your ‘scientific method’ trying to piece together what must have taken place straight after the entry of the alleged plane. You come up with a (for you) plausible explanation you think you can live with, and sticking to this, forgetting completely that it was simply your ‘imagination’ which were the real and True driving force behind what you’re now trying to work out with the help of your ‘science’ and ‘physics’!
With this typical MO firmly established within certain quarters, we see the strangest things happening in various forums, blogs, and also in this thread. We see people with a propensity for ‘the scientific method’ taking the high road, displaying a “superiority complex” out of all proportions and frankly beyond comprehension: As if ‘their power of imagination’ fantastically surpasses every others not possessing ‘their’ scientific approach, or even surpass other ‘science’ minded, who might have adopted a different viewpoint. – What utter inane vanity and arrogance from these ‘types’, while simultaneously having to endure their immature ridicule, taunts, scorns and scoffs on top of it all!
So by all means, let the “rogue’s and the Legge’s” of this world have their self-conceit to themselves. Let them remain deeply ignorant and unsympathetic to the fact, that if you truly desire to approach and to find the Truth, they can only do this with ‘sentiments’ that the Truth itself is agreeable to and favourable toward. By using conceit and superior attitudes, the only result these self-appointed ‘experts’ can ever expect, is a degeneration and degradation of their minds, as they are removing themselves from the Light, instead of being drawn to this force by showing a bit of humility, goodwill, open-mindedness, unbias and tolerance!
My own “imagination” is completely contrary to yours in this particular case, Señor.
All it can see is fraud, falsehood, things making no sense, unnatural jerky flying movements, unnatural looking approaches by the alleged ‘real’ plane, and a totally unimaginable image and unbelievable bad effects of a plane colliding with a steel tower of this nature.
As my ‘imagination’ could not imagine such an event occurring as shown, i never had the need to imagine what happened within the tower at that moment, except of course in my vain attempts at times, of trying to imagine what you and others are able to imagine! As i could not imagine any real plane being present there on that day, i was ‘forced’ to look for another explanation elsewhere, that better suited my imagination to the events as they unfolded.
Again contrary to your assertions of a “Star Trek” connection, i was fortunate enough back in 2007 to read excerpts from DARPA’s budget papers 2000 – 2007, which were then available on the net.
I only saved 1 page, as at that time it was all that really interested me. I found it to be “the final straw that broke the camel’s back”, and which finally could tie all loose ends nicely together for me personally. (The ‘camel’ being the ‘impact scenario’ in this case)!
Here is the page i’m talking about:
Part of DARPA’s budget papers from the years 2000 to 2007:
From page 123:
“….. These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly, innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century.”
I therefore suggest we should instead choose to respect each others “power of imagination”, and leave all kinds of ridicule far behind with the ‘silly people’, keeping in mind that this would benefit us all far more in the end that anything negative ever would. This way we would give immense help to each other, in our serious attempts to finally “Give this World a Mind”!
Cheers
Señor El Once : a missile with the lipstick of a plane
Dear Mr. Tamborine Man, you wrote on July 28, 2012 at 2:43 pm
So apparently you got no problems whatsoever ‘imagining’ a plane (however much it had been modified for your purposes), entering the tower as shown in the various videos.
Actually, my imagination is now imagining a missile with the lipstick of a plane.
(Neither you or i would ‘know’ what took place inside the tower after the alleged impact).
Correct, but a missile with the outline of a plane is explaining the speed, the precision, the wing-slicing, the penetration, explosion before exit, ...
All I can see is fraud, falsehood, things making no sense, unnatural jerky flying movements, unnatural looking approaches by the alleged ‘real’ plane, and a totally unimaginable image and unbelievable bad effects of a plane colliding with a steel tower of this nature.
I was totally with you right up until you dropped "unbelievable bad effects." Maybe the key for you rests in the phrase that follows: "of a plane colliding with a steel tower."
If it was a missile with the lipstick of a plane, would you still be complaining? Can your imagination not ponder that?
You brought a page from DARPA’s budget papers 2000 – 2007 from page 123:
These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly, innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century.
I highlighted what I thought you were driving at. You think that these items spell out: "H-o-l-o-g-r-a-m-s" or other things that can project 3D images.
They don't. They spell out "secure communication up-links", "imaging and targeting" for weapons systems, and "high speed electronics."
"Imaging" is a type of modeling or mapping. To this end, my research has demonstrated that holographs and other 3D laser interference mapping are employed and do a fine job. But this is a different application and technology than anything that would project a 3D image a distance (to be picked up by many different angles on video recorders and by two radar systems.)
Señor El Once : get imagination beyond "commercial planes"
Correct about what the payloads of a missile can bring and them being in excess to what was required.
When I say "missile with the lipstick of a plane", I'm really just arguing symmantics to get imagination beyond "commercial planes".
Once you take a human pilot out of the cockpit, supe up the engines, fortify the wings & fuselage, etc. it ain't very far removed from what imagination conceives of a missile.
Señor El Once : What part of the phrase "special plane" alludes you?
Dear Professor Fetzer,
You seem to have a hankering for playing the strawman card as exhibited by your message from July 29, 2012 at 6:41 pm:
Comparing a bullet — which is a solid, dense object — with an aluminum aircraft — which is not — discredits your analysis, Señor.
No it doesn't, because your "magna cum laude in philosophy from Princeton," "four years as a regular officer in the Marine Corps as an artillery officer," "Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, and "35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning" seems to have some gaps when it comes to appreciating physics 101 concepts, energy magnitudes, and energy transfer (ala "equal-and-opposite".) "Don't use it [understanding of physics], you lose it."
Observing the high-speed films in slow-motion of what a bullet does upon impact with steel is relevant in part. It transmits energy into the steel causing a hole out the backside, while the equal-and-opposite energy splatters and shatters the bullet on the forward side of the plate -- it never pierces it.
What part of the phrase "special plane" alludes you? You are making assumptions that you can't support regarding "an aluminum aircraft." What materials were in the "special plane", we don't know. But from your harping of what "an aluminum aircraft" cannot do, then via critical thinking and scientific reasoning applied to the observed sliced steel beams in the RoadRunner-esque outline of a plane, maybe we can safely conclude that the "special plane" was not "an aluminum aircraft." [JOKE] It was made out of lead like a bullet. [/JOKE]
What we do know is that the plane wasn't the stated "UA 175 Boeing 767 aluminum aircraft," because neither engines nor structure of that particular UA 175 could have achieved such velocities at such low-altitudes without breaking apart and for sure without major targeting control issues. We also know that something physical flew the path, else radar data would probably have come up empty or with glaring signs of inconsistencies and having been juked.
The gaps in your education has you fail to appreciate exponential growth in energy and how large velocities affects it. Case in point:
A less flawed analogy would be a car traveling very, very fast impacting with an enormous tree. Would you expect the car to effortlessly pass through the tree? Yet that is what you are palming off as a plausible account of this encounter, which is as flaky as they get.
No, Dr. Fetzer, this is a more flawed analogy. Please give a speed for that "car traveling very, very fast" [and note that it is significantly slower than the 9/11 aircraft.] If you want, I'll even let you assume it is a race car that has velocities that might approach 200 mph. With m being some arbitrary mass for your vehicle:
Energy 1=(1/2)*m*(v^2)=(1/2)*(200^2)*m=(20,000)*m
Nope, I don't expect it to go effortlessly to pass through the tree that it impacts. I expect the vehicle to be unrecognizable as such and the tree -- depending on its truck thickness -- to be mortally wounded.
Now Dr. Fetzer, I want you to take that same tree and put it at the end of a quarter mile track, on the far end of which you'll launch a Mythbuster rocket sled with your car strapped on. The rockets will give it a velocity of 500 mph. Velocity-squared in the energy equation will make your car even less recognizable while making chopsticks of your tree. [The same mass m as before.]
Energy 2=(1/2)*m*(v^2)=(1/2)*(400^2)*m=(125,000)*m
(Energy 2)/(Energy 1)=((125,000)*(m))/((20,000)*(m))=6.25
Increasing the velocity from 200 mph to 500 mph (by 2.5) increased the energy by 6.25 times.
Yet a further twist, Dr. Fetzer. Now replace your car on the rocket-sled with a hardened "special car."
Oh my goodness! Just like the Mythbuster rocket wedge (e.g., from its "snowplow meets car" episode), you might just see it "effortlessly passing through the tree." Or more likely, you'll see the "special car" splatter and decimate, while at the same time making chopsticks for mice out of the tree.
rogue likes to cite the Sandia test, where a fighter made of synthetic material collides with a huge concrete barrier. Unlike the plane in these videos, it blows apart into millions of tiny pieces and its velocity drops to zero. It does not pass through the barrier!
The Sandia test was a test of the barrier, not of the plane. The barrier was a sample with which they wanted to fortify nuclear facilities. It was designed so that the whatever they rocketed its direction wouldn't get through. By barrier design.
The tower was not the same as the concrete barrier. One of the designers of the WTC said that a plane impact would be like poking a pencil through a mosquito screen. World Trace Center:
The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers.
WTC-2 was 1,341 ft tall and had 110 floors, which works out to about ~12 [ft/floor] (or ~3.72 m/foor). Allow me to pull a number out of my a$$ by saying that the fluted steel deck was also 4 inches [this can be tweaked later], so that each floor represented 8 inches [or 0.2 m] of concrete and steel [not including trusses] that would slice the fuselage horizontally.
767 Fuselage height: 17 ft 9 in (5.41 m)
767 Fuselage width: 16 ft 6 in (5.03 m)
The fuselage would be sliced by one or two horizontal 0.2 m concrete and steel floors (not including trusses). Now let's factor in the vertical columns that were 60 cm wide on 100 cm centers. The fuselage would have hit five or six of these. Horizontally fully 2 m of the 5 m fuselage width and vertically ~5 m of the 5.41 m fuselage height WOULD NOT HAVE ENCOUNTERED ANY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL RESISTANCE and had plenty of path-of-least-resistance office space available to park the sliced fuselage.
The 156 ft (or 47.6 m) 767 wingspan? [Blatantly ignoring wing tilt] ~40% of this (~19 m) would have been able to enter the window slits without significant resistance, while ~28 m of wingspan would have had 60 cm columns on 100 cm centers to contend with. If the material of the some of the wings was hardened just like we know the engines were suped up, columns and wings mutually get the equal-and-opposite dice-o-matic treatment.
The point, Dr. Fetzer, is that over the outline of a (special) aircraft and given the "porous" nature of the tower exterior walls, plenty of non-resistive air space existed between floors and between columns for a (special) aircraft to (seemingly) "effortlessly" slice & dice itself into... poking a pencil through a mosquito screen.
I am sorry, but you have convinced me that, when it comes to physics and collision impacts, you are completely and utterly incompetent.
Oooh, Dr. Fetzer! You make my feet tingle when you attack me with such ad hominem! I love it. Please write more... So that one day I can tabulate your statistics in this vein that will undoubtedly show how you let your "magna cum laude" ego get in the way of "logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning."
P.S. I'm the one who posted a version of the Constellation crash. The poles are sliced. The wings are damaged from impact with the poles, but then nose gear collapsing, the propellors hitting the ground, and the engines twisting completes the job of slicing the wings into chunks. I brought up the Constellation video to help prove why the Pentagon poles were staged even if the plane had flown SOC and into the Pentagon [which I'm not saying it did; I'm NOC, baby!] Although made as break-away posts, the aluminum light poles smacking the wings at 500 mph probably would have had the aircraft break apart over the lawn and then tumbled into the Pentagon. The NOC flight path was clearly an instance -- like the JFK magic bullet -- where the operation screwed up, and one compartmentalized team on the right hand didn't know what the other compartmentalized team on the left hand was doing.
Señor El Once : pump up your glory days
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
Ooooo! I am impressed:
Well, I had a year-long physics course, when Princeton was ranked #1 in the world in physics.
Isn't that a bit like saying: "I attended some Big-8 university when they had the #1 college football team, so naturally I'll be able to throw a football farther than you!"
You make quite a strong, logical, and well reasoned scientific argument with that one (NOT), as you pump up your glory days. Amazing how the honors bestowed upon the Princeton Physics Department of that era rubs off onto the credibility of an undergraduate philosophy major at the time, who took the version of physics that had students memorize Newton's equations rather than using Newton's Calculus to derive Newton's physics equations before applying them.
What matters more, however, is your utter incapacity to appreciate Newton’s third law.
... "For every action (force), there is an equal and opposite re-action."
Your "utter incapacity" to imagine a "special plane" traveling at 500 mph with suped up engines, enhanced wings & structure, computer precision, radar signature, video signatures from multiple view points, and carrying an unknown explosive payload (even when the Sandia Crash and several MythBuster videos featuring rocket-sleds and those velocities leave little to the imagination) is why you, Dr. Fetzer, repeatedly enter these discussions armed with nothing but ad hominem and ancient bravado of a ranked Princeton Physics department that you had no hand in and only marginally benefited from in your magna cum laude philosophy efforts.
Your weak understanding of physics can't take off the table a "special plane", despite you throwing holograms at it (that have no radar signatures). Can't prove that holographic contention in the least, so you have to run me through the mud to build yourself up.
If the Dr. Fetzer name wasn't already a brand (not necessarily a reputable one) in the 9/11 movement, Mr. McKee probably would have shown you Albury Smith's exit door [that I suspect has academic affiliations as well.]
Have you taken a good look at the exterior of the South Tower? at the number of floors that were intersected by the alleged plane?
"Alleged plane" hits the nail on the head. How about getting with the correct venacular: "alleged special plane." A missile with the lipstick of a plane. A plane-looking-missile.
An effortless entry of the kind displayed there is physically impossible.
500 mph at 1/2 mile above sea level ain't so effortless and met with significant air resistance. It took a suped up special plane. A plane-looking-missile.
I hope you took a look at the Constellation hitting a wooden post, which ripped its wing off the plane. Or try some of the images of the damage impacts with birds do to aircraft in flight.
Now put the adjective "special" in front of the words "plane" and "aircraft."
I am sorry, Senor, but your position about this is completely indefensible. It’s a pity, because you have an elegant (if somewhat verbose) style of discourse. But your content is absurd.
Oooo. A pity indeed it is. A professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning with a Piled-High-and-Deep Degree in the history and philosophy of science does not a physics professor make, regardless of that Marine Officer chip on his shoulder that bullies others with ad hominem.
The math and calculus are most strikingly MIA from all your postings. Ergo, your "utter incapacity" to grasp velocity-squared at high velocities.
Señor El Once : limitations that you were not aware of
Dear Mr. Tamborine Man wrote on July 30, 2012 at 2:04 am:
There’s still the undeniable fact to contend with, that this "missile with the lipstick of a plane" enter, in full length, into the building before ‘strange’ explosions are seen, that in my humble opinion doesn’t seem to add much credibility to this ostensible scenario!
Perhaps more study of Mr. OneSliceShort's posted videos of bunk buster bombs in slow motion.
If we're talking a plane-looking-missile, I perceive no strangeness at all to its behavior.
I witnessed the first hologram ever to be shown in public. This happened at ‘the World Expo’ in Brisbane, Qld. Australia, in 1988. ... It was a man approximately 1 foot high, standing on a little stage speaking to us, the audience, and standing no more than 4 feet away from the front row of the visitors. He was standing in 3-D space with no curtains behind, and illuminated with the natural light already present in the pavilion. He looked and behaved as real as us the audience, except he had a faint bluish tint enveloping him like a mantel.
I can only take your word for it.
"Behaved" as in he interacted? Or "behaved" as in a repeated sequence? Could you walk around the hologram and did the hologram change as you walked (and not change if you didn't)? Was the hologram rotated while the audience remained stationary? If you couldn't walk around the hologram, was there "glass" separating the hologram on the stage from the audience?
What was on the floor/stage directly under the hologram? If it was on a stage, what additional light might have been directed at it?
When you research holograms today, one example that comes up is a French Airport Clerk. If you are one one side of clear plastic piece, the angle is appropriate to see an animated holographic image (with voice through a speaker) directing passangers where they need to go. This was way more recent than 1988.
I suspect that your 1988 version had limitations that you were not aware of, like the positioning of a holographic medium. Otherwise, the world would have be treated to many "commercial" examples of such in the ensuing twenty some years.
I can of course with ease form a ‘mental picture’ seeing you Señor, being invited into the “inner sanctum” of Darpa and other parts of the “military Industrial Complex”, being shown around, led by ‘spectacled’ important people in white coats explaining to you their latest ‘inventions’. (Almost like in a Bond movie perhaps)!!
What your mental picture leaves out is that I'm probably in an orange jump suit and hobble-chains. The important people in white coats from these "inner sanctums of DARPA" have so little opportunity to speak to outsiders and real people of their top-secret work, they get what little boosts to their ego that they can by explaining their work to a captive audience... before turning on their equipment and aiming it at the same captive prisioners to demonstrate its effects.
And Mr. Bond... James Bond... I am not.
//
Señor El Once : the only alternative i can come up is a 3-D projection of a plane
Dear Mr. Tamborine Man, you wrote on August 1, 2012 at 10:16 am:
... [I]t was just an opportunity to voice some of the reasons i can’t accept a ‘real’ plane entered this steel tower...
I could not accept the "real plane" (a commercial Boeing 767 known as UA 175), because it flew at low altitudes velocities in excess of its maximum speed at high altitudes. At low altitudes, the engines of the alleged Boeing 767 would not have been able to put out sufficient thrust to overcome the massive drag of heavy air to keep such velocities. The wings and other structural elements of the alleged Boeing 767 were not designed for such resistive dynamic stresses, and could have likely failed. As given in many simulations, the aircraft would have broken up over Manhattan before it could hit its desired target.
Another reason for me not accepting the alleged Boeing 767 was the precision of its targeting at >500 mph by the alleged hijackers. Only when the velocities in the simulations were slowed to landing speeds could experienced pilots come close to mirroring the WTC target hits.
These physics-defying reasons [and some Shack videos that misrepresented things] had me searching for another explanation in the form of "imagery manipulation." Until the seeming different flight paths from the various videos could be confirmed to represent a singular flight path (and in agreement with two sets of radar), could I be pushed from NPT at WTC to NCPT (where "C" = commercial.)
the only alternative i can come up with because of that, is a 3-D projection of a plane.
If 3D projection is the "only alternative" that you could come up with, then your imagination was lacking. I'd put money on "imagery manipulation" before I'd put it on 3D projections or holograms. Even "pods-on-planes" represents a significant "break-through" [pun-intended], but it implies "plane-swap" at a time in our thought process when few would accept it because it left all sorts of open questions regarding the fate of the (alleged) passengers, crew, and hijackers. Who would we light candles for and deify if they weren't on the plane that did the smacking?
And of course, a plane-looking-missile is an alternative being proposed now that addresses all of the data points: speed, precision, appropriate rendering in videos, etc. It could even have its wings made out of steel.
To assist with your imagination into other alternatives like what a "special plane" could accomplish, study this video.
- MythBuster Rocket Snowplow
What they've constructed for the "snowplow" or "the wedge" built onto a rocket sled would be a wing of the 9/11 special plane. Think of the engine block of the car-to-be-sliced as a steel beam of the tower.
It ought to help you grasp what a "real", real-suped-up (special) plane-looking-missile could do if part of its souping was "wings of steel."
When writing about the 3D projection you saw in 1988:
No he didn’t rotate, and yes, he stood behind a glass panel so nobody could reach over and touch.
That "glass panel" was key to the hologram. Without it, you wouldn't have seen it. Just like in these more contemporary examples, look for the glass panel. (In some cases, the camera caught lights reflecting off of it.)
- Airport employs holographic staff
- Holographic announcers at Luton airport
Now extrapolate to 9/11. For a hologram to show the image of a plane, the "holographic plate (or glass panel)" needs to work its way into the view of all onlookers and cameras.
[ridiculous speculation]
Similar to Richard D. Halls assertion that the hologram was projected by a cloaked aircraft causing the discrepency in radar points, maybe such a cloaked aircraft towed the "holographic plate (or glass panel)" with a cable, otherwise it has nothing on which to render the "plane".
[/ ridiculous speculation]
Nevermind. Don't go into my "ridiculous speculation."
As for your mental picture:
I can of course with ease form a ‘mental picture’ seeing you Señor, being invited into the “inner sanctum” of Darpa and other parts of the “military Industrial Complex”, being shown around, led by ‘spectacled’ important people in white coats explaining to you their latest ‘inventions’. (Almost like in a Bond movie perhaps)!!
i saw a rather handsome man, bearded to some extend, casually dressed showing good taste, and showing at the same time to have no particular enthusiasm for ‘pomp and circumstance’. There was a glimpse in his eye, also showing him to possess a healthy sense of humour, which made it for many a pleasure to be in his company.
You were so-ooo accurate in the flattery of your mental picture of me, it is uncanning! Alas, limitations in my imagination fail to provide rationale on why I'd ever be able to pass a security clearance [given my public writings on 9/11 implicating the govt] that might allow the guards at the gate into honoring the invitation into the “inner sanctum” of Darpa and other parts of the “military Industrial Complex” ... to discuss their latest "inventions."
Señor El Once : What I "think" you saw is probably vastly different from what you "remember" seeing
Dear Mr. Tamborine Man, you wrote on August 2, 2012 at 7:26 am:
And i think that [the MythBuster Snowplow] video is as pertinent to our discussion as ‘rain’ would be to our discussion about the nature on the north- and south pole! You mention ‘wings of steel’, but no mention of the front of the fuselage!
Au contraire! The MythBuster Rocket Snowplow video has lots of applicability to 9/11 and understanding the physics, particularly trying to fatham how the energy increases at velocity-squared and what sort of effects this can have on "common materials" when velocity is very large.
On the one hand, we can liken the rocket wedge to the hardened wings of a special aircraft and the engine block to a WTC tower column. [If the wings can be hardened, so can the fuselage.]
On the other hand, we can liken the steel wedge to a tower column and the car to be a common commercial aircraft.
Regarding the hologram you saw in 1988, because you were, and still are, not well versed in the technology of holography, what materials are required, and what placement they must be in, you probably didn't notice things that made it happen, and even if you did, the haze of time and memory has done their numbers.
But Señor, the two videos you’re referring to above, only shows a ‘hologram’ as a 2- dimensional ‘flat’ image! As i told you, what i saw was a ‘hologram’ in full 3-D. That means that the image had “depth” as well. The man looked as ‘alive’ as you and i, even though he was only about a foot high. To look ‘alive’ you have to have the appearance of looking “solid”, in “every” department!
Not true. Although the flat two-dimensional panel is required, the effect to those viewing it (from front angles) is entirely 3D. The image has "depth." In filming this, the camera stumbles across artifacts that betray it, like when the viewing angle goes from perpendicular to parallel as well as the reflections of lights off the glass.
You're right, though. What I "think" you saw is probably vastly different from what you "remember" seeing. Still, in making the case for 9/11 holography, you need more substantiation of the proof of concept than what you "remember" from 1988. In the intervening decades, someone would have capitalized on it and commercialized it to the point of "Holo Santa Claus", "Holo Halloween," etc. The lack of this highlights the state of the technology.
//
Señor El Once : Nothing that a "special" plane-looking-missile can't account for.
Dr. Fetzer writes:
We have an impossible speed, an impossible entry, no diminution in velocity and no debris.
Nothing that a "special" plane-looking-missile can't account for.
Dr. Fetzer appears oblivious to the fact that John Lear's affidafit takes a commercial Boeing 767 and all of the pomp & circumstance of box-cutter wielding hijackers as per the OCT out of contention. Mr. Lear is repeatedly very specific on the point of a Boeing 767.
It is rather disingenous of Dr. Fetzer to extract Mr. Lear's repeated statements about a Boeing 767 and misapply them to a "special" plane-looking-missile.
How much proof does SEO require [of a sophisticated hologram capable of explaining the data, as Richard Hall has oh so exquisitely explained.]?
Much more than Dr. Fetzer's "C-" sophomoric research efforts' footnotes. I want links to research papers from academic institutions that provide details on the technology. I want to see holo-Santa (or equivalent) this Christmas at my local mall or cineplex. If holograms can be weaponized in 2001, they can also be commercialized by 2012.
Directed Energy Weapons? They've been commercialized already: active denial systems coming to a (campus) police department near you.
Why not holograms? Because Dr. Fetzer appears oblivious that his holographic scenario is a fantasy.
And SEO appears oblivious of the enormous horizontal resistance posed by those eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and external steel support columns at the other, each filled with 4-8" of concrete.
Such a pity that I have to refer Dr. Fetzer to my July 30, 2012 at 4:07 pm posting above so soon. Obviously the math still alludes him. From World Trace Center:
The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers.
Before boasting of the damage that the steel trusses can accomplish, Dr. Fetzer appears oblivious to reviewing their spacing particularly with respect to the width of a plane-looking-missile's fuselage. Compared to the concrete floors, a fluted steel deck, and 60 cm box columns on 100 cm centers, the stopping contribution of the spaced out trusses would have been small whether end-on or horizontally.
Before boasting of the damage that the end-on width of the concrete slab (4") and fluted steel desk can accomplish, Dr. Fetzer appears oblivious to reviewing floor spacing (~12 ft/floor) with respect to the height (17 ft 9 in) & width (16 ft 6 in) of a plane-looking-missile's fuselage.
The plane-looking-missile's fuselage would have been sliced by one or two horizontal floors [not 8]. I recall a certain level of impact damage to the exposed end-on floors, but the fact that they could be seen in the gash indicates they resisted and probably did some slicing. Plenty of "air" space between floors for plane-looking-missile's fuselage to get sliced into.
The hardened wings of this special plane-looking-missile would have encountered the other six floors. I do not recall the damage to floor slabs by wings as being that significant. The metal columns took the brunt of the force.
Dr. Fetzer was a major promoter of pods-on-planes a few years ago. Indeed, a flash is visible from multiple angles just as the fuselage of the plane-looking-missile touches the towers. Hmmm... Nothing rules out the plane-looking-missile having its own little DEW device in that pod to help soften the entry point for its fuselage. Seems to me Mr. Hall and Mr. Johnson suggest "DEW from afar" to soften that entry point. [DEW on the planes seems more likely to hit the spot where the fuselage would enter, IMHO.]
Here's what is ironic. I've given no end of annoyance to Mr. Rogue by dancing around with various wild-ass and bat-shit crazy theories, as is fitting of my duped useful idiot standing. But as was proven with NPT (pods-on-planes, etc.), when appropriate substantiation is presented, I'm more than happy to get duped into a completely different premise that necessitates me posting an apology and changing my tune.
The ironic part is that Dr. Fetzer champions premises that are even more wild-ass and bat-shit crazy that he has been duped by. Yet, Dr. Fetzer appears oblivious to the lack of his substantiation to these premises and to the legitimate issues & errors that others point out. [How can mass-less holograms have radar signatures from two different radar systems without evidence of data juking?] He keeps framing it for his strawman (as above with John Lear) as "a commercial Boeing 767", and can never get his argumentation aligned to handle a quite special plane-looking-missile.
//
No comments:
Post a Comment