Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Splash Down

Seems there is an unusual white cloud that begins at the fuselage and extends over the starboard wing during several frames after the apparent nose impact and infamous flash.

This could be a case of bad masking when making the overlay or could it possibly an explosive decompression shock wave? As the fuselage is rapidly crushed from the front, the extreme internal pressure causes the emergency doors located over the wings to explode out.

If this is the case then this could be evidence of a real plane on the Michael Hezarkhani film but not necessarily evidence that this plane flew into the South tower.

If this is a decompression shock wave from the fuselage then why is it not on the port side also? Perhaps only one side blew or perhaps the port side being in shadow makes it difficult to see. Or perhaps the port side being in shadow meant the masking algorithm treated it as background pixels.

Another problem to solve is would flying a plane into the World Trade Center result in extreme internal cabin pressure? As the external steel columns would be like a giant shredder, destroying cabin integrity, it would seem unlikely.

However if the plane were flying vertically into a blue green sea, with nowhere for gases to go as the fuselage is crushed, you certainly could expect to see this phenomenon. Hell, you might even expect it to disappear into the ocean like an albatross or "like a bad special effect".

Although we may be looking at real images of a real plane superimposed over the tower. We can't assume anything with regards to scale. This could be a model with an eleven foot wing span flying at 110 km/hr into a swimming pool. The unusual white cloud anomaly could simply be splash back.

1 Comments:

OpenID psikeyhackr said...

Let’s just face a few simple facts.

Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.

After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!

Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.

Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?

That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.

The distributions of steel and concrete are going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

How much does one complete floor assembly weigh?

You know those square donut floor slabs? They were 205 ft square with a rectangular hole for the core. There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. There has been talk about those things pancaking on each other for years.

But has anyone ever said what the whole thing weighed? Why haven't we seen that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? The concrete alone is easy to compute, about 601 tons. But the concrete could not be separated from the entire assembly, the upper knuckles of the trusses were embedded into the concrete. So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven't the EXPERTS been mentioning that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So why hasn't Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? How much computing power do they have now, compared to the early 1960s when the buildings were designed? I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity hasn't changed since the 1960s. They should be able to come up with some reasonable numbers.

Monday, December 28, 2009 12:06:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home