Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Correlation between loser and woowoo?

2»

Comments

  • britocabritoca Member Posts: 1,484
    here's 4 different angle comparison of the second impact.

    so the flash in partiular is on the right side of the airplane only as it touches or is already crushing (hard to tell accurately) against the bulding.

    If this is fake it's some sick joke to be making such bold claims with such blatant evidence.

    That's why I want to rent the dvds, from several random documentaries, just to verify different sources because this has puzzled me for a while now.

    it looks as if part of the airplane has collapsed and some sort of bright spark in the electronics/avionics/radar is barely visible as the airplane plows through the wall and disappears into it.

    Interestingly, on the bottom right clip, the flash is brighter than the debris plumes of the engine impacts.

    This is an interesting but not necessarily related effect as well: in the top left clip, you can also see how the plumes of debris of the engine impact got sucked outwards by the engines in the small fraction of time just before the engines tears through the beams. Crazy stuff.

    If only someone would smash a 767-200 at full speed against a metal lattice wall for replication purposes, we'd have something for comparison at least...  lol

    -virtual tourist
    want your game back?
    image

  • 94Z0794Z07 Member Posts: 112

    Ok so here’s my initial theory for the image on the right side of your first post on this thread.

    What it’s not:
    The bright spot ahead of the airplane cannot be landing lights. Landing lights are fixed to landing gear. The gear appears to be fully retracted. Also, a novice pilot is not likely to know how to defeat the safeties that keep the gear from being deployed at the speed the airplane is traveling.

    It can’t be burning fuel. There is no fuel stored in the nose of the plane. Even if there were there’s no reason for it to magically catch fire and teleport to the face of the building.

    It’s not a device inside the building. There’s practically no way to aim the plane at the exact spot where the device could have been hidden. There’s no way to time the device to activate that close to impact. Human reflexes just are not fast enough. There was no rehearsal and it is unlikely in the extreme to get this so close on the first try.

    What it is:

    The plane impacting the building or the plane being in close proximity to the building must cause the phenomena.

    I submit that the light is caused by a well understood reaction of aluminum exposed to sudden stress called aluminum flash. When Aluminum metal is intensely smashed and shattered or it otherwise burns in air, it emits bright white light. (The light in the picture is not white but is red. I’ll address this later.) The airplane is of course constructed of aluminum and the face of the WTC towers were clad with sheets of aluminum, which would also be a source of aluminum for impact-flashes.

    Here is a video of an F4 Phantom being slammed into reinforced concrete to test the building technologies used in nuclear power plant containment buildings. There is a discernable flash from its nose as the plane impacts the wall.
    http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall.html

    But the light we see is not white and we see the flash before the impact. So how could an aluminum flash be the cause?

    Here we will turn to the optics of the camera. The light emitted was white. Therefore it contains nearly the full spectrum of light. Each color from the original beam of light has its own particular wavelength (or color) and each wavelength is slowed differently by the glass. Shorter wavelengths of light (violet and blue) are slowed more and consequently experience more bending than do the longer wavelengths (orange and red).

    Remember the video or any video for that matter doesn’t show what happened. It shows what was received by the camera’s transistors. The image on the transistors that is recorded is what winds up on the video.

    So the light in the longer wavelength (lower frequency) transits the lens faster than the light in the shorter wavelength (higher frequency). Red light travels through glass faster than the other colors.

    What we see in the image is the full spectrum light that left the plane and building before the impact and the red portion of light that left the impact flash at the time of the impact.

    What we are seeing is two moments in time in a single image.

    Reference:

    http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/opt/mch/refr/more.rxml
    http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/wwhlpr/wavelength.rxml?hret=/guides/mtr/opt/mch/refr/more.rxml
    http://www.blazetech.com/.../vaporific_effects.html
    http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall.html

  • britocabritoca Member Posts: 1,484


    Originally posted by 94Z07

    Ok so here’s my initial theory for the image on the right side of your first post on this thread.
    so impact #2, the S tower impact

    What it’s not:
    The bright spot ahead of the airplane cannot be landing lights. Landing lights are fixed to landing gear. The gear appears to be fully retracted. Also, a novice pilot is not likely to know how to defeat the safeties that keep the gear from being deployed at the speed the airplane is traveling.
    agreed

    It can’t be burning fuel. There is no fuel stored in the nose of the plane. Even if there were there’s no reason for it to magically catch fire and teleport to the face of the building.

    agreed

    It’s not a device inside the building. There’s practically no way to aim the plane at the exact spot where the device could have been hidden. There’s no way to time the device to activate that close to impact. Human reflexes just are not fast enough. There was no rehearsal and it is unlikely in the extreme to get this so close on the first try.
    Yeah, let's leave magical devices outside of the discussion.  Let's start with the most basic assumptiion that it was a normal airliner hitting a normal skyscrapper.
    What it is:
    The plane impacting the building or the plane being in close proximity to the building must cause the phenomena.
    I submit that the light is caused by a well understood reaction of aluminum exposed to sudden stress called aluminum flash. When Aluminum metal is intensely smashed and shattered or it otherwise burns in air, it emits bright white light. (The light in the picture is not white but is red. I’ll address this later.) The airplane is of course constructed of aluminum and the face of the WTC towers were clad with sheets of aluminum, which would also be a source of aluminum for impact-flashes.
    That's a very good point.  It could perhaps be aluminum flashing.  We'd have to calculate the total kinetic energy of the airplane and approximate the pressure/temperature conditions of the inital impact to see if the aluminum could inded react that way.
    Here is a video of an F4 Phantom being slammed into reinforced concrete to test the building technologies used in nuclear power plant containment buildings. There is a discernable flash from its nose as the plane impacts the wall.
    http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall.html

    Ahh yes, one of my favorite videos!  There is indeed a slight "flaming" (lacking a better word here) but also the conditions are slightly different.  There is a concrete block that get pulverized to dust immediately instead of an aluminum/steel lattice wall. Also, the jetplane is going faster (500mph) than the estimated speed of the WTF airplane (I believe around 400mph).  kinetic energy depends on the square of the velocity, so that is significantly more energy at impact.

    Not saying the aluminum flash effect is not occuring, I obviously believe it might be, but I wonder how much of that "flaming" is incandescent cement material as well?

    But the light we see is not white and we see the flash before the impact. So how could an aluminum flash be the cause?
    Ya know what? I see the flash as taking place already into the impact.  I don't think that the cameras (or at least any of the ones that are decently clear) captured the actual impact moment.  The others are too blurry to determine where exactly the airplane is relative to the building surface.  The one on the top left of that video I pasted, seems as if the airplane nose is already smashing well into the building and the flash is barely escaping thought the side of the airplane, on the right side of the fuselage, u see that?
    Here we will turn to the optics of the camera. The light emitted was white. Therefore it contains nearly the full spectrum of light. Each color from the original beam of light has its own particular wavelength (or color) and each wavelength is slowed differently by the glass. Shorter wavelengths of light (violet and blue) are slowed more and consequently experience more bending than do the longer wavelengths (orange and red).
    Remember the video or any video for that matter doesn’t show what happened. It shows what was received by the camera’s transistors. The image on the transistors that is recorded is what winds up on the video.
    So the light in the longer wavelength (lower frequency) transits the lens faster than the light in the shorter wavelength (higher frequency). Red light travels through glass faster than the other colors.
    What we see in the image is the full spectrum light that left the plane and building before the impact

    Okay so far it was going well, but now I don't understand where "light before the impact" part comes from.  What light before the impact?  The aluminum flash happens AT impact.  Before the impact.. there's only diminishing distance between the 2 objects, there's can't be any light emmited for either.  Was this not worded correctly or am I misinterpreting you?

    and the red portion of light that left the impact flash at the time of the impact.

    Well, not only red light leaves the impact.  The camera captures a frame each 1/30th of a second.  Depending on the shutter speed (digitally controlled, not mechanically), each frame can capture more or less time per frame, usually a setting adjustable by the user.  Looking at this footage it's hard to tell what the shutter speed of all these 4 different cameras were, but I would say it wasn't the default 1/30th of a second, and it probably wasn't an incredibly fast shutter speed (say.. 1/8000th of a second like the top camera models out there.) Somewhere in that range, probably something like 1/600th of a second or so, since it was a bright day with plenty of light.  I say so because the airplanes in each of those clips are somewhat defined and there's little apparent motion blur.

    So from what I interpret, you are saying that the faster light frequencies reached the capturing electronics before the slower frequencies and therefore, it's those which are shown in the image.  Is this so?


    That means that for each of these four cameras, the time interval captured by the cameras, for that exact particular frame, would have to start exactly before or at the moment of arrival of the faster frequency (reddish), and end its image capturing process, for that frame, before the slower (blueish) wavelength arrived on the capturing diode (is that what u call it a diode? ahh u know what I mean).

    Now, I don't need to tell you how fast light travels since we're obviously both science nerds, but the discrepancy in arrival times between the reddish wavefront and the bluish wavefront would be insignificant since the distance travelled through the glass is so short.  These are camcorders, short lenses.  I think the difference in arrival times would be in the tiniest of fractions of a second, much less than the fastest shutter speeds available on commercial cameras out there.  If these were high-velocity cameras, capable of cranking at least
    hundreds of frames/second... maybe that effect could have indeed taken
    place.

    (sorry about the bold below, the editor got stuck on bold font )

    I just think it's incredibly unlikely that all four cameras began capturing that frame before/as/while red light arrived, and ended the frame capture before the blue light arrived.  That would be one crazy shutter speed. We're talking bullit-time speeds here, professional high-speed cameras.

    That is just way, way too much coincidence.  Maybe that's not your argument at all and I misunderstood it?

    I think it's a perhaps (big perhaps right there) a combination of incandescent cement material from the cement floors, with perhaps electronic circuitry just sparking and incandescing all at once.  But is this even plausible?  I have a hard time believing my own hypothesis to tell u the truth.

    http://www.blazetech.com/.../vaporific_effects.html


    oohhh bad link   Maybe something important?


    AWESOME discussion btw!    Now u got me thinking with the aluminum flashing hypotethis.  After all, the light on the first impact (N tower) does seem white. I will certainly look into that.  Thanks!

    -virtual tourist
    want your game back?
    image

  • 94Z0794Z07 Member Posts: 112

    “Kinetic energy depends on the square of the velocity, so that is significantly more energy at impact.”

    Actually, KE is calculated as follows: KE = ½ mass * velocity ^ 2. This is derived from F=MA. That is Newton’s second law.

    A 767 can have a mass as low as 230,000 lbs and as much as 300,000 lbs. (I’ll use the lower number later) An F-4 has a maximum takeoff weigh of 58,000 lbs.

    We know the F4 was not fully loaded since we can see the hard points are empty and I suspect that the radar has been removed for use as a spare. We also know the 767 was not empty since it had an estimated 11,000 lbs of fuel, passengers, crew, luggage, and freight.

    But let’s still compare a fully loaded F4 to an empty 767 because I really want to show that the 400 to 500 mph variance is not significant enough to give the F4 more KE.

    Compare a fully loaded F4 58,000 lbs traveling at 500 mph to an empty 767 230,000 lbs traveling at 400 mph. The 767 still has vastly more kinetic energy.

    Converting to metric measure:

    1 mile = 1,609.344 meters and 1 lb = 0.45359237 kilograms

    400 miles per hour = 643,737.6 meters per hour = 178.816 meters per second (F4)
    500 miles per hour = 804,672 meters per hour = 223.52 meters per second. (767)

    58,000 lbs = 26,308.357 kilograms. (F4)
    230,000 lbs = 104,326.245 kilograms. (767)

    KE = 1/2 MV^2

    0.5 * 26,308.357 kg * 178.816 meters/second^2 = 420,606,986.620215 joules (F4)
    0.5 * 104,326.245 kg * 223.52 meters/second^2 = 2,606,131,695.081024 joules (767)

    Therefore the worst case 767 would have more than five times the KE of the best case F4.

    Also, the 767 and WTC impact have more aluminum available for the flash.
    Consider that the nose of the F4 is not aluminum but rather a radome made from composites (very much like fiberglass). When the aluminum portion of the F4 strikes the barrier is when we see the flash.

    “Ya know what? I see the flash as taking place already into the impact.”

    As do I :)

    However, the photo top right of your first post seems to me to show the red glow before impact. That is the only photo I’ve seen like that. All the others show a white flash.


    "...but the discrepancy in arrival times between the reddish wavefront and the bluish wavefront would be insignificant since the distance travelled through the glass is so short."

    If the camera for this one image (not all the perspectives you provided) is a professional video camera like the ones that news crews so often use then it is equipped with much more than a simple thin lens.
    No one would operate a camera that costs between $12,000 and $60,000 without a UV filter at the very least. The lens is actually a composite lens made of a forward lens and a rear lens.

    These cameras also use three “chips” to calculate the image. The chips are actually CCD’s. One is for red. One is for green. One is for blue. How does the camera take the single image from the lens and make it into three images, one for each CCD? It employs another device, a prism. Actually it is a dichroic beam splitter prism, that splits the image into red, green and blue components.

    I’ve tried to find the exact camera that was used, its lens, its settings, and its distance from the impact. If I had those, and if I could find optical densities for each of those devices, then I could then calculate the variance between the speed of the red and full spectrum light within reason.

    “Somewhere in that range, probably something like 1/600th of a second or so, since it was a bright day with plenty of light."

    Actually these cameras are likely to be in the range of 4fps to 60fps with a default setting of 24fps.

    "I just think it's incredibly unlikely that all four cameras began capturing that frame <snip> That is just way, way too much coincidence. Maybe that's not your argument at all and I misunderstood it?"

    Yeah I’m only talking about the one picture not all the ones you mentioned. I am suggesting that all the flashes in all the pictures that occur as the noses are crushed are aluminum flashes though.

    "oohhh bad link"
    Sorry about that. It is below and working now.

    Ok before we go any further please score my efforts:

    How well did my theory do?
    a. I’m convinced and the theory is plausible.
    b. I’m not convinced yet the theory is plausible.
    c. I’m not convinced and the theory is highly unlikely.
    d. I’m not convinced and the theory is absurd.
    e. Other (please elaborate)

    Reference:
    http://www.onlineconversion.com/weight_common.htm
    http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/Class/energy/u5l1c.html
    http://www.blazetech.com/Products___Services/Aircraft/Vaporific_Effects/vaporific_effects.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ccd
    http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/home.asp


  • KidWickedKidWicked Member Posts: 67


    Originally posted by 94Z07

    A recent Zogby poll asked if the government and the 9/11 Commission are covering up the truth about 9/11.
    In general those who have been around a while, have jobs, or have at least some college think there is no covering up. Conversely dropout losers and Democrats think there was is a conspiracy.
    Are our government schools and MTV devotees turning out more woowoos?
    The report can be found here:
    http://www.911truth.org/images/911TruthZogbyPollFinalReport.htm
    Below are excerpts from the report:
    "US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up 42%"
    "Both men and women and residents in each of the four regions are more likely to say the U.S. government and 9/11 Commission are not covering up anything. Majorities who agree include Republicans (64%), 50-64 year-olds, married adults, suburbanites (59%), Protestants, those with at least some college education, and people with annual household income of $50,000 or more (57%)."
    "Majorities (50%-56%) of Democrats, 18-29 year-olds, Hispanics, single adults and those who are divorced/widowed/separated, residents of small cities, and adults with less education than a high school diploma believe the government and 9/11 Commission are covering up something. Nearly half of independent voters (48%) agree."


    I have a big woowoo in ym pants
  • britocabritoca Member Posts: 1,484


    Originally posted by 94Z07

    Ok before we go any further please score my efforts:

    How well did my theory do?
    a. I’m convinced and the theory is plausible.
    b. I’m not convinced yet the theory is plausible.
    c. I’m not convinced and the theory is highly unlikely.
    d. I’m not convinced and the theory is absurd.
    e. Other (please elaborate)



    Hey thanks for calculationg that KE for both aircrafts.  After posting yesterday at work, I realized the mass of the 767 was manyfold the mass of that small jet plane.  Unfortunately I was riding the elevator down and u beat me to it on the calculations.


    But anyways, we dont' need to get into much further dicussion about this. I read about the pyrophoric properties of aluminum and that was plenty persuasive.  Check this out: Analysis of Aluminum Impact Flashes in the WTC Crashes

    Being that at the moment of impact the aluminum both in the airplane and the building surface must have partially pulverized/shattered, and since the combustion reaction is so exothermic, it is a much more plausible explanation to both impact cases.

    Interesting how the first impact resulted in a much more violent reaction though.  It was probably travelling a bit faster that the second airplane, ya think?

    We're at "a" I'd say for the first impact, and "b" for the second impact simply because the flash is not as clearly violent/bright as the first one, but perfectly plausible nonethless.  Good thing we reached a concensus on this,  I was getting tired of reading the debunking articles and this not being addressed anywhere. 

    [edit] ya think they could run an acceptable spectrum analysis on that flash of the first impact?  I wonder if it'd match the expected aluminum flashing spectrum.  too bad there's only one view angle  [/edit]

    -virtual tourist
    want your game back?
    image

  • 94Z0794Z07 Member Posts: 112

    Thanks for the good time and educating me on some new things, Britoca :)

    I will read the link you posted.

    I actually had never heard of the flashes before you told me about them.

    Cheers

    <edit> Hey I just read that link. I saw that either yesterday or the day before and stole from it shamelessly. </edit>

  • WantsumBierWantsumBier Member Posts: 1,079

    I must agee 94z07, you two have posted some facinating information and the way you handled the discussion was admirable. 

    From a fourm noob,  thank you both for your insights. It was enjoyable reading.

    I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.

Sign In or Register to comment.