Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Why no planes could have struck the towers


There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must assume that it remained intact going through the outer wall.
It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to pieces and fall into the street.
I will deal with this first.

REACTION/deflection
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
That means that the force received by both objects in a collision will be equal.
Now what determines how much force goes into the objects? Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force received by EACH object.
If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did not break up.
I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what it would take to penetrate all those outer wall beams.
Any remaining kinetic energy would be retained in any parts that had penetrated the wall and parts that had fragmented, the fragments undergoing a deflective process with their remaining energy.
Some of the energy would convert to sound, heat and light.
The heat would ignite any fuel spilled from the wings, a large amount of which would be vaporised instantly with the impact.
Then there is

TERMINAL BALLISTICS.
If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane also, causing deceleration and deflection.
The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble, in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through Kevlar.

AERODYNAMICS.
The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and tail plane.
The deceleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact to determine the direction of tumble.
And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving us another, separate reason for the plane to tumble.
With the diagonal rise of the nose being suddenly stopped upon penetrating the building, the rear of the plane should have continued diagonally upwards, causing it to tumble roof-on into the building, probably right-wing first due to the extra lift on that side due to the bank of the aircraft, the wing on the outside moving faster.
And as the bank of the plane means it should have been moving up and to the left then the fuel should have continued in that direction when the tanks ruptured, rather than go straight through any hole made by the impact.

Then there are the glaring anomalies.
People trying desperately to prove planes always show a picture of a wrecked CFM56 engine in a NY street, an engine that could never have been fitted to a 767.
And photographs of aircraft wheels, where the tires have the wrong number of tread grooves to be from a 767.
Yes, it's a good question, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
And the engine at the Pentagon was a JT8D which is also wrong for the aircraft we were told hit the building.
I think it likely that these engines were used in ordnance that was custom-made for the job.
Then there is the cherry on the top of the planehugger sundae-
A photo of a truck that has had "AIRCRAFT PARTS" spray-painted on the back.
WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT ONE PROVE, ALEX?
In fact, if they WERE collecting aircraft parts in that truck, why would they go and spray that on it?
Do you think they might have lost it otherwise?
None of the plane videos show a CRASH.
There were no planes that hit the towers.
There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the towers.
And what about the fake eyewitness videos, mostly with the same pathetic voice actress who can't even change her act from one take to the next.
Who made those?
And why?
Check 3 of them out here:

This is obviously an organised effort to provide proof that there were people who saw a plane hit the tower.

And then there is the matter of the videos of the planes.
None of the videos show a crash, the plane just enters the building in a totally impossible way.
Not one of the videos has a correct image of a 767.
The one touted as the best, and often used to “prove” that remote-control gear was fitted to the plane is a composite, using a tail plane that is both at the wrong angle and the wrong orientation compared to the rest of the plane:

It is analysed here:
http://911review.org/flight175photo.html

And different videos show the planes in different positions at the same time. They disagree.
Even the images of the planes don't look right.

Stills from a video of the 2nd hit show an aircraft that looks "set into the building"- there is no damage to the building in between the left engine and the fuselage, where the wing can no longer be seen (It is supposed to have already entered the building) and there is no damage to the windows that are right next to the parts of the aircraft that has already penetrated the wall.
This is impossible.
Also the left tail plane is missing in this shot:


Another still shows the left wing is missing from the image:


Yet another still shows the right wing to have passed into the building yet the wall where it has gone through is still undamaged:



The poor quality of the video can not account for the missing wing; the face of the building is visible where the wing should be.
And none of the videos show a CRASH as discussed above.

Look at this still from another video:

It doesn't even look like anything.

A few frames later, after the insertion is no longer there we get to see the hole starting to be made.
There is a large event in the center and three separate events around it.
These events lead to the creation of the cartoon-style plane-shaped cut-out that no real plane could have made.


In fact a real plane couldn't get through these holes even in bits because of the obstructions that remained in place:



Here is a clip of the 2nd hit that is particularly popular, it must have had the pause button used on it MILLIONS of times:


You can watch a whole bunch of them in Slow motion here:

When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS ignore these most basic evidential facts I seriously doubt their intentions.
Do you not think our truth movement would include WELL-PLACED psy-op agents?


They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge?
It should be obvious that the containment of the demand for truthful answers was and had to be an essential part of the plan.
Better to have somebody in place beforehand, so that the people willing to struggle against the evil can be rendered ineffective.
Who could that have been?

15 Comments:

Blogger Fred said...

That's a very cool picture of the B2 cloaking. Is that real? Where'd you find it?

7:02 AM  
Blogger Coffinman said...

It's real:
http://www.cloudcroft.com/news/news143.htm

8:38 PM  
Blogger prhydro said...

It's real, but it's not cloaking technology. It's only condensation.

http://wilk4.com/misc/soundbreak.htm

11:01 PM  
Blogger Rowan Berkeley said...

I don't agree that all those girls going "o my god" are necessarily phonies.

7:18 AM  
Blogger Coffinman said...

It says "Shedding condensation", but much about the craft is secret.
The Russians are putting an ionised gas cloak on the open market.

4:48 PM  
Blogger Motoko2 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10:58 PM  
Blogger Motoko2 said...

How are they phonies and how was there no plane hitting the trade center.dont you think the thousends of people walking around manhatten would say something if they dident see the plane. And dont give me that shit that maybe they dident see it hit or something. If you dont here the plane only 1000 feet above you, you must be deaf. Your evidence is lacking truth and support. Im not convinced nor persuaded. I for one belive it was a plane and there was not demolitions.Why dident anyone see demolitions? They were not in the video and if they were in the building people would notice.Plus the impact of the plane would trigger the demolition. So there is no way a demolition could have been used. The only demolition powerful enough to knock down the world trade center EVEN in it's weakened state would sound like a bomb wich was not heard. What was heard was the sound of a train. Wich is the floors hitting each other like dominoes. O ya if the floor's fell like dominos the downward force of each floor would increase by almost double in speed and ppsi.
I am almost infuriated by you statement that there was no plane, Then what happened to the people who borded at 6/7 in the morning?
So far i am NOT impressed!

11:02 PM  
Blogger Coffinman said...

There were no planes.
There was no wreckage, all of the videos are bad animations that don't stand up to analysis.
The live news feed even showed the nose of the "aircraft" on the exit side, when there was no hole for it to have passed through:
http://www.coffinman.co.uk/pinocchio.htm
The whereabouts of any passengers that may have boarded the TWO flights that did fly and were grounded are not relevant to whether the planes crashed into targets.
The holes in the towers could not accomodate the passage of the planes, even in bits:
http://www.coffinman.co.uk/holes_in_the_towers.htm
Most people think that the OMG woman in the clips is the same woman. Somebody will do voice analysis at some point, I'm sure.
Same for the OMG F*CK guy.
The streets around WTC were all blocked off due to a phoney "gas leak", so there were few witnesses, and people have tried to investigate eyewitnesses and it doesn't work:
http://www.coffinman.co.uk/Eyewitness_report_cards.htm
Some of the fake eyewitnesses were worse than others:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/curtainchewer/
There was a large plane flying around for all the people that were being kept away from the WTC by the gas leak to see, it is seen at the beginning of this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFGKccJpCGI
The buildings 1 and 2 were not demolished with conventional explosives, that would have left pieces, as would a structural failure, they were turned to dust.
Any fool can see that building 7 was a flawless controlled demolition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z8VMKL1ww
Floors falling like dominoes, by the way would land like dominoes, in a pile, not turn to dust, and as each floor encountered the floor below, there would be resistance, making the freefall destruction speed of all 3 buildings impossible, even if they had been designed to collapse.
Also the collapse theory completely ignores the massive central core of each tower:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH811hANp5k
A huge 50+ story section of the core that did not come down when the south tower disintegrated turned to dust before the cameras:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh5IFOjn3MQ&eurl=
Whatever did that caused the steel to loose it's molecular bonds.
And ppsi has nothing to do with acceleration due to gravity, so what do you mean by mentioning it?!!
Also plenty of people are witnesses to explosions, the basements were blown out using explosives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-uOFXsfskM
And what about building 6:
http://www.coffinman.co.uk/wtc_6.htm
No, plane crashes are bad, but they don't look like this.
So I interpret your "not being impressed" as a denial of available evidence.

7:41 PM  
Blogger Schu said...

I don't know what you were thinking when you wrote this "article". Throw in couple of "technical" words in the article so a person who doesn't understand what you're writing thinks it's correct, because, hey its "technical" right?

You're denying that planes crashed in to the towers? That has got to be the most ridiculous conspiracy theory out there. Trust me, this comes from a person who saw the second plane hit the tower.

I started reading your article, but then I stopped because it's none sense. Under your "Reaction/deflection" part you could tell you have no idea what you're talking about. Just because you took physics in high school, it doesn't mean you're qualified to talk about structural failure. You don't know anything about failure mechanism.... And, honestly, I don't expect you to know because you don't even know the difference between a beam and a column. That's something even a high school kid knows.

You're finding it implausible for a plane to penetrate unbraced slender columns? Does the plane really have to stay a hole to cause damage?

You're using the term deflection of a plane? There is no such thing as deflection of a plane. It just makes you look silly.

Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it isn't right.

6:14 PM  
Blogger Coffinman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:50 AM  
Blogger Coffinman said...

Schu:
"Throw in couple of "technical" words in the article so a person who doesn't understand what you're writing thinks it's correct, because, hey its "technical" right?"
I can't find the advanced words you say I was trying to confuse you with.
I really couldn't have made it any simpler without leaving the information out.
Teenagers seem to have no problem with understanding it, and they can manage to get to the end of the piece.

"You're denying that planes crashed in to the towers?"
Yes.

"That has got to be the most ridiculous conspiracy theory out there."
No, the idea of a few people known to be idiots using box-cutters to take control of planes full of people and piloted by tough ex-military guys, and then flying them flawlessly to targets that the planes then just disappear into, and this then resulting in the WTC towers turning into massive dust fountains visible from space is actually the most ridiculous of all the theories proposed so far.

"Trust me, this comes from a person who saw the second plane hit the tower."
Is that so?
Why have you not come forward formally as a witness?
Where exactly were you and what did you see?
Did you see the plane actually touch the building?
If you're going to make claims like this you need to identify yourself formally, make a statement and be prepared to answer some questions.
The only "eyewitness" to do so thus far has been JOHN ALBANESE, who is also one of the truth censors at 911blogger.
So you just can't say "I saw the plane hit".
The videos are animations, so you must are either lying or mistaken.
If you identify yourself and answer some question we should be able to sort it out.

"I started reading your article, but then I stopped because it's none sense."
You write a critique of a post you didn't read?!

"Under your "Reaction/deflection" part you could tell you have no idea what you're talking about."
How?
This is really simple stuff.
Toddlers learn not to walk into things because of the crash physics.
And adults know that if they collide with a toddler, the lighter toddler will be deflected more than them, so people learn these things in everyday life.

"Just because you took physics in high school, it doesn't mean you're qualified to talk about structural failure. You don't know anything about failure mechanism...."
You are correct about me not being a structural engineer, however, I do not need the permission of a structural engineer to decide whether a thin aluminium aeroplane can vanish straight through steel and concrete floors as easily as it would glide through air.

"And, honestly, I don't expect you to know because you don't even know the difference between a beam and a column. That's something even a high school kid knows."
Oh yes they were columns because they were hollow. So now who'se trying to complicate things?
The outer wall was made of massive sections steel, which is very tough yet flexible, welded to spandrel belts, this is what the plane is said to have passed through.
You can see a clip of it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GjkRqqNIVc
The central core was made of columns, there's a picture here:
http://www.coffinman.co.uk/WTC%20-%20construction%20framework-girders.jpg
And a 3D-modelling animation here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH811hANp5k
I think they look stronger than the things you would have me properly refer to as beams.

"You're finding it implausible for a plane to penetrate unbraced slender columns?"
Unbraced?
They were welded to spandrels (see the first clip above), bolted together in a staggered formation and braced to the core with steel beams and poured concrete floors.
Slender?
Take another look at that first clip.

"Does the plane really have to stay a hole to cause damage?"
Well the plane couldn't stay whole, that's the "whole" point"
All of the fake videos show a completely intact plane vanishing inside the building, some even show it coming out the other side when there was no exit hole:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajSM6xdyxDY
http://www.coffinman.co.uk/images/WhatHoleFixed.jpg
And if the plane broke during the impact we would expect the wings and the tail at least to be deflected away from the building, and therefore to land in the street.

"You're using the term deflection of a plane? There is no such thing as deflection of a plane. It just makes you look silly."
Now you sound silly, direct collisions cause deflection and breakage.
You need to watch "Crash physics for Dummies" made by Genghis6199, for people like you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx7BQHAEXJ8

"Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it isn't right."
No, but lies unmasked are just that.
No planes, no evil Arabs, just a war of genocide in which our strong young men get disabled by vaccines known to do just that, the loss of all our freedoms and the implementation of total control, all based on the lie of an evil Arab ideology that we must fight to the death over the next 100 years.

3:11 PM  
Blogger Walker said...

dude, that picture of the B-2 is total BS.

reasons:

1. the effect seen in the picture is clearly that of the disturbed air around a plane exactly at the moment that it breaks the sound barrier. I know that photo has been faked because the B2 is not a supersonic plane. you can find a photo of a Navy f-18 with that exact same effect on the Navy's website, or google image search it and see what i mean. are you gonna say that the navy photo is also cloaking and that they put it on their website and said its a natural phenomenon of an object breaking the sound barrier to taunt you?

2. the b-2 is already a stealth aircraft!!! why the deuce would anyone want to cloak an already stealth aircraft? there's just absolutely no reason to cloak anything that is already undetectable. and really, why would you need to make the B-2 invisible to human eyes anyway? was it carrying your beam weapon that was used to destroy the towers? is that how this ties in to your theory? honestly, the things you say are evidence aren't, and your attitude towards people whom you label "plane huggers," is very telling.

i want 9/11 truth too, but your "analysis" doesn't add up to a molehill. you said you'd prove that the force of the plane hitting the tower would not be enough to penetrate the steel grid. where's your numbers? where's your frickin paper to be peer-reviewed, wiseguy? you offer completely tangential "evidence" that doesn't prove anything, yet you act like it's just obvious, plain and simple physics.

the only way that you can believe that you are correct and be coherent about it is if you also believe that you are just smarter than everyone out there who knows that the planes existed and that they did impact the towers, and that is a ridiculous position to be in.

3:26 PM  
Blogger benedictrove said...

thanks for this great page. The planes and hijackers are a big lie and most of the 911 activism is there to prevent people from realizing that. I realized the planes were fake when I watched the "As It Happened" videos on youtube and saw so many mistakes and witnesses who either were shocked to hear there were planes because they only saw explosions/fireballs or they were in locations where they could not have seen what happened and they worked for media (faked witnesses). Making people realize that the planes and hijackers were fictional media events is the way to truth and, unfortunately, most "911 truth" is trying to get people to look at everything but the fact that there were no planes or hijackers(like the guy above,lol)

11:53 PM  
Blogger Schu2 said...

"No, the idea of a few people known to be idiots using box-cutters to take control of planes full of people and piloted by tough ex-military guys, and then flying them flawlessly to targets that the planes then just disappear into, and this then resulting in the WTC towers turning into massive dust fountains visible from space is actually the most ridiculous of all the theories proposed so far."
People have a tendency of not taking things seriously until something goes wrong.

To be honest I'm not sure if this entire blog is a joke because it's hard to believe anyone could be this ignorant.

"Is that so? Why have you not come forward formally as a witness?"
Yes that is so. I was on the bridge on my way to work when both hit. No, i was not standing right below them, but you I'm pretty sure you can recognize a plane when you see one. Come forward as a witness? Good idea because I'm the last living witness. Are you forgetting that these towers were in downtown Manhattan. They were the tallest buildings in the city. You could not have missed them. This didn't happen on mars...
Me and hundreds of others walking to work who saw it. And that's from one angle. Given that, how can you possibly deny it? Oh yes, I'm lying...

"You are correct about me not being a structural engineer, however, I do not need the permission of a structural engineer to decide whether a thin aluminium aeroplane can vanish straight through steel and concrete floors as easily as it would glide through air."
Just any structural engineer isn't qualified to comment on this. Failure mechanism of buildings is a very complicated subject. Now we have failure of high rise buildings due to high velocity impact. Few people are qualified to speak on the subject. Yes you're going to deny that they didn't collapse because of it. But are you really qualified to come to this conclusion?

"And if the plane broke during the impact we would expect the wings and the tail at least to be deflected away from the building, and therefore to land in the street."
I'm not sure what you mean by wings breaking, BUT doesn't really matter. You would "expect ..."? You expected it because you thought of a scenario assuming certain things, and ignoring other. So what happens when something you did not expect happens?

Why don't you mention the findings of prestigious forensic engineering firms such as Weidlinger Associates (Yes i know, forensic engineering is just portion of WAI)? These people did not just sit behind the desk and applied simple physics to come up with conclusions.

7:43 PM  
Blogger RedbirdJaybird said...

I won't bother saying how ridiculous you sound as it goes without saying ... perhaps you should read actual physics, here is something to help you out ... btw, don't quit your day job!

http://journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf

2:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home