One Person's Imaginative Drawing of a Plane Crashing into WTC 1 Tower, 96th Floor, Perfectly Centered on the Core and the plane is unscathed. Was there a "real" Plane Crash at all?

Comment

Comment by Chuck Boldwyn on March 16, 2011 at 10:40pm

To All,

 

My interview by Jim Fetzer has been rescheduled for the 24th of March, off air taping. I will be reviewing Judy Wood's book and my own new and revised posters, many of which are already poste on the site...

 

Chuck

Comment by Shallel Octavia on March 16, 2011 at 7:39pm

DEW's do exist, whether they were capable of "doing the job" while being inconspicuous is questionable. Also it is suspicious that NIST used DEW manufacturers SAIC and ARA as consultants on their ridiculous report. I have problems with DEW, and what Judy refers to now as TESLA-Hutchison effects. JKH is either a dupe of the MILINDCOM or a dope who has been exposed to to many high power radio waves. Mini Nukes are out IMHO, due to the issue of a flash, not like lightning bolts, but like the SUN. 

 

I tend to think toward an Alchemical process: steel>steel ash. Walter Russell demonstrated transmutation of elements in 1927, it was verified at Westinghouse Labs, it isn't far from ol' George Westinghouse to the black op research community. Just a though.

Comment by Thoth II on March 16, 2011 at 4:02pm

I have a few problems also with DEWs outright.  They would maybe be able to beam enough energy to dustify the towers in 10 seconds, but then wouldn't they also ionize the air and look like lightning bolts , at this level of power?  Also, the momentum consideration.  It looks to me like there are 10-15 "foci"  ( or GZ) of energy along the length of the tower from which debris (which isn't totally dustified like steel members) are thrown basically symmetrically outward and upward, and I can't imagine anything which has net momentum of zero after the interaction which also has zero momentum before the interaction, as does explosives, whether mini-nuke or conventional (of course, I think it is mini nuke because, why not?  they are much easier to emplace than tons of conventional explosives).  A DEW would have a net momentum before hitting tower and thus the debris would be ejected assymetrically in the direction of net momentum, after the interaction.

Comment by Chuck Boldwyn on March 16, 2011 at 3:58am

Yes, Shellel,

 There is much to agree with, most of it, probably everything but the DEWs which she needs to convince me of, not maybe not possibly, but conclusively as Thermate and minu-nukes or most massive amounts of explosives can explain it all, even the molten metal and fried, rustified cars as I have espoused on several of Jim's shows.

Her book will save me a lot of research time on the internet.

My only problem with Judy's General Hypothesis is the DEWs, so I better get to reading.

I have about 15 new and revised graphics that I wish to present and discuss on the upcoming show, whenever it will occur.

Some of the math steps, she leaves out, so some people may have trouble following where her math comes from at its simplest level.

I am working on a derivation PP Poster of all of the basic motion equations of classical Newtonian Physics, which I hope to post soon. I am working on about 10 new graphics at the same time.

My basic motion equation Poster should be able to be understood by anyone who can follow elementary algebra as there are many varables to follow. It is basically the same sheet I distributed to my students for solving all motion problems in high school and college physics textbooks.

Comment by Shallel Octavia on March 15, 2011 at 9:17pm

I'm on page 117, there's a lot to agree with here, Chuck. Looking forward to the show,

It airs Friday?

Comment by Chuck Boldwyn on March 15, 2011 at 1:23pm

Shallel,

Good reply,

I found this highly deceptive graphic on some site which I should have referenced but did not.

I just got Judy Wood's new book yesterday and am not on page 40.

I am scheduled for an interview with Jim Fetzer on the 17th of March, in 2 days, during which I may be able to make some comments on her viewpoints, some of which differ from mine, considerably.

I have picked some good points from her book already, especially on photo of the airplane cookie cut-out of the North Tower. I need to find some more and better close up pics of that cut-out to prove the explosives that produced the cut out were between the steel columns and the aluminum coverings, leaving the aluminum covering pointing away from the Tower instead of into the Tower.

Comment by Shallel Octavia on March 15, 2011 at 12:24pm

Where is this crapaganda from, Chuck? The "plane" hit at least six floors with trusses bolted and welded to the core and perimeter columns, 4-8 inches of steel reinforced concrete. Maybe you could explain to the kiddies how a structure is designed to hold together, especially such robust structures as the Towers. Maybe people should avoid structures altogether. Don't cross a bridge or enter a building since there is more air than steel and these things could just crumble at any minute.

 

1. The plane was not only interacting with the perimeter columns, it was interacting with a STRUCTURE consisting of 14" perimeter box columns, 39" on center, connected by spandrel belts, bolted and welded to trusses bolted and welded to the 47 column heavily braced core, with 4" (8" depth in wells of floor pans) steel reinforced concrete floors. The "plane" hit at least 6 of these floors.

 

2. In the real world, the deceleration should have been easily detectable, the speed would go to zero as it did with the bomber that hit the Empire State building. Think of a bug hitting your windshield. So the deceleration would not have been so subtle that it would need high speed cameras to detect.

 

3. There was no rotation, twisting, or parts falling off. The "plane" simply continued on the same path programmed by the producers of the videos, erasing itself as it hit the layer mask.

 

4. No 767 can withstand the force of 500 MPH even in a dive; see Egypt Air 990 a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.

 

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

 

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

 

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.

 

Guess I'm preaching to the choir here.