No-planers: I challenge you to explain how all the videos and photos....

heads up folks, now debunkers have stooped to outright over the top cheating.

Of course a luma key wont work with yellow ski and yellow flame, how LOW WILL THEY GO?

Now lets see how honest you are and lets see how long it takes for you to pull down that fraudulent (*)(*)(*)(*) you are posting as fact.

 

Nice try, but Ace's theory hinges on the use of a luma-key. A luma-key works off of the luminance in the video signal (the brightness). The chrominance (color) is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what color the sky appears to be. I've demonstrated, using Ace's exact luma-key method, that his theory cannot replicate what is observable in the live footage.

(By the way, if you believe a luma key won't work with a yellow sky, then you are also saying that Ace's theory won't work, since he uses the same yellow sky footage).

 

Different colors have different luminance.

If you cant get it to work and this is not bull(*)(*)(*)(*) which from what I see is highly unlikely its more like Ace is far better at this than you are since he obviously got it to work and you didnt only proves you cant do what he did.

Using the same video is meaningless as you can make the sky pink if you want so stop trying to fake it.

 

Like I said:



no color changes, simply by changing contrast and brightness, yellow/orange fire on blue sky is not a luma match what so ever.

who ever did that (*)(*)(*)(*) you posted is cheating.

If the above picture is not clear enough I will repeat it for you. the luminance varies with color by definition.

hence whoever did that has their head up their ass and dont know (*)(*)(*)(*) about the subject and had to yellow the sky so it matched close enough to the luma of the fire to force it not to work. Fire on blue sky works just fine.





After this post the only requirement left to come up with the correct answer is a brain.

 

You missed the point totally. Ace didn't get it to work either. Did you even watch my video? He has admitted that my point is correct, that the flame should disappear on the luma-keyed layer. He tries to explain away the problem with a contrived back-story. I explain this in detail in my blog. Also, you're ignoring that his luma-key theory doesn't work at all with the live NBC and CBS footage, footage he simply ignores with no explanation. The guy is a charlatan. His videos are riddled with false claims. His "theory" fails absolutely.

 

There was a debate offer not all that long ago
that was for any academic or scientist to debate
on the side of the official story, no takers.
That makes a statement, also may I direct your
attention to the fact that the jet engines on a 757/767
type aircraft protrude ahead of the leading edge of the wing.
therefore the engine would be first to strike the wall and if
the breaking strength of the attachment of the engine to the
wing, was less than the energy required to penetrate the WTC
wall, then the engine would break off, and quite possibly taking
the wing with it, there are a LOT of variables here, like the angle
that the aircraft ( or alleged aircraft ) struck the wall. In 4 instances
( 2 engines on 2 aircraft ) the jet engines penetrated without breaking
their mounts or tearing off a wing. what are the odds?

Also, you claim that "experimental data" refutes the no-planes position,
can you provide any links to said data? note that there have been various
"documentaries" produced by outfits like the National Geographic channel
and the Discovery Channel ( etc.... ) and these bits have included totally
bogus, rigged demonstrations of applied physics that have been proven
wrong by documented experiments by Johnathan Cole ( and others ).
and on the subject of computer "simulations" computers can be programmed
to do whatever the programmer wants, so these are generally in the category
cartoons and do not demonstrate anything unless of course the producer of
said animation produces ALL of the source data used to make the "simulation".

 

no its you who misses the point entirely.

it DOES work on fire against a blue sky despite the color of the doctored sky in the video, unless of course you think this is not the planet earth and the sky is bright yellow.

It is you who is intentionally deceiving the readers by advertising that it cannot be done not him.

 

yep!

thats precisely correct!

everything that is put out on these topics by the 'experts' is 'half assed trash'.

the fact that the top of wtc 2 should have toppled for instance. kryptonite to debunkers and you will get an argument of substance up to the point where you prove straight down is impossible then the ad hom's magically appear and take over the debate. Just like clockwork. These debunkers are managed plants ya know.

 

Really?...it's already been debunked so, it's not "incontrovertible"...and, it's nothing more than an ignorant assertions. The evidence you claim to have, is nothing more than someone whose hypothesis has been debunked...which means, you're wrong.

If A$$ Backer is right? why is everyone having such a hard time reproducing his claim?

 

People can see the difference between the fake background you are putting up and a real sky.

However its well known debunkers will look at and apple and try to convince everyone its an orange then tell us its been debunked.

think about it, thats why the debunker movement fell on its ass in the first place.

 

It may make a statement in your mind, but proves absolutely nothing. It certainly doesn't address the question I proposed which was, if the plane impacts so obviously violate the laws of physics, why haven't any scientists tried to refute the published research that says otherwise. And why is there not ONE credible physicist, in the entire world, who has studied the evidence and agrees with your position?

Again, you like to speculate about "what would have happened", but until you can support your assertions with some scientific data, you're presenting nothing more than a subjective opinion. My opinion is that you're mistaken.

WTF? I gave you the links already. The articles I provided you are peer-reviewed scientific publications. They're not editorials. The data can be found in the articles themselves. Perhaps you should consider actually reading them before dismissing them as "crap":
Published Scientific Research on the Physics of the World Trade Center Airplane Impacts

 

Do you like the cartoon, pick it up at 1:20 for the airliner into the
building bit, and you believe this stuff?
is it to be totally taken at face value as a description of what happened?

The video totally dismisses the asymmetrical nature of the forces involved,
and doesn't address another issue that is very significant, buildings and
aircraft are both made up of smaller sub-assemblies that have been connected together to make the whole, therefore the skyscraper or aircraft have hard points and not-so-hard points, the lining up of various hard-points and not-so-hard points would matter in the nature of the damage to the aircraft observed at the time, and the lining up of these points would be strictly by chance, its an odds game, roll the dice, and in the case of 9/11/2001
somebody rolled snake-eyes 1,000 times in a row.

 

Falling off the flat earth was peer reviewed too!!!!

That and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee cream and sugar is extra!

LMAO

 

To address this, first of all, it really doesn't take a physicist to
get what is going down here. This is the BIG LIE in perfect form,
you had to include the modifier "credible" physicist in your post
what constitutes "credible" there are people who are retired military
officers, Professional Engineers, school teachers, Fire Fighters,
etc..... who have weighed in on this issue on the side of no planes
having been used as weapons. However, because you choose
to include the modifier "credible" you can dismiss any expert who
doesn't agree with you. I see a lot of "experts" on both sides of the
issue, with probably an even distribution of experts on either side,
and then a HUGE mass of other professionals who have the education,
and the experience + standing in their community to speak out and make
a statement about this issue, however they choose to remain silent because
9/11 is such a controversial issue.

 

What I love about this sort of commentary is that, paradoxically, it totally discredits the no-planer position. The Purdue study is just one of several computer simulations which have been conducted by teams of researchers working independently, using their own models and methods. The results are ALL in agreement that there's nothing unusual about the impacts and penetration of the planes into the twin towers. Purdue's study is unique and a lot more complex, because a major part of their focus was on translating the simulation data into a high fidelity visualization using high-end 3D animation software, a Purdue computer engineering innovation. But the hyperbolic reaction to these studies by no-planers betrays both their ignorance and the feebleness of their position:

- It's "like in a roadrunner cartoon".
- "The video totally dismisses the asymmetrical nature of the forces involved".
- "everything that is put out on these topics by the 'experts' is 'half assed trash'."

Really? If those things are indeed true, and both the video footage of the impacts and ALL the published research on the impacts are obviously complete fabrications with no basis whatsoever in real physics, then proving that should be a total cinch, either analytically using pure mathematics, or with a simple FEA simulation using the most conservative perameters. Conclusive, scientific proof that 9/11 was an inside job is apparently very low hanging fruit, accessible by accurately employing the most basic tools of applied physics. The first person to achieve this would be a world-wide hero for finally and conclusively cracking the 9/11 hoax and exposing the true perpetrators.

So WHY after nearly fifteen years has no-one done this? All we get are the same rhetorical appeals to common sense, but no PROOF, no scientific data, no mathematics, no "accurate" computer simulations, no research studies, NOTHING. Why?

The answer is obvious. The emperor of the no-planer camp has no clothes on.

 

has anyone published the source data, the
real actual source code for the computer simulation?

Because if the source code is not as public as the cartoon
really all you have is a cartoon, nothing more, they hide the
source data because they know that upon examination, the
whole thing would go south so fast.

The fact is that there would have been huge asymmetrical
forces at work on both "FLT11" & "FLT175" and only vehicles
that were designed to penetrate walls would be able to sustain
that sort of penetration otherwise the aircraft would have broken
up before penetrating. Can U say HOLLOW POINT PROJECTILE?

 

Still ignoring what happened to the jet crashing into the cement wall only now you are saying a less solid wall would be more solid to the extent of being able to avoid the law of physics?

 

Its an apples and oranges comparison,
note that in the case of the F4, the aircraft is violently
destroyed in plane site because the target was designed
to not be penetrated, in the case of the alleged "FLT175"
ALL of the destruction of the aircraft is alleged to have happened
inside the building, out of sight, when the facts are given the
asymmetrical forces at work + the 28 gs force on the entire
aircraft, the question gets to be, why is there no visible breaking
up of the aircraft outside the building?
The jet engines are mounted in such a manner as to be in front
of the leading edge of the wing, so the engine would contact the
wall first, and in that condition, the shock of contacting the wall
would be transmitted to the engine mounts and the wing, still
no breakage of mount or wing is to be observed, if any such
breakage were to have happened, there would most definitely
be much more obvious wreckage dropping to street level from
the crash.

Not to mention that an airliner more closely resembles a hollow
point projectile in that the front of the aircraft has the cockpit
and its a hollow space behind the nose and so upon impact
why did the aircraft not do exactly what any hollow point projectile
would do under the circumstances?

 

I am sure you don't see the ridiculous error in your comparison do you?

 

so let me get this straight: all of the photos and videos of the 2nd plane are fake, because the 2nd plane must have been fake.

that's the argument?

 

debunkers do not know enough about physics to know what they should have seen here. LOL



worse they will cry to be taught then when you teach them they will argue with you.

 

So far bob has pretty much proved he knows nothing of aircraft, flight, or physics, so what can you add?

 

Two /TONS of inertia were behind those engines in the split second it took for them to impact

 

35 tons of fuel in the wings alone.

 

AH, but in order to connect that inertia of said fuel, with the engine,
it would have to do so through the engine mount attached to the wing,
this would involve massive asymmetrical forces applied to the point
where the engine mount connects to the wing.