I did provide more than 15. Your argument is silly. Live/raw video of the planes hitting. Explain that away.
watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk WTC 1 impact.
watch?v=w0hGDcGjGpk doug eisler
watch?v=glFk-JjFaT8 Jules Naudet
watch?v=qhfHFDPE1Sg Dwight Chief,Michael Morigi
watch?v=Z8NHM8Ax3Ho Kathlene
Faisel Abed, Anthony Bartolomey ,Evan Fairbank, MURRAY MURAD, Joe Cassaligi, William? Walsh,? Ralph Ramos, Richard Carletti, James Murphy, Barrett Hirsch, Kenneth Davis, many more
80 Tons of aircraft debris? You understand you are misinformed on that right?
What ticks me off is your dis-information is warping the minds of people like Jared Loughner and you don't even care about the consequences. Like some kind of game your playing that messes with people's lives..
More disinformation. Where are these thousands of witnesses? You can't even produce 15 out of the 8 million people in NYC. And ever wonder why none of the wreckage has been officially verified as being from the registered flights? Three guesses? Ok, here it is. There was no plane.
@muzicmaker2001 So heres the thing you are wrong saying 80 tons of debris. FACT
The plane burns 8,000 LBS per hour which is about 1300 gallons. So even say it was flying for 2 hours it would have only burned 2600 gallons out of 30,000 it had on board. FACT
Unless you think NIST is totally 100% accurate. Are you saying that? If you are then you are a psycho believing them on some evidence and saying they lie on others?
I think someone would be a complete moron for taking anything you say as FACT. You tour multiple pages on a quest to defend 911 at all costs, correct? So, you are not exactly a good source for unbiased info. But, NIST was just a reference. This is your fantasy, remember? No plane=no jet fuel=no massive fire=people walking directly on the steel supposedly heated to failure. Its simple if you have a brain.
Clearly you can see watch?v=wu6PVjCZQ3g vortex on both wings but very slight only condensation as all the smoke has risen above the wake zone. Common sense+science.
Facts to back it up:
faa. gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/F0703001. g if
faa. g ov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0703.ht ml (remove spaces)
Boy, I do enjoy analyzing fake or staged clips. First, where is any evidence that this interview occured on 911? Next, why isn't the FDNY truck in the background going towards or at the WTCs? Lastly, isn't it nice how each of the "witnesses" just line up and wait to be interviewed? The big Will Ferrel looking guy at the end is the best. "I know about planes." LOL. Try again..and thanks for the laugh.
@muzicmaker2001 LoL Yes of course your right. So you post one single witness saying "I saw a missile being launched from a plane, then the plane flew off and the missile impacted"
watch?v=-K2TEUPJ1OQ Unless you have any proof it safe to say this was airplanes+fires.. Your the one who needs to keep trying.. or rather start trying to prove your case.
Yes, I will defintely lose some sleep over this post...(snicker)...even though we have two direct examples of wake vortex in this clip. Ya got me...This might help you also..
@muzicmaker2001 No just like a said. Live in New York on 9/11. No one "didn't see a plane" but a shit load saw one hit the buildings:
watch?v=w0hGDcGjGpk doug eisler
watch?v=glFk-JjFaT8 Jules Naudet
watch?v=qhfHFDPE1Sg Dwight Chief,Michael Morigi
watch?v=Z8NHM8Ax3Ho Kathlene
Faisel Abed, Anthony Bartolomey ,Evan Fairbank, MURRAY MURAD, Joe Cassaligi, William? Walsh,? Ralph Ramos, Richard Carletti, James Murphy, Barrett Hirsch, Kenneth Davis, many more
doug eisler-Already addressed. No evidence that it is LIVE footage, staged.
Jules Naudet-I thought it was obvious that a witness can not be someone who filmed the planes? But, note how the impact hole is created AFTER the “plane” enters the building..watch?v=wkZKOqYMbXo
Dwight Chief,Michael Morigi- No evidence that it is live footage
@muzicmaker2001 So again like you demanded of me earlier Live Eyewitness interviews that say the "saw the absence of a plane". Saying the didn't see a plane just means they weren't looking. It in no way proves there wasn't a plane hitting the building.
watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk
watch?v=mdSheSsNays
watch?v=z0BbtYi_I5U
watch?v=7U6KBtzoxp8 Thousands saw the plane hit. I provided live video eyewitness accounts and you can't find one guy in Ny that day that could say it WASN'T a plane?
Isn't it a mystery how people were seen at the impact hole? And these people were seen just moments before the collapse, so they had to walk to the impact hole from another location. So, the question is did they walk over, around or thru the 10,000 gals of jet fuel, plane debris and burning office supplies? It only takes a brain..
@muzicmaker2001 So your going to keep avoiding my question for witness that "saw the absence of a plane"?
The Twoofer party line is the jet fuel burned off in a only a few minutes so of course its possible.
watch?v=xo7iMSd6dLk so you understand the concept of heat rising right? Why do you think people jumped above the impact zones. And you think I need a brain?
So enough bait and switch. Give me live witnesses that saw the absence of a plane.
"Give me live witnesses that saw the absence of a plane"
Plenty here..
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
And isn't jet fuel toxic besides being highly flammable? Hmm. Extreme temps hot enough to bring massive to total failure but couldn't harm the people directly in the impact hole? Really? Yep. seems plausible to me...
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU 1:39 "definitely a plane coming in from the side" No one said there was NO PLANE. They may have said "I didn't see it" meaning they were not outside/not looking up/etc. No one said they saw a missile. No one said "I say there wasn't a plane" Come on..
So you won't provide anyone live witnesses that say "There wasn't a plane"..
Jet fuel isn't toxic. And don't forget will you admit heat RISES?
Reporter watching from the studio: "That looks like a second plane"
Don Dahler from ground level directly in front of the WTC: "I did not see a plane go in. That just exploded."
Frames 4:10-LIVE WITNESS: "NO second plane, it was a BOMB. [pointing to WTC:] BOMB in another building, not second plane. That was a bomb. Who said it was a second plane? NO, I was THERE, I saw everything"
Wait. I thought the magical jet fuel flowed down the building causing all the explosions al throughout the building? Or was that the elevators? Either way, these people over 80 tons of plane debris and a fire ignited by 10,000 gals of jet fuel to get to the impact hole? Is that what you shills are going with?
Jet fuel Inhalation
Immediate inhalation of jet fuel may cause dizziness, fatigue, vomiting and a severe headache. A large inhalation of jet fuel can kill a person.
Wake turbulence Is generated mainly when a plane is moving SLOWLY and at a HIGH ANGLE OF ATTACK not as obvious when at a high speed and low angle of attack so pretty easy to justify not seeing evidence of it.
music maker you are just a silly sheep. you just belive what anyone says, have a debate on the no plane theory with me and lets see what you got. idiot!
Let's start here. Simple physics for dummies. When impacting, aluminum planes don't just melt into a steel walls like a hot knife cutting thru butter with no damage to the plane, no debris falling off and no damage to the building. Easy enough?
@muzicmaker2001 Yes good point. I have a better more realistic version though. To say all the videos were faked is uninmagiabe, How about pre-planned explosives? With remote controlled aircraft.
@muzicmaker2001 This is no doubt the naudet bro's 1st hit video?
ask yourself this..why would they do such fakery in a video that will be released to the world? I have seen many other videos of the tower seconds after impact. It shows the same thing. which is smoke! .I know with all my heart 9/11 was an inside job. But the planes we saw were real. why would they use non commercial planes to make fake videos?. Some vids were faked yes. But not by the media. private message me your best arguement
@pooper2000 matter in motion will keep in motion unless faced with a uposing force. so the wake would follow the aircraft but slow down cause of air risistance . so even if the plane hit the building the vortex would still move. no
Wake vortex are most noticeable when the plane is slow or dirty, much like the wing tip vortices... These planes were going too fast to create them, much less with the sudden stop and pressure wave from the explosion... Anyway, what does it has to do with 911??
Dumbass - the aircraft needs to continue moving past the object to generate a wake vortex anywhere similar to that NASA demonstrations. Would you like some more straws to grasp at?
Wonder if you still observe a vortex effect when the plane stops right on top of the smoking sticks?
Vortex is caused by high air pressure created by the rotating jet turbines. It is pushed BACKWARDS to produce trust you idiot. If you stand under the flight path of an aircraft that is on final, you will be pushed opposite direction of the plane. In order to see vortex on 9/11 the aircraft had to miss the towers.
Tired of explaining high school physics over and over to these retards.
i think you mean its caused by the wing tip drag as the plane lifts. not the rotating jet turbines. and don't bother explaining anything when you're wrong
Wake turbulence is most prevalent at stall speed, The strongest vortices are produced by heavy aircraft flying slowly in a clean configuration at high angles of attack. not VNE.
They space landings every 2 minutes , 3 if it's a light following a heavy.
Also pretty sure a huge explosion 1000 times larger than the aircraft trumps any wake turbulence the same aircraft may have made.
i admire you aproach to actualy question if there was an aircraft or not , and trust me there was
but the aircraft was not a passenger liner
it was one huge RC plane
the whole 9/11 was an inside job but there was a plane that did crash into the towers , think about how much easyer it is to make a 757 radio controlled than to fake hundreds of footage tapes showing a plane hitting the buildings
and like lardman say people saw with the own eyes an aircraft hitting
research. look at all images of the planes. they are obviously poorly constructed CGI images and not a real RC 767. simple physics. aluminum planes don't crash into hard surfaces without showing some damage.
I can't believe people are actually disputing that there was a plane. Of course there was, you know, people actually saw it. Plus, every pilot knows that wing tip vorticies fall to a lower level than the plane itself.
This is ridiculous. The 1st angle doesn't even show where the wake turbulence would be (behind and below the plane) the 2nd shot clearly shows a spiral of smoke forming from 3:20 until the shot is cut off. Stop trying to scare the idiots.
Well as much as I believe 9 11 could hve been a inside job I think there would be more smoke rising from an explosion then the going into a vortex... where would tht smoke go in tht nasa video if there was a explosion nearby.... not the same way...
The plane wings didn't pass near to or more importantly past any smoke. The wings within 1000th second went from cutting through clear blue sky to a state of disintegration contained within a building, they pretty much dissapeared. This posting and others like it have such unstable foundations. Wiith the WTC you need a couple of missles to make them collapse. Here you just need a sentence.
This is straight up retarted. Of course there's no wingtip vorticies in the main area of smoke because the wings were destroyed by that point. If you watch 3:09 at the farthest, lowest left area of smoke, (the only place in which the intact plane had traveled), you can clearly see the smoke spiral as it moves left. This continues after the "wait for it" cut, and is the only place the smoke spirals like that. Disproven, clearly.
Here is the other OBVIOUS face.... wing vortex always fall BELOW the aircraft flight path... the vortex would have developed far below the actual aircraft where there wasn't any fire, etc... One of the worst people around are those armed with "little" knowledge on a subject... wow
another obvious fact. there was absolutely no disturbance at the wtc and at the pentagon. see the above video and others as references as to where vortices are formed.
@yauden Still doesn't acct for the high volume of air being pushed through the turbines, in addition to the turbulence created behind the aircraft that would have hit the face of the building.
Kerosene is hard to ignite, and wouldn't burn fast enough to cause a shock wave in atmospheric conditions.
@IlluminatiSheeple Like I said to Sub40, believe what you want. If you choose to do any more research into this topic and have questions, you are welcome to message me. Peace.
@Sub40H: You conspiracy theorists are comparable to Charles Mansion or Harold Camping.... you have special insight, we normal people will never see it.
@IlluminatiSheeple Well, the flow was seeded; between all the smoke and dust the camera should have caught something - it would be noticeable - they are very strong. You can disturb them and then they come right back. As the plane enters the building, the bound vortex will come right off - parallel to the wall. That explosion would actually run right into the vortex. Even if the explosion disturbed it for a second or two, it would eventually show up.
@IlluminatiSheeple The vortex thing settles it. If there are no vortices, there is no plane. When a real person walks through wet sand, it leaves a temporary footprint; if you see a video of someone walking through sand and leaving no footprints, you have to conclude that the "person" in the video was added-in later. Thus the subtitle, "The Killer Has No Shadow". The killer has exposed himself by leaving "mistakes", i.e., evidence at the scene of the crime.
@IlluminatiSheeple Faked film, proven by the fact there are no vortices. If a video shows images that do not reflect reality, then the videos must be fake.
@IlluminatiSheeple So why don't you help me Professor? Care to exchange valid points rather than throw insults? By using ad hominem attacks you only concede the argument. Lets talk wing-tip vortices...
@Sub40H Incorrect. First, If the wing ceases to produce lift, the bound vortex system about the wing detaches. According to the theorems of Helmholtz: A vortex filament cannot end in the fluid, it must end at a boundary, or go to infinity. So as the wing enters the building, the vortex should detach and be axially perpendicular to the building creating a closed loop in connection with the tip vortices and the starting vortex at the airport. There is absolutely no vortex system in this video.
@CohibaSkeeza: Sorry makes no sense. You are a Physics+Conspiracy nut? Thats awesome! Can I ask you a question? Why majority of the Physicists in this world ignore the 911 conspiracy theories?
@Sub40H I refer you then to any aerodynamics textbook which discusses the vortex system. I'm getting a masters in aerodynamics. Your question about Physicists isn't properly phrased since we don't know what percentage of physicists "ignore" 911 conspiracy theories, nor how many have actually been emotionally/intellectually willing to look into them; but those that "ignore" do so because of their careers - people don't want to rock the boat. Its a very controversial subject as you might imagine.
@Sub40H Hunter Rouse put out some great fluid dynamics videos... For the detachment of the bound vortex when a wing stops consider his film Form, Lift, Drag, and Propulsion {/watch?v=4q5ffroIMMc} at 13:10. You should understand what I said above after seeing this.
@CohibaSkeeza: I hope you will rock the boat once you graduate and reveal the "truth" and shut us suspicious people up! In the meantime, read some Quran also, maybe you will find that Islam is more dangerous and deceptive than your CIA or George Bush.... Thats my version of truth! No i did not graduate in Religious studies, my subject was electronics.
@Sub40H The world is definitely not in danger of being taken over by muslims. We are in danger of a group of very wealthy and powerful people who control the media, start war through false-flag terrorism, crash economies, go around the world stealing resources through "war/spread-democracy", etc. That is the most dangerous force.
@CohibaSkeeza: Thats why I asked you to gain some knowledge about Islam. Muslims wont "take over the world", they will destroy it. They believe in afterlife and they believe revenging the unbelievers will land them in heaven. While we are busy with advancing science and technology, we are unaware how a very small David's stone can kill the whole Goliath world. 9/11 was just a tiny warning. Next maybe a nuke on India or Israel. But even then, you people will probably cry "mossad conspiracy".
@Sub40H I know about Islam, I have studied it, arabic, and know Muslims. None of them are trying to blow up anything. That is why I aked you to understand wake-vortices because 9/11 was not carried out by Muslims, it was a psy-op on the american public to justify an elevated police state, and a justification to invade the countries which have many natural resources and surround Israel. The wars we see now were planned 20+ years ago by people like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger
Gentlemen: Nice music to accompany an otherwise very tragic scene of mass murder. If you observe the smoke billowing from the side of the WTC the airplane impacted, you can see the wake vortices 5-15 sec. after the impact. The most wake is created by the induced drag created when the airplane is flying SLOW, and thus creating the most lift. The aircraft that hit the WTC were flying at close to cruising speed, in excess of 300 knots, and the wake is visibile.
So tired of these 9/11 conspiracies. Tell the people that witnessed it that it was fake. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Big Plane+ Big Plane moving F*CKING FAST+ Lots and lots of fuel+Building= Sh*t Breaking and not many pieces being left over THE END
So what you're saying is, the people that died on the planes actually never existed? And anyone that is "related" to one of the deceased is actually lying in order to aid the government cover up?
Makes total sense.
Also, I'd like to see your degree in aerospace engineering and fluid dynamics.
anyone here actually fly planes? wake turbulence in similar size planes is not a big deal. and so long as your even 1 FT above the other planes path.. the wake will not hit you.
go get even your private pilot license.. you learn all about wake turbulence.
wake turbulance is most prevelant when an aircraft is flying slow, is heavy, and in undisturbed air. The place was probably heavy yes, but was not flying slow, or producing a lot of lift because it was in a fast decent. Also, the air was not "clean" or undisturbed because generally winds aloft are higher than they are on the ground. Also the explosion would have helped mask wake turbulence.
wake turbulance is most prevelant when an aircraft is flying slow, is heavy, and in undisturbed air. The place was probably heavy yes, but was not flying slow, or producing a lot of lift because it was in a fast decent. Also, the air was not "clean" or undisturbed because generally winds aloft are higher than they are on the ground. Also the explosion would have helped mask wake turbulence.
@netsuabc ya and wake falls... not accends.. smoke rises... so they would NOT interact. wake turbulence is not grounds to say it wasnt an airplane... people just blowing "smoke" out there ass and actually dont know what they are talking about. thanks for your comment.
@muzicmaker2001 ok... ready? watch?v=XELamUnF0EU .... ..... If it looks like an airplane, and sounds like an airplane then there is reason to believe its an airplane... If its flying, propelled by audible jet engines, then there is nothing but proof that its a plane.
Ok, that actually looks like a cartoon image of a plane. Where's the detail of the plane? Decals? But, interesting enough, check out the obvious editing in that same clip and ask yourself this. Why would there be editing on a supposedly live clip?
watch?v=X5i07-kHgww
Using your same "if it looks like a duck logic" with this clip. Does it look like a massive 767?
@muzicmaker2001 Wingtip vortexes are strongest when the aircraft is flying slowly, at a high angle of attack (nose high) and with the wing flaps deployed. The aircraft hitting the WTC were in a dive, at high speed and with the flaps stowed. They are still created of course, but they are very weak and unlikely to create a visual vortex in smoke as shown in clips on the subject.
@muzicmaker2001 You really believe that all of the various clips of a plane flying into the WTC are edited? All of the news outlets that had helicopters up in the sky were in on this massive conspiracy? All of the people who captured it on their own cameras? Wow, this is a pretty huge conspiracy. It's amazing the gov't has been able to keep a single one of the conspirators from saying something for 10 years. That's very impressive, considering our gov't is pretty shitty about keeping secrets.
@muzicmaker2001 I just watched both of the videos. The flight path looks the exact same in every clip. The only thing that was different was the timing of when a guy is heard saying "oh my god?"
All of these clips show the same picture. What's your point?
@muzicmaker2001 Why edit a clip to change the voices? How does that further your claim of a conspiracy? All of the clips show the same thing...a plane flying into the WTC. Your theory is basically...not everything makes sense, therefore it has to be a massive conspiracy. Stop listening to uneducated amateurs like Dylan Avery. There's a reason why all reputable scientists think that your conspiracy theory is nonsense. I guess the government paid them all off, right?
His voice was changed, taken away and added in the clip. That's obvious. Why do it, is my question? And my theory is this: A plane hitting a building is not that complicated. It has happened before. In every other instance, the building wins. The majority of the plane does not enter the building while dense parts, like the engines might enter. Either way, there is obvious damage to the plane and the building at impact. This is not the case here: watch?v=2ETZDA2HmyQ
@muzicmaker2001 You don't know who edited the voice or why. The fact that the voice may have been edited does not in any way further a conspiracy. It's irrational to say, "there's no good reason why X should've occurred, so 9/11 was an inside job by the government." The fact that the voice is different does not raise an inference of a conspiracy. Several news organizations show the same clip, and the sound is different in some. This means that 9/11 was an inside job?
Planes don't create significant wingtip vortices unless they are going slowly. For example, during takoffs and landings. That is why there is wake turbulence separation at busy airports. If wake turbulence was significant during cruise flight, airplanes would have great difficulty flying in formation.
9/11/2001 Rest in peace nature laws you will be missed...
welcome in a century where steel melts with lower degrees and alluminium cuts trough steel like butter and where steel show no damage by impact only by explosion..
I like to apply your theory to the AA Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon... Where was the "damage" caused by the vortices? Where was the distribution of debris due to the jet wash of the turbine engines traveling at "full throttle" 500 mph? Why were the light poles only bent and not shattered from the aircraft wings hitting them? Where was the wing debris from them hitting the light poles @ 500 mph? The list of questions goes on and on...
just imagine the wtc front steel wallings and the wings tips made of aluminum was merged swifly with no resistance to the building, just like a cartoon movie. there should be at least we can see from the clip that wing tips will not go inside the building or bounced back to the air some parts of it. man this is absurd really absurd!!
It should be noted also. Wake turbulence is greatest when the aircraft is at slow airspeed, high angle of attack, with flaps extended. Which is why the test videos shown above illustrate aircraft in landing configurations, providing the best test samples. The aircraft on 9/11 were not in this configuration and thus their wake turbulence wouldve have had very minimal effect.
The no plane theory is fucking dumb, and those who support need to have their teeth bashed in with a goddam crowbar.
@muzicmaker2001 - Now thanks, Im busy. Instead why dont you go ahead and explain to the rest of us why your are a delusionally paranoidal worthless sack of fucking dogshit. I'll check back with you some other time.
@muzicmaker2001 - No you pathetic dipshit. What youre failing to understand, is that wake vortices do not occur forward of the aircraft. The video you reference will show vortices in the smoke because the aircraft has flown past the bomb explosions. Wake trubulence always falls down behind and away from the flight path. Because of this, you will not see vortices in the WTC fire, because the fire is forward of the aircraft's last position.
Ya know... I think there's certainly more than meets the eye about 9/11 but this 'no wake vortex' is a dead end.
Wake turbulence occur ONLY while the wings of aircraft are producing lift. They fall behind and below the aircraft and they move with the prevailing wind, (downwind of course). The instant that aircraft hit the building it stopped producing lift. No lift, no wake truculence. Any student pilot knows that.
Smoke rises from the point of impact.. The wake would have been falling.
the smoke is in a high position than the aeroplane, and the wing tip vortex tends to go down. In the first part of the video, in the experiments yo can see the aeroplane passing in across or in high possition from the smoke.
So what hit the towers then? I have relatives that were in dc plane flew over their penthouse home into the pentagon. My neighbor had a business blocks from wtc he heard the first plane hit saw the second hit. Two guys from my church were with NYPD and FDNY were there at ground zero and lost many friends and family in the rescue. Get a life you losers.
So what hit the towers then? I have relatives that were in dc plane flew over their penthouse home into the pentagon. My neighbor had a business blocks from wtc he heard the first plane hit saw the second hit. Two guys from my church were with NYPD and FDNY were there at ground zero and lost many friends and family in the rescue. Get a life you losers.
Hello muzicmaker2001....thanks for your effort to find the truth. what a fool cannot accept, he laughs at, thinking that by his sarcasm he will cover his fear of the truth. You make some good points, we need to question the government, we can no longer accept what we are told. Everyday we are losing our freedoms. It is the duty of a patriot to ask questions...keep asking..not only in these videos and many more there are good solid questins being asked. It was an inside job.
OKAY how about we do some FUCKIN! research here... i have only had flight theory class for 3 days and guess??!!!! you fuckin 8 year old I know why there was no disturbance... you ready... ha... HA!??? you wasted hours of your life editing this and researching for m to prove you wrong in ONE FUCKIN COMMENT. here it is: there is an upper and lower chamber of a wing. ONLY WHEN A PLANE rapidly desends or takes off do these wing tip vertices occur,not when it is traveling straight say,intoa building
@muzicmaker2001 There is nearly enough detail to make that a viable argument! every airplane is different and even the slightest of updraft on an aircraft can cause these but not at such high speeds! Am I going to have to make a fuckin vid comment to prove you wrong once and for all?????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@DeadTallyNo9 As a fellow pilot i can tell you that youre incorrect. They are strongest during takeoff and landing yes but they do still exist during straight and level flight
@DeadTallyNo9 Actually they occur all the time, and infact occur less when the aircraft is decending.. Otherwise, they wouldn bother putting winglets on aircraft as the form drag they create throught a 9 hour flight would waste far more fuel than the induced drag they save on takeoff and landing. Vortices will ocurr as long as the wing is generating lift
@DeadTallyNo9 Are you serious? You're an idiot, how did you even get into flight school. Wake turbulence occurs whenever lift is produced. I am a flying instructor and I teach principals of flight. This is one BIG principal of flight. It is produced by air flowing from H to L; high pressure above the wing, low below the wing. As this air flows around the wingtips (guess what shit for brains, thats the only place it can) it creates vorticies. Wingtip vorticies. Induced drag. Retard.
in my opinion there are barely wake vortexes because the shockwave of the explosions (including the explosives planted in the building) neutralized partly the vortexes.....
9/11 was a complete inside job, by MANY parties. There was a British reporter that announced "A second plane has struck the WTC" TEN MINUTES BEFORE flight 175 hit. How bout that shit?
In the first clip, I did see the remnants of wake turbulence...barely noticeable. With the camera looking up from the ground, you can barely see a vortex as the smoke curls around it, but is overtaken by the explosion...
And yes the plane can go faster than 600 miles an hour in a dive. Will cause structural damage but it can do that. The force of that plane would definetaly penetrate the buildings, the physics check out. the steel where the floors were stays intact, ripping the airplane wings forward and causing it to explode. It wouldnt bounce off the building with all of that inertia. Same way a bunker buster penetrates into the ground.
This theory is bogus. Wing tip vorticies are induced drag and are strongest at slow speeds, high angles of attack, and in landing (flaps, slats) configuration. Its a byproduct of induced drag. It is caused by the mixing of the low and high pressure air from above and below the wing. It wouldn't be very present in a high speed dive, and regardless, the heat of such an exposion would counteract the vorticies tenfold. Its like saying ya dont see a boats wake after a torpedo explodes it. Well Duh!
the L-1011 & the C-5 also had their flaps/slats deployed, however the planes that flew into the towers were going full throttle/thrust @ the time of impact; speed was the primary need for a more dynamic impact........
I think you have this reversed. Planes fly FASTER at higher altitudes because the air is less dense and less resistant. Therefore, less thrust is needed. And at sea level, planes fly considerably slower.
@muzicmaker2001 ha yes true thanks for correcting me. but if a vortex did it all, wheres the missing plane? or planes? i mean i saw it hit the tower as many others did too.
@shess0501 true. even ask the witnesses in NYC they will say that they saw a plane hit the tower, i know i did, the second one tho. so sad.... RIP for thoes who died.
Wingtip vortices sink at about 500 fpm...and they also spread out from the flight path horizontally. Not to mention, the actual "vortex" trails the plane by hundreds of yards. Go to the 23 second mark in the video...Watch the wingtip vortices test.
The L1011 is flying several hundred feet above the tower and the tower is 100 yard closer to the camera than the L1011. This plane is also in slow flight which creates greater wake turbulence.
Perfectly logical...no vis. wake from flight 11 or 175
Wake Turbulence or in this case the lack of wake vortex is something u would expect. Wake turbulence is most commonly produced by heavy aircraft at low velocity & a high angle of attack, or in common terms on take off & landing at slow speeds when they are generating the most lift. An aircraft in a clean configuration (no flaps) travelling at high speed leaves much smaller vortex, which travel down & out from the wingtips. The lack of vortex in this case is sketchy reasoning at best.......
I have a friend that is an aerospace engineer for Boeing, who quite simply stated that they can fly at that speed at that altitude. "It can fly at that speed at that altitude. It is not safe, nor recommended for the aircraft, however I doubt the hijackers cared about that at all"
Leslie Hazzard is the woman (spokesperson) from Boeing on the phone. First, how do you know her knowledge is on 767s and what are your ceredentials to refute her?
Leslie Hazzard is a verified spokesperson for Boeing and actually works for the 767 Communication Department in Seattle. I think she has a pretty good grasp on what 767s can do. Receptionist? Funny...
DUDE ! NO VORTEX BECAUSE THE PLANE WAS DESTROYED !!!!!!!
dylantosta 2 weeks ago
I did provide more than 15. Your argument is silly. Live/raw video of the planes hitting. Explain that away.
watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk WTC 1 impact.
watch?v=w0hGDcGjGpk doug eisler
watch?v=glFk-JjFaT8 Jules Naudet
watch?v=qhfHFDPE1Sg Dwight Chief,Michael Morigi
watch?v=Z8NHM8Ax3Ho Kathlene
Faisel Abed, Anthony Bartolomey ,Evan Fairbank, MURRAY MURAD, Joe Cassaligi, William? Walsh,? Ralph Ramos, Richard Carletti, James Murphy, Barrett Hirsch, Kenneth Davis, many more
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
80 Tons of aircraft debris? You understand you are misinformed on that right?
What ticks me off is your dis-information is warping the minds of people like Jared Loughner and you don't even care about the consequences. Like some kind of game your playing that messes with people's lives..
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
"try between 20-30,000 gallons"
Sounds like you are misinformed?
"you found one guy who contradicts 1000's"
More disinformation. Where are these thousands of witnesses? You can't even produce 15 out of the 8 million people in NYC. And ever wonder why none of the wreckage has been officially verified as being from the registered flights? Three guesses? Ok, here it is. There was no plane.
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 So heres the thing you are wrong saying 80 tons of debris. FACT
The plane burns 8,000 LBS per hour which is about 1300 gallons. So even say it was flying for 2 hours it would have only burned 2600 gallons out of 30,000 it had on board. FACT
Unless you think NIST is totally 100% accurate. Are you saying that? If you are then you are a psycho believing them on some evidence and saying they lie on others?
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
I think someone would be a complete moron for taking anything you say as FACT. You tour multiple pages on a quest to defend 911 at all costs, correct? So, you are not exactly a good source for unbiased info. But, NIST was just a reference. This is your fantasy, remember? No plane=no jet fuel=no massive fire=people walking directly on the steel supposedly heated to failure. Its simple if you have a brain.
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 You don't even know heat rises.. Yes your an expert.
so finally admit Wake Vortex is beneath and behind a plane?
Notice your videos only have smoke generators below the plane?
faa. gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/F0703001. g if
faa. g ov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0703.ht ml (remove spaces)
Every lie you spout is so easily proven wrong.. Not sure why you even try.
MrRexquando 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Will you admit that Wake Vortex only occurs below and behind an aircraft?
Notice your videos only have smoke generators below the plane?
faa. gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/F0703001. g if
faa. g ov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0703.ht ml (remove spaces)
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Will you admit that Wake Vortex only occurs below and behind an aircraft?
Notice your videos only have smoke generators below the plane?
faa. gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/F0703001. g if
faa. g ov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0703.ht ml (remove spaces)
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Clearly you can see watch?v=wu6PVjCZQ3g vortex on both wings but very slight only condensation as all the smoke has risen above the wake zone. Common sense+science.
Facts to back it up:
faa. gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/F0703001. g if
faa. g ov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0703.ht ml (remove spaces)
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
How are you coming with those witnesses?
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
So at 2:42 and 2:50 clear evidence of curling air is seen. Of course as your example shows the best way to see it is from behind and below the plane.
watch?v=MPXp9Y9s6pA
watch?v=A2unTcZnY30 :24 seconds you can clearly see the smoke above get pulled down.
watch?v=hpQvyam1gVI hard to explain bodies in the street with a plane impact no?
watch?v=waUdp1ysIFo
Looks like your wrong again..
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
I see air moving normally with the force of the wind. No air funnels created at all. And did you know that many people jumped from the Towers?
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 People saw bodies decapitated by plane debris. Yes people jumped.
watch?v=w0hGDcGjGpk
So do some research. Wake Vortex only occurs below the plane.
faa. gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/F0703001. g if
faa. g ov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0703.ht ml (remove spaces)
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
"watch?v=w0hGDcGjGpk"
Boy, I do enjoy analyzing fake or staged clips. First, where is any evidence that this interview occured on 911? Next, why isn't the FDNY truck in the background going towards or at the WTCs? Lastly, isn't it nice how each of the "witnesses" just line up and wait to be interviewed? The big Will Ferrel looking guy at the end is the best. "I know about planes." LOL. Try again..and thanks for the laugh.
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 LoL Yes of course your right. So you post one single witness saying "I saw a missile being launched from a plane, then the plane flew off and the missile impacted"
watch?v=-K2TEUPJ1OQ Unless you have any proof it safe to say this was airplanes+fires.. Your the one who needs to keep trying.. or rather start trying to prove your case.
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
Your link seems to be just another staged and planned interview.
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
And you came to this page attempting to disprove this. Not the other way around, remember?
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 No a live interview from NewYork like I provided to you.
I did disprove your feeble theory. Vortex only occur below and behind. Like all pilots know.
faa. gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/F0703001. g if
faa. g ov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0703.ht ml (remove spaces)
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
Ok. Good luck on the next 911 page you visit. You didn't do so well here...
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 Sweet. So you are pretty shaken up by this huh?
You "demanded" interview proof on your other video and yet you can't provide what you say you have?
Did you see the FAA articles about wake turbulence (vortex)? Did you see how they only occur behind/below?
How can you spread these lies with a clear conscience?
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
Yes, I will defintely lose some sleep over this post...(snicker)...even though we have two direct examples of wake vortex in this clip. Ya got me...This might help you also..
watch?v=Xlj1mVD2-HM
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 All those examples are just as I said. Wake is ALWAYS below and behind. Like all pilots know.
faa. gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/F0703001. g if
faa. g ov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0703.ht ml (remove spaces)
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
Here ya go. Witnesses that did not see a plane..
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 No just like a said. Live in New York on 9/11. No one "didn't see a plane" but a shit load saw one hit the buildings:
watch?v=w0hGDcGjGpk doug eisler
watch?v=glFk-JjFaT8 Jules Naudet
watch?v=qhfHFDPE1Sg Dwight Chief,Michael Morigi
watch?v=Z8NHM8Ax3Ho Kathlene
Faisel Abed, Anthony Bartolomey ,Evan Fairbank, MURRAY MURAD, Joe Cassaligi, William? Walsh,? Ralph Ramos, Richard Carletti, James Murphy, Barrett Hirsch, Kenneth Davis, many more
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
doug eisler-Already addressed. No evidence that it is LIVE footage, staged.
Jules Naudet-I thought it was obvious that a witness can not be someone who filmed the planes? But, note how the impact hole is created AFTER the “plane” enters the building..watch?v=wkZKOqYMbXo
Dwight Chief,Michael Morigi- No evidence that it is live footage
Kathlene-“I saw SOMETHING push the building in.”
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 So you are admitting you have NO live interviews on 911 that a plane DIDN'T hit the towers?
Come clean Twoofer your in a corner..
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
Witnesses that did not see a plane..
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 So again like you demanded of me earlier Live Eyewitness interviews that say the "saw the absence of a plane". Saying the didn't see a plane just means they weren't looking. It in no way proves there wasn't a plane hitting the building.
watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk
watch?v=mdSheSsNays
watch?v=z0BbtYi_I5U
watch?v=7U6KBtzoxp8 Thousands saw the plane hit. I provided live video eyewitness accounts and you can't find one guy in Ny that day that could say it WASN'T a plane?
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
Isn't it a mystery how people were seen at the impact hole? And these people were seen just moments before the collapse, so they had to walk to the impact hole from another location. So, the question is did they walk over, around or thru the 10,000 gals of jet fuel, plane debris and burning office supplies? It only takes a brain..
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 So your going to keep avoiding my question for witness that "saw the absence of a plane"?
The Twoofer party line is the jet fuel burned off in a only a few minutes so of course its possible.
watch?v=xo7iMSd6dLk so you understand the concept of heat rising right? Why do you think people jumped above the impact zones. And you think I need a brain?
So enough bait and switch. Give me live witnesses that saw the absence of a plane.
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
"Give me live witnesses that saw the absence of a plane"
Plenty here..
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
And isn't jet fuel toxic besides being highly flammable? Hmm. Extreme temps hot enough to bring massive to total failure but couldn't harm the people directly in the impact hole? Really? Yep. seems plausible to me...
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU 1:39 "definitely a plane coming in from the side" No one said there was NO PLANE. They may have said "I didn't see it" meaning they were not outside/not looking up/etc. No one said they saw a missile. No one said "I say there wasn't a plane" Come on..
So you won't provide anyone live witnesses that say "There wasn't a plane"..
Jet fuel isn't toxic. And don't forget will you admit heat RISES?
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
Frames 1:25-1:35 CORRECTION:
Reporter watching from the studio: "That looks like a second plane"
Don Dahler from ground level directly in front of the WTC: "I did not see a plane go in. That just exploded."
Frames 4:10-LIVE WITNESS: "NO second plane, it was a BOMB. [pointing to WTC:] BOMB in another building, not second plane. That was a bomb. Who said it was a second plane? NO, I was THERE, I saw everything"
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
Wait. I thought the magical jet fuel flowed down the building causing all the explosions al throughout the building? Or was that the elevators? Either way, these people over 80 tons of plane debris and a fire ignited by 10,000 gals of jet fuel to get to the impact hole? Is that what you shills are going with?
Jet fuel Inhalation
Immediate inhalation of jet fuel may cause dizziness, fatigue, vomiting and a severe headache. A large inhalation of jet fuel can kill a person.
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 Bait/switch.. Where are these witnesses you claim say there wasn't an airplane?
Skin contact won't hurt you. Twoofers say the jet fuel burned off in minutes..
80 tons? Try 200 tons. 10,000? try between 20-30,000 gallons. You don't know much about 911 do you?
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
@MrRexquando
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU Frame 4:10-"NO second plane, it was a BOMB"=no plane, ok?
And NIST (not truthers) says the jet fuel burned off in minutes.
“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes" NIST, Sep 2005, PP 183
"But the jet fuel itself burnt in a matter of minutes, within less than ten minutes." -Lead Investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder, NIST
"Flight 11 carrying about 10,000 gals" (source:NIST NCSTAR1-5)
Know much about 911?
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 :53 "I could actually see something going into the building"
You ok great you found one guy who contradicts 1000's. This proves what? That you have a 99.9% failure rate with your hypothesis.
Like you asked me on your other video "Show me 15" witnesses. One? Your a joke.
watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk
watch?v=mdSheSsNays
watch?v=z0BbtYi_I5U
watch?v=7U6KBtzoxp8
Video+witnesses saw a plane hit the building.
MrRexquando 3 weeks ago
Wake turbulence Is generated mainly when a plane is moving SLOWLY and at a HIGH ANGLE OF ATTACK not as obvious when at a high speed and low angle of attack so pretty easy to justify not seeing evidence of it.
ChristiaanYo 1 month ago
music maker you are just a silly sheep. you just belive what anyone says, have a debate on the no plane theory with me and lets see what you got. idiot!
ChristianHolloway7 1 month ago
@ChristianHolloway7
Let's start here. Simple physics for dummies. When impacting, aluminum planes don't just melt into a steel walls like a hot knife cutting thru butter with no damage to the plane, no debris falling off and no damage to the building. Easy enough?
watch?v=2ETZDA2HmyQ
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Yes good point. I have a better more realistic version though. To say all the videos were faked is uninmagiabe, How about pre-planned explosives? With remote controlled aircraft.
ChristianHolloway7 1 month ago
@ChristianHolloway7
You're getting warmer. Note how the plane shaped hole is created AFTER the plane has impacted/entered the building..
watch?v=wkZKOqYMbXo
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 This is no doubt the naudet bro's 1st hit video?
ask yourself this..why would they do such fakery in a video that will be released to the world? I have seen many other videos of the tower seconds after impact. It shows the same thing. which is smoke! .I know with all my heart 9/11 was an inside job. But the planes we saw were real. why would they use non commercial planes to make fake videos?. Some vids were faked yes. But not by the media. private message me your best arguement
ChristianHolloway7 1 month ago
@ChristianHolloway7
If you are really interested in this, watch the entire No Plane Truth series, use some logic and get back to me. That is my best arguement.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Is every video showing a plane hitting the two towers fake?
ChristianHolloway7 1 month ago
the vortex only has a noticeable affect after the plane has passed, the aircraft did not pass the towers, they crashed into them.
pooper2000 2 months ago
@pooper2000 matter in motion will keep in motion unless faced with a uposing force. so the wake would follow the aircraft but slow down cause of air risistance . so even if the plane hit the building the vortex would still move. no
dogsofwarclan 1 month ago
Wake vortex are most noticeable when the plane is slow or dirty, much like the wing tip vortices... These planes were going too fast to create them, much less with the sudden stop and pressure wave from the explosion... Anyway, what does it has to do with 911??
RFTAEC100 2 months ago
Dumbass - the aircraft needs to continue moving past the object to generate a wake vortex anywhere similar to that NASA demonstrations. Would you like some more straws to grasp at?
demoninepro99p 2 months ago
Irrelevant.
imbok 2 months ago
Wonder if you still observe a vortex effect when the plane stops right on top of the smoking sticks?
Vortex is caused by high air pressure created by the rotating jet turbines. It is pushed BACKWARDS to produce trust you idiot. If you stand under the flight path of an aircraft that is on final, you will be pushed opposite direction of the plane. In order to see vortex on 9/11 the aircraft had to miss the towers.
Tired of explaining high school physics over and over to these retards.
serhanogan 2 months ago
@serhanogan
i think you mean its caused by the wing tip drag as the plane lifts. not the rotating jet turbines. and don't bother explaining anything when you're wrong
seeknthetruth 2 months ago
change the song to "Dream On"
Wake turbulence is most prevalent at stall speed, The strongest vortices are produced by heavy aircraft flying slowly in a clean configuration at high angles of attack. not VNE.
They space landings every 2 minutes , 3 if it's a light following a heavy.
Also pretty sure a huge explosion 1000 times larger than the aircraft trumps any wake turbulence the same aircraft may have made.
jwboll 2 months ago
i admire you aproach to actualy question if there was an aircraft or not , and trust me there was
but the aircraft was not a passenger liner
it was one huge RC plane
the whole 9/11 was an inside job but there was a plane that did crash into the towers , think about how much easyer it is to make a 757 radio controlled than to fake hundreds of footage tapes showing a plane hitting the buildings
and like lardman say people saw with the own eyes an aircraft hitting
nice video tho
RotorHead2652 2 months ago
@RotorHead2652
research. look at all images of the planes. they are obviously poorly constructed CGI images and not a real RC 767. simple physics. aluminum planes don't crash into hard surfaces without showing some damage.
seeknthetruth 2 months ago
I can't believe people are actually disputing that there was a plane. Of course there was, you know, people actually saw it. Plus, every pilot knows that wing tip vorticies fall to a lower level than the plane itself.
lardman2228 2 months ago
wind is going to do DIFFERENT SHIT with no buildings around.
Newlolz989 4 months ago
This is ridiculous. The 1st angle doesn't even show where the wake turbulence would be (behind and below the plane) the 2nd shot clearly shows a spiral of smoke forming from 3:20 until the shot is cut off. Stop trying to scare the idiots.
xxdjkloxx 4 months ago
whats the song and artist from the audio?
SilentKek 4 months ago
@SilentKek
Its "Inside job" by Don Henley
muzicmaker2001 4 months ago
@beachcomber2008 ur just as far off lol look if u don't Kno now u kno niga
fox64057 4 months ago
Well as much as I believe 9 11 could hve been a inside job I think there would be more smoke rising from an explosion then the going into a vortex... where would tht smoke go in tht nasa video if there was a explosion nearby.... not the same way...
fox64057 4 months ago
I suspect the wake vortex would have been disturbed by the impact shockwave, and the expulsion of air and debris from the building floor.
Samsonelles1 5 months ago
Shit.
A video claiming the absence of something I can SEE
Namely
.
A WAKE VORTEX
.
People are getting crazier and crazier
beachcomber2008 5 months ago
also the blast shock wave will dominate
simon3314 7 months ago
The plane wings didn't pass near to or more importantly past any smoke. The wings within 1000th second went from cutting through clear blue sky to a state of disintegration contained within a building, they pretty much dissapeared. This posting and others like it have such unstable foundations. Wiith the WTC you need a couple of missles to make them collapse. Here you just need a sentence.
simon3314 7 months ago
haha... lot of bullshit
stratu 7 months ago
This is straight up retarted. Of course there's no wingtip vorticies in the main area of smoke because the wings were destroyed by that point. If you watch 3:09 at the farthest, lowest left area of smoke, (the only place in which the intact plane had traveled), you can clearly see the smoke spiral as it moves left. This continues after the "wait for it" cut, and is the only place the smoke spirals like that. Disproven, clearly.
proaudiohd 8 months ago
For you smart people who believe in the "truth" of conspiracy theories: watch?v=eIesXORjBps ....Its all because of the Jews!
Sub40H 8 months ago
Sorry meant obvious "fact"
yauden 8 months ago
Here is the other OBVIOUS face.... wing vortex always fall BELOW the aircraft flight path... the vortex would have developed far below the actual aircraft where there wasn't any fire, etc... One of the worst people around are those armed with "little" knowledge on a subject... wow
yauden 8 months ago
@yauden
another obvious fact. there was absolutely no disturbance at the wtc and at the pentagon. see the above video and others as references as to where vortices are formed.
seeknthetruth 8 months ago
@yauden Still doesn't acct for the high volume of air being pushed through the turbines, in addition to the turbulence created behind the aircraft that would have hit the face of the building.
Kerosene is hard to ignite, and wouldn't burn fast enough to cause a shock wave in atmospheric conditions.
cheerdiver 6 months ago
@IlluminatiSheeple Like I said to Sub40, believe what you want. If you choose to do any more research into this topic and have questions, you are welcome to message me. Peace.
CohibaSkeeza 8 months ago
What about the rockets fired to Israel every other day and Mumbai attacks that killed 200 in India, carried out by CIA as well I guess?
Sub40H 8 months ago
@Sub40H: You conspiracy theorists are comparable to Charles Mansion or Harold Camping.... you have special insight, we normal people will never see it.
Sub40H 8 months ago
@IlluminatiSheeple Well, the flow was seeded; between all the smoke and dust the camera should have caught something - it would be noticeable - they are very strong. You can disturb them and then they come right back. As the plane enters the building, the bound vortex will come right off - parallel to the wall. That explosion would actually run right into the vortex. Even if the explosion disturbed it for a second or two, it would eventually show up.
CohibaSkeeza 8 months ago
@IlluminatiSheeple The vortex thing settles it. If there are no vortices, there is no plane. When a real person walks through wet sand, it leaves a temporary footprint; if you see a video of someone walking through sand and leaving no footprints, you have to conclude that the "person" in the video was added-in later. Thus the subtitle, "The Killer Has No Shadow". The killer has exposed himself by leaving "mistakes", i.e., evidence at the scene of the crime.
CohibaSkeeza 8 months ago
@IlluminatiSheeple Faked film, proven by the fact there are no vortices. If a video shows images that do not reflect reality, then the videos must be fake.
CohibaSkeeza 8 months ago
@IlluminatiSheeple So why don't you help me Professor? Care to exchange valid points rather than throw insults? By using ad hominem attacks you only concede the argument. Lets talk wing-tip vortices...
CohibaSkeeza 8 months ago
The vortex forms about 15 seconds after the plane passes by. The plane in 9/11 did not pass by. It stopped at the building.
Sub40H 8 months ago
@Sub40H Incorrect. First, If the wing ceases to produce lift, the bound vortex system about the wing detaches. According to the theorems of Helmholtz: A vortex filament cannot end in the fluid, it must end at a boundary, or go to infinity. So as the wing enters the building, the vortex should detach and be axially perpendicular to the building creating a closed loop in connection with the tip vortices and the starting vortex at the airport. There is absolutely no vortex system in this video.
CohibaSkeeza 8 months ago 11
@CohibaSkeeza: Sorry makes no sense. You are a Physics+Conspiracy nut? Thats awesome! Can I ask you a question? Why majority of the Physicists in this world ignore the 911 conspiracy theories?
Sub40H 8 months ago
@Sub40H I refer you then to any aerodynamics textbook which discusses the vortex system. I'm getting a masters in aerodynamics. Your question about Physicists isn't properly phrased since we don't know what percentage of physicists "ignore" 911 conspiracy theories, nor how many have actually been emotionally/intellectually willing to look into them; but those that "ignore" do so because of their careers - people don't want to rock the boat. Its a very controversial subject as you might imagine.
CohibaSkeeza 8 months ago
@Sub40H Hunter Rouse put out some great fluid dynamics videos... For the detachment of the bound vortex when a wing stops consider his film Form, Lift, Drag, and Propulsion {/watch?v=4q5ffroIMMc} at 13:10. You should understand what I said above after seeing this.
CohibaSkeeza 8 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza: I hope you will rock the boat once you graduate and reveal the "truth" and shut us suspicious people up! In the meantime, read some Quran also, maybe you will find that Islam is more dangerous and deceptive than your CIA or George Bush.... Thats my version of truth! No i did not graduate in Religious studies, my subject was electronics.
Sub40H 8 months ago
@Sub40H The world is definitely not in danger of being taken over by muslims. We are in danger of a group of very wealthy and powerful people who control the media, start war through false-flag terrorism, crash economies, go around the world stealing resources through "war/spread-democracy", etc. That is the most dangerous force.
CohibaSkeeza 8 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza: Thats why I asked you to gain some knowledge about Islam. Muslims wont "take over the world", they will destroy it. They believe in afterlife and they believe revenging the unbelievers will land them in heaven. While we are busy with advancing science and technology, we are unaware how a very small David's stone can kill the whole Goliath world. 9/11 was just a tiny warning. Next maybe a nuke on India or Israel. But even then, you people will probably cry "mossad conspiracy".
Sub40H 8 months ago
@Sub40H I know about Islam, I have studied it, arabic, and know Muslims. None of them are trying to blow up anything. That is why I aked you to understand wake-vortices because 9/11 was not carried out by Muslims, it was a psy-op on the american public to justify an elevated police state, and a justification to invade the countries which have many natural resources and surround Israel. The wars we see now were planned 20+ years ago by people like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger
CohibaSkeeza 8 months ago
hey whats the first song
eduardoobregon 8 months ago
Gentlemen: Nice music to accompany an otherwise very tragic scene of mass murder. If you observe the smoke billowing from the side of the WTC the airplane impacted, you can see the wake vortices 5-15 sec. after the impact. The most wake is created by the induced drag created when the airplane is flying SLOW, and thus creating the most lift. The aircraft that hit the WTC were flying at close to cruising speed, in excess of 300 knots, and the wake is visibile.
777Dawood 9 months ago
But, there is a vortex following empact. Silly waste of time.
howwmoor 9 months ago
So tired of these 9/11 conspiracies. Tell the people that witnessed it that it was fake. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Big Plane+ Big Plane moving F*CKING FAST+ Lots and lots of fuel+Building= Sh*t Breaking and not many pieces being left over THE END
ChristewieTV 9 months ago
wake turbulence is most prevalent in still air, not air that has the shit blown out of it.
jwboll 9 months ago
So what you're saying is, the people that died on the planes actually never existed? And anyone that is "related" to one of the deceased is actually lying in order to aid the government cover up?
Makes total sense.
Also, I'd like to see your degree in aerospace engineering and fluid dynamics.
RandC48 9 months ago
anyone here actually fly planes? wake turbulence in similar size planes is not a big deal. and so long as your even 1 FT above the other planes path.. the wake will not hit you.
go get even your private pilot license.. you learn all about wake turbulence.
gowill2 11 months ago
DENIAL ... ANGER ... REVENGE
MrSchpankme 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wake turbulance is most prevelant when an aircraft is flying slow, is heavy, and in undisturbed air. The place was probably heavy yes, but was not flying slow, or producing a lot of lift because it was in a fast decent. Also, the air was not "clean" or undisturbed because generally winds aloft are higher than they are on the ground. Also the explosion would have helped mask wake turbulence.
netsuabc 1 year ago
wake turbulance is most prevelant when an aircraft is flying slow, is heavy, and in undisturbed air. The place was probably heavy yes, but was not flying slow, or producing a lot of lift because it was in a fast decent. Also, the air was not "clean" or undisturbed because generally winds aloft are higher than they are on the ground. Also the explosion would have helped mask wake turbulence.
netsuabc 1 year ago
@netsuabc ya and wake falls... not accends.. smoke rises... so they would NOT interact. wake turbulence is not grounds to say it wasnt an airplane... people just blowing "smoke" out there ass and actually dont know what they are talking about. thanks for your comment.
gowill2 11 months ago
Comment removed
speedfreak2105 1 year ago
@speedfreak2105
is the world filled with morons like this?
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
Your physics education lacks, first of all. Secondly, the proof of there being a plane is the sound, and actually SEEING the plane.
ShawnyMartin 1 year ago
@ShawnyMartin
"Secondly, the proof of there being a plane is the sound,"
watch?v=1m_gP193FnA
"and actually SEEING the plane"
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago 18
@muzicmaker2001 ok... ready? watch?v=XELamUnF0EU .... ..... If it looks like an airplane, and sounds like an airplane then there is reason to believe its an airplane... If its flying, propelled by audible jet engines, then there is nothing but proof that its a plane.
ShawnyMartin 1 year ago
@ShawnyMartin
Ok, that actually looks like a cartoon image of a plane. Where's the detail of the plane? Decals? But, interesting enough, check out the obvious editing in that same clip and ask yourself this. Why would there be editing on a supposedly live clip?
watch?v=X5i07-kHgww
Using your same "if it looks like a duck logic" with this clip. Does it look like a massive 767?
watch?v=gKvTep2cdF8
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago 4
@ShawnyMartin
From the clip ypu just posted, here's how they did it..
watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Wingtip vortexes are strongest when the aircraft is flying slowly, at a high angle of attack (nose high) and with the wing flaps deployed. The aircraft hitting the WTC were in a dive, at high speed and with the flaps stowed. They are still created of course, but they are very weak and unlikely to create a visual vortex in smoke as shown in clips on the subject.
greenalastair737 7 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 You really believe that all of the various clips of a plane flying into the WTC are edited? All of the news outlets that had helicopters up in the sky were in on this massive conspiracy? All of the people who captured it on their own cameras? Wow, this is a pretty huge conspiracy. It's amazing the gov't has been able to keep a single one of the conspirators from saying something for 10 years. That's very impressive, considering our gov't is pretty shitty about keeping secrets.
navid500 5 months ago
@navid500
Here's some obvious audio editing..
watch?v=X5i07-kHgww
And its easy. Just compare the different flight paths of the same plane, Flight 175..
watch?v=QRpcIZBSAfU
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 I just watched both of the videos. The flight path looks the exact same in every clip. The only thing that was different was the timing of when a guy is heard saying "oh my god?"
All of these clips show the same picture. What's your point?
navid500 5 months ago
@navid500
Uhh, no. One clip, OMG is not heard at all. That is called editing. Why edit a "live" clip?
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Why edit a clip to change the voices? How does that further your claim of a conspiracy? All of the clips show the same thing...a plane flying into the WTC. Your theory is basically...not everything makes sense, therefore it has to be a massive conspiracy. Stop listening to uneducated amateurs like Dylan Avery. There's a reason why all reputable scientists think that your conspiracy theory is nonsense. I guess the government paid them all off, right?
navid500 5 months ago
@navid500
His voice was changed, taken away and added in the clip. That's obvious. Why do it, is my question? And my theory is this: A plane hitting a building is not that complicated. It has happened before. In every other instance, the building wins. The majority of the plane does not enter the building while dense parts, like the engines might enter. Either way, there is obvious damage to the plane and the building at impact. This is not the case here: watch?v=2ETZDA2HmyQ
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 You don't know who edited the voice or why. The fact that the voice may have been edited does not in any way further a conspiracy. It's irrational to say, "there's no good reason why X should've occurred, so 9/11 was an inside job by the government." The fact that the voice is different does not raise an inference of a conspiracy. Several news organizations show the same clip, and the sound is different in some. This means that 9/11 was an inside job?
navid500 5 months ago
@navid500
No, planes behaving like Wile E. Coyote is flying them is just part of the reason. And just curious. Why do you care if anyone questions 911?
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 I don't care. I just pass time at work by pointing out how ridiculous your beliefs are.
navid500 5 months ago
@navid500
Have you ever played tetris?
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
Planes don't create significant wingtip vortices unless they are going slowly. For example, during takoffs and landings. That is why there is wake turbulence separation at busy airports. If wake turbulence was significant during cruise flight, airplanes would have great difficulty flying in formation.
sativawarrior 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sativawarrior
"If wake turbulence was significant during cruise flight, airplanes would have great difficulty flying in formation."
Which should be the case for the cgi jetline in WTC at sea level. It went above the maximum controllable speed is physically impossible.
Tippotipo 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShawnyMartin So. Did you SEE it?? Tell us about it.
noonesflower 9 months ago
9/11/2001 Rest in peace nature laws you will be missed...
welcome in a century where steel melts with lower degrees and alluminium cuts trough steel like butter and where steel show no damage by impact only by explosion..
earlygabba 1 year ago 7
I like to apply your theory to the AA Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon... Where was the "damage" caused by the vortices? Where was the distribution of debris due to the jet wash of the turbine engines traveling at "full throttle" 500 mph? Why were the light poles only bent and not shattered from the aircraft wings hitting them? Where was the wing debris from them hitting the light poles @ 500 mph? The list of questions goes on and on...
JDAytche1 1 year ago
lets use common sense here: Am I the only person that saw the airplane go into the tower?
plane63 1 year ago
just imagine the wtc front steel wallings and the wings tips made of aluminum was merged swifly with no resistance to the building, just like a cartoon movie. there should be at least we can see from the clip that wing tips will not go inside the building or bounced back to the air some parts of it. man this is absurd really absurd!!
KelvongKlein 1 year ago 17
It should be noted also. Wake turbulence is greatest when the aircraft is at slow airspeed, high angle of attack, with flaps extended. Which is why the test videos shown above illustrate aircraft in landing configurations, providing the best test samples. The aircraft on 9/11 were not in this configuration and thus their wake turbulence wouldve have had very minimal effect.
The no plane theory is fucking dumb, and those who support need to have their teeth bashed in with a goddam crowbar.
RoninHawk 1 year ago
@RoninHawk
Using simple physics, explain it...
watch?v=IObpyT4oRKk
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago 10
@muzicmaker2001 - Now thanks, Im busy. Instead why dont you go ahead and explain to the rest of us why your are a delusionally paranoidal worthless sack of fucking dogshit. I'll check back with you some other time.
RoninHawk 1 year ago
@RoninHawk
Good answer..stick to your chemtrails
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
The wake vortex is PLAINLY VISIBLE at work upon the rising smoke from the aircraft fuel explosion
You have NOT picked the shot that shows it, liars that you are
Once the correct shot is seen the wave vortex isn't easily forgotten, as it braids and twists with the vortext from the other wing
Both vortices stop at the impact face
So WHY show a shot which doesn't show it?
Answer: ONLY if you don't want anyone to see it
watch?v=eI8u-I0GWs4
Exactly 1 minute in shows a PERFECT wave vortex
Liar
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
Dude... the vortex get canceled or get disturbed by the shockwave..
bhanubhanu 1 year ago
@bhanubhanu
Vortices formed after a bomb is dropped thru an explosion (frame 1:35):
watch?v=Xlj1mVD2-HM
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 - No you pathetic dipshit. What youre failing to understand, is that wake vortices do not occur forward of the aircraft. The video you reference will show vortices in the smoke because the aircraft has flown past the bomb explosions. Wake trubulence always falls down behind and away from the flight path. Because of this, you will not see vortices in the WTC fire, because the fire is forward of the aircraft's last position.
RoninHawk 1 year ago
Ya know... I think there's certainly more than meets the eye about 9/11 but this 'no wake vortex' is a dead end.
Wake turbulence occur ONLY while the wings of aircraft are producing lift. They fall behind and below the aircraft and they move with the prevailing wind, (downwind of course). The instant that aircraft hit the building it stopped producing lift. No lift, no wake truculence. Any student pilot knows that.
Smoke rises from the point of impact.. The wake would have been falling.
thechodeman 1 year ago
@thechodeman
"No lift, no wake truculence. Any student pilot knows that."
watch?v=Dpp8NYcNGNk
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
You a fucking retard to think that no planes hit the tower!
stardragon117 1 year ago
the smoke is in a high position than the aeroplane, and the wing tip vortex tends to go down. In the first part of the video, in the experiments yo can see the aeroplane passing in across or in high possition from the smoke.
(sorry for my english)
acoder 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So what hit the towers then? I have relatives that were in dc plane flew over their penthouse home into the pentagon. My neighbor had a business blocks from wtc he heard the first plane hit saw the second hit. Two guys from my church were with NYPD and FDNY were there at ground zero and lost many friends and family in the rescue. Get a life you losers.
welchdano 1 year ago
So what hit the towers then? I have relatives that were in dc plane flew over their penthouse home into the pentagon. My neighbor had a business blocks from wtc he heard the first plane hit saw the second hit. Two guys from my church were with NYPD and FDNY were there at ground zero and lost many friends and family in the rescue. Get a life you losers.
welchdano 1 year ago
Hello muzicmaker2001....thanks for your effort to find the truth. what a fool cannot accept, he laughs at, thinking that by his sarcasm he will cover his fear of the truth. You make some good points, we need to question the government, we can no longer accept what we are told. Everyday we are losing our freedoms. It is the duty of a patriot to ask questions...keep asking..not only in these videos and many more there are good solid questins being asked. It was an inside job.
bdyan53 1 year ago
All three 9/11 clips are cut too short. The NASA clock shows 45 secs. before the "curl" 1:11
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
YOU PPL NEED HELP
NOTSODOTCALM 1 year ago
Is this dude retarded?
xelifhelif1 1 year ago
I'd love to see tha in real life
Charmedlassie18 1 year ago
OKAY how about we do some FUCKIN! research here... i have only had flight theory class for 3 days and guess??!!!! you fuckin 8 year old I know why there was no disturbance... you ready... ha... HA!??? you wasted hours of your life editing this and researching for m to prove you wrong in ONE FUCKIN COMMENT. here it is: there is an upper and lower chamber of a wing. ONLY WHEN A PLANE rapidly desends or takes off do these wing tip vertices occur,not when it is traveling straight say,intoa building
DeadTallyNo9 1 year ago
@DeadTallyNo9
watch?v=Dpp8NYcNGNk
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 There is nearly enough detail to make that a viable argument! every airplane is different and even the slightest of updraft on an aircraft can cause these but not at such high speeds! Am I going to have to make a fuckin vid comment to prove you wrong once and for all?????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DeadTallyNo9 1 year ago
@DeadTallyNo9 As a fellow pilot i can tell you that youre incorrect. They are strongest during takeoff and landing yes but they do still exist during straight and level flight
keeevan 1 year ago
@DeadTallyNo9 Actually they occur all the time, and infact occur less when the aircraft is decending.. Otherwise, they wouldn bother putting winglets on aircraft as the form drag they create throught a 9 hour flight would waste far more fuel than the induced drag they save on takeoff and landing. Vortices will ocurr as long as the wing is generating lift
05u16hep 1 year ago
@DeadTallyNo9 Are you serious? You're an idiot, how did you even get into flight school. Wake turbulence occurs whenever lift is produced. I am a flying instructor and I teach principals of flight. This is one BIG principal of flight. It is produced by air flowing from H to L; high pressure above the wing, low below the wing. As this air flows around the wingtips (guess what shit for brains, thats the only place it can) it creates vorticies. Wingtip vorticies. Induced drag. Retard.
siminator88 1 year ago
in my opinion there are barely wake vortexes because the shockwave of the explosions (including the explosives planted in the building) neutralized partly the vortexes.....
eamt10 1 year ago
9/11 was a complete inside job, by MANY parties. There was a British reporter that announced "A second plane has struck the WTC" TEN MINUTES BEFORE flight 175 hit. How bout that shit?
adamlesh 1 year ago
In the first clip, I did see the remnants of wake turbulence...barely noticeable. With the camera looking up from the ground, you can barely see a vortex as the smoke curls around it, but is overtaken by the explosion...
J1613R 1 year ago
And yes the plane can go faster than 600 miles an hour in a dive. Will cause structural damage but it can do that. The force of that plane would definetaly penetrate the buildings, the physics check out. the steel where the floors were stays intact, ripping the airplane wings forward and causing it to explode. It wouldnt bounce off the building with all of that inertia. Same way a bunker buster penetrates into the ground.
cactusjuba 1 year ago
This theory is bogus. Wing tip vorticies are induced drag and are strongest at slow speeds, high angles of attack, and in landing (flaps, slats) configuration. Its a byproduct of induced drag. It is caused by the mixing of the low and high pressure air from above and below the wing. It wouldn't be very present in a high speed dive, and regardless, the heat of such an exposion would counteract the vorticies tenfold. Its like saying ya dont see a boats wake after a torpedo explodes it. Well Duh!
cactusjuba 1 year ago
Key flaw, you're pointing out wake vortexes would only matter if the planes flew PAST the towers not into them.
sikofu2 1 year ago
the explosions of the plane into the building disrupt the vortices
xxcurnuxx 1 year ago
the L-1011 & the C-5 also had their flaps/slats deployed, however the planes that flew into the towers were going full throttle/thrust @ the time of impact; speed was the primary need for a more dynamic impact........
ronn52 1 year ago
@shess0501 it actually goes alot faster at sea level then at 33,000 feet, why? at 33,000 feet the air is thin this the plane flys slower.
Swissflier101 1 year ago
@Swissflier101
I think you have this reversed. Planes fly FASTER at higher altitudes because the air is less dense and less resistant. Therefore, less thrust is needed. And at sea level, planes fly considerably slower.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 ha yes true thanks for correcting me. but if a vortex did it all, wheres the missing plane? or planes? i mean i saw it hit the tower as many others did too.
Swissflier101 1 year ago
@shess0501 true. even ask the witnesses in NYC they will say that they saw a plane hit the tower, i know i did, the second one tho. so sad.... RIP for thoes who died.
Swissflier101 1 year ago
Wingtip vortices sink at about 500 fpm...and they also spread out from the flight path horizontally. Not to mention, the actual "vortex" trails the plane by hundreds of yards. Go to the 23 second mark in the video...Watch the wingtip vortices test.
The L1011 is flying several hundred feet above the tower and the tower is 100 yard closer to the camera than the L1011. This plane is also in slow flight which creates greater wake turbulence.
Perfectly logical...no vis. wake from flight 11 or 175
obolan 1 year ago
Wake Turbulence or in this case the lack of wake vortex is something u would expect. Wake turbulence is most commonly produced by heavy aircraft at low velocity & a high angle of attack, or in common terms on take off & landing at slow speeds when they are generating the most lift. An aircraft in a clean configuration (no flaps) travelling at high speed leaves much smaller vortex, which travel down & out from the wingtips. The lack of vortex in this case is sketchy reasoning at best.......
craigobey 1 year ago
Wingtip vortices are formed when a aircraft is heavily loaded, clean and SLOW.
loofahbox 1 year ago
@loofahbox .. agreed, i would not expect to see vortices in this case either
craigobey 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
I have a friend that is an aerospace engineer for Boeing, who quite simply stated that they can fly at that speed at that altitude. "It can fly at that speed at that altitude. It is not safe, nor recommended for the aircraft, however I doubt the hijackers cared about that at all"
AuroraButterflyGirl 1 year ago
@shess0501
So what you're saying is you have no knowledge on 767-200s?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@shess0501
Leslie Hazzard is the woman (spokesperson) from Boeing on the phone. First, how do you know her knowledge is on 767s and what are your ceredentials to refute her?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@shess0501
Leslie Hazzard is a verified spokesperson for Boeing and actually works for the 767 Communication Department in Seattle. I think she has a pretty good grasp on what 767s can do. Receptionist? Funny...
boeing*mediaroom*com/index.php?s=13&cat=30&item=736
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago