Hey Einstein!!! Before you blocked me and sent me your little stupid rebuttal. You said that a plane cannot fly at 575mph at 700. A good friend of mine flies a 757 i asked him this question. He said. "Sure it can. i can fly the plane at full power full speed at any altitude, it has no bearing on speed or engine performance" Anyone who watches this nonsense and believes it you have a few nuts loose in MO.
Hi, it's me again. Aside from the fact that a US submarine sank the Titanic, a US soldier shot the Hindenburg down with a Bazooka, man never walked on the moon and Hitler's really not dead, I think your story is right on.(in case you haven't realized, I was being sarcastic)!!!! I can disprove what you said for every video clip that was shown. Damn conspiracy theorists.
You have no argument other than your weak pathetic attempts at physical science theory. What a fucking joke. Learn to talk to debate on these videos, otherwise we see your inept garbage as a sign of your stupidity. Fuck off, and learn your place. Your mother is a man. Deal with it.
I'm not usually the one too insult but you are such an idiot. The plane is going 600 mph and its not just going too stop immediately on impact. i know someone who saw a wheat stalk fly into a tree during an f5 twister,it doesnt just stop and explode, it goes slightly through the tree. the plane is going to go into the building at that velocity. if you look at one of the CNN videos,you can see the engine of the plane(not missle or any other of the crap you think it is)come out the other side.
I'm not usually used to stooping to your level, but you are a fucking retard. A boeing 676 can't travel art 600 mph at 700ft altitude, if you were not a complete idiot you would know that. It would shake apart. Study aeronotics and "velocity" instead of cocksucking - and you would see that none of what you say is possible. Dumb bitch.
@thePRfirm Idiot? you might want to reconsider that comment. A good friend of mine flies a 757 and i asked him this question point blank. He said. "You can fly the plane at full power and full speed at any altitude, it has no bearing on speed or engine performance"...
I am a fully licensed and qualified pilot. I belong to a group called pilots for 911 justice.
I don't know who your so called friend is, but that is a completely idiotic statement. Even a realistic flight simulator would not let you fly at that speed and at that altitude. Or simply call Boeing and ask them. Or maybe ask a real pilot instead of a fake one.
There is something called a shaker system that regulates air intake. IIt can't be done. It never has been done. Stupid.
This is the most obvious piece of evidence and yet still the hardest by far to convince people of. It is so strange the way people will not question the Televison. It has literally become our God! It is freightening to even think about it's powers!
The clip at 5:22 is a TOTAL FAKE! That clip is not an original video. I've spent more than 3,000 hours studying 9/11, for 5 years, and I've never seen that video clip. That one is a fake, and its not evidence of tv fakery.
The others however, I have seen and may be part of the historical record.
Yes. It is a total fake. Hence...... FAKE VIDEO! do you GET IT? You say it's fake but not evidence of fakery. Uh, what??? It's actually The same software that was used on the Hezarkhani fake (show at 1:35 and 3:05). They both show the same pasted foreground buildings which are out of place. ALL the clips in this video are fake. Every single one. That's the point. Historical record? the clip at 5:23 is attributed to the same account that posted the clip at 1:50.
I sent fidelio a link to the weirzbicki work in which he basically debunks himself, of course he didn't comment on that. I can't paste links in comments on this vid so I messaged him directly. No response. He keeps quoting nonsensical calculations and phrases like "vertical damage" (as opposed to horizontal damage) while ignoring physical law. typical shill.
Nonsensical calculations? Er.. it was basic high school trigonometry. Roll angle, wingspan, easy enough to work out the vertical distance over which damage occurred and hence the affected floors. Ignoring physical laws? Do you have an engineering degree, as a matter of interest?
I haven't commented on the paper you sent because I haven't finished reading it yet. Although so far I've found nothing in it that contradicts his previous paper, in fact he references it on more than one occasion.
You are exactly right, you're arguements are out of a High School science book. (not even in the right context) I have a degree in aeronautics. I'm not even sure you went to college. You sound like a child. You have ignored every serious question and spat useless statistics. You obviously have no life but I don't have to feel sorry for you.
You're off your head, sunshine. How about backing up some of your wild ridiculous claims with some calculations or science? Or at the very least, references. It's perfectly clear that the leprechauns did it in conjunction with the martians and the fairies that live in my garden.
This idiot fidelio76 is a total shill account. He just left the same comment on "the big takeover". There is nothing BUT science and calculations in this video!!! It's straight from the quoted MIT interview!!! What a twank this moron is, he probably didn't even watch the video. He has no counter argument or point of fact. Shills are like alcoholics - funny yet sad.
How pathetic this doushe fidelio is to say that there's no science or "calculations" in a video that ONLY HAS scientific data and physical evidence. What an inadequate bastard this guy must be. Lying about being an engineer is like insult to injury. He's probably a security guard or garage janitor. Nothing wrong with that - just don't lie, moron.
OK, (1) you say "Based on an MIT study of the 9/11 WTC attacks, it is established fact that an airliner could not do any of the things shown." I'd love to read this paper, you obviously have as you despise liars, so please let me know its title or authors.
(2) The plane is not in the shadow of the South Tower - it is illuminated (like all the other buildings) from the right of the still you used.
(3) The only reference to a scientific source is where you cite Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT. You claim he said that "The visible flying craft cuts through six floors which is impossible given the size of the alleged aircraft and wing density (aluminium)". He actually wrote a paper (with X. Teng) that proves the exact opposite, i.e. the wings would easily cut through the outer columns and enter the building. Unless he wrote another paper - let me know.
And finally, I don't see what my profession has to do with my opinions but I am in fact an electronics engineer. I am also, as you rightly determined, a 'shill' for the Bush government. Well, he pays me to write comments on YouTube. Seriously, it's a great part time job. The hours aren't too bad and the money's great. I'm thinking of giving up my day job, to be honest. Apollo 11 went to the moon by the way. Kerching! Another $50!
You never really answered my question, and it took you 3 days to answer period. I'm positive you are not an electronic engineer, but you claim to be as that could be your excuse to being ignorant of physical law somehow. Look up the stats for a 767, get the specs for 6 floors of the WTC. Just do it. Are you afraid? Are you a child? No, you are a pathetic shill. Research is easy. You are a joke.
There is space between floors in a skyscraper, which you did not factor. Also Just like wierzbicki, you accept averaging the denity of the engine with that of the hollow wing. You never addressed that, typically, also - Why no deceleration? Why some videos of angled trajectory "planes" and some flat? Why no explosion at impact? You are starting to waste my time, and you are more than one person judging from the disparity of your initial comments. ah-ah-SHILL!
There was plenty of deceleration, the plane didn't come out the other side did it?
Sorry about wasting your time, I'm just trying to offer some concrete evidence that what you are saying is provably wrong. You're getting annoyed. That's understandable.
No one can be as dumb as you appear to be. You calculations don't average in the mezzanine levels. again, for the annoying idiot - Why no explosion at impact! deceleration - as in when it impacted the outer surface. your fake video shows the plane moving through it just as it were air. You are the few my shillistic little moron. Look around you. Get that feeling of drowning?
The calculations did average the total number of floors. But if you want specific heights of the impact floors, they are 14' for floor 78 and 12' for the floors above that. 14' is 4.267m and 12' is 3.6576m. So it actually works out to 6 floors. Thanks for making my calculations more accurate! No explosion at impact... er there was one hell of an explosion as I remember. It wasn't instantaneous and on the entry wall because the 127 tonne plane entered the building at 503mph.
So, you don't understand either aeronautics or physics, despite your claimed fake profession. 1 Top speed for a boeing at that altitude is 250MPH, call boeing or any pilot. 2 the supposed angle of entry doesn't matter because the impact of the nose and fuselage would make the wings flip forward and possibly hit 4-5 floors but not slice through any of them. It's a law of density. Any engineer would know that. You're a fraud.
X Teng? What are you talikng about? Any basic web search of Wierzbiki will have links to his work, the work MIT fired him for doing. How many inerviews have you conducted with MIT scientists?
Wirz and Teng - one of their assumptions was not realistic, as the wing they modeled combined the mass of the engine and wing mass into one thick box beam, which they treated as rigid and not deformable.
Your precious commission report and the fake video both claim to show the plane in the towers shadow. Thank you for confirming the opposite. You seem very confused for a shill, but as there was no plane it's a moot point.
I've actually never read the commission report. I just go by the multitude of videos and eyewitness accounts. (well, ok, I speak to them at my monthly Shill gatherings). Also sorry about taking so long to reply, it took a while to get hold of Uncle George W. so I could get my story straight.
You left similar comments on some of my other videos. Shills are so easy to spot and shake loose it isn't even a challenge anymore. Your responses are vague and unfounded: you said of Wierzbicki "He actually wrote a paper (with X. Teng) that proves the exact opposite, i.e. the wings would easily cut through the outer columns and enter the building" No paper in the world proves that. And NO aluminum on earth can slice through concrete and steel - especially without breaking or bending. dummy
"How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center" T. Wierzbicki, X. Teng // INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPACT ENGINEERING. 2003. Vol. 28, N 6. С. 601-625. ISSN 0734-743X
Taken from the abstract: "Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column."
You have completely misunderstood me. He is the source for the statement that the plane cut through six floors. Not only is that impossible due to the planes size, the desity also makes it impossible - that is what they cannot disprove and there is no paper on that. Get iot? see next comment
Wierzbicki also states that damage to the plane dissipated 23% of the initial kinetic energy, but his 23% is the reaction of the airplane not only to the external columns as in Hoo Fat's 46%, but also to the floors and the core columns. This just does not add up. The bottom line is that those buildings would have provided much more resistance to a Boeing 767, which would show at least deceleration, if not gross deformation, fragmentation, and fuel explosion outside the building.
The floors are massive structures, and Wierzbicki shows in the second paper that the plane either hit one floor head-on, or hit two floors. The latter would result in more loss of kinetic energy, so he averaged the two assumptions. It should be fairly easy for FEMA or NIST to determine exactly where the planes hit in relation to floors. Read the second paper where he realized how dumb his conclusions were
I'll happily read the paper, I'm quite interested actually. What was it called? And did MIT give him his job back after being fired cos from what i can tell he's still employed there.
NOTHING the government has said about 911 was true!! I have questioned everything form the very beginning. Demolitionists can control just about everything about the explosives. Size, direction, vibrations, flash, timing down to the nanosecond!! Anything is possible when you get rid of the evidence!!!
Only a bunker buster could have penetrated the Pentagon all the way to the C ring leaving a round 16ft hole!!
The elite banking bastards that carried out 911 wont get away with this!!
I'm not. It keeps saying video unavailable then I have to re-upload it. soundboy 72 is having the same problem. ONLY on this video. no such thing as coincidence.
Hey Einstein!!! Before you blocked me and sent me your little stupid rebuttal. You said that a plane cannot fly at 575mph at 700. A good friend of mine flies a 757 i asked him this question. He said. "Sure it can. i can fly the plane at full power full speed at any altitude, it has no bearing on speed or engine performance" Anyone who watches this nonsense and believes it you have a few nuts loose in MO.
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
@roquefortfiles
What a schizo! Take your meds you spaz. Who are you even talking to?
Canadians must have great welfare. Their invalid shut-ins are online all day instead of in the nuthouse where they belong.
thePRfirm 1 year ago
Hi, it's me again. Aside from the fact that a US submarine sank the Titanic, a US soldier shot the Hindenburg down with a Bazooka, man never walked on the moon and Hitler's really not dead, I think your story is right on.(in case you haven't realized, I was being sarcastic)!!!! I can disprove what you said for every video clip that was shown. Damn conspiracy theorists.
charlesthemeerkat 3 years ago
You have no argument other than your weak pathetic attempts at physical science theory. What a fucking joke. Learn to talk to debate on these videos, otherwise we see your inept garbage as a sign of your stupidity. Fuck off, and learn your place. Your mother is a man. Deal with it.
thePRfirm 3 years ago
I'm not usually the one too insult but you are such an idiot. The plane is going 600 mph and its not just going too stop immediately on impact. i know someone who saw a wheat stalk fly into a tree during an f5 twister,it doesnt just stop and explode, it goes slightly through the tree. the plane is going to go into the building at that velocity. if you look at one of the CNN videos,you can see the engine of the plane(not missle or any other of the crap you think it is)come out the other side.
charlesthemeerkat 3 years ago
I'm not usually used to stooping to your level, but you are a fucking retard. A boeing 676 can't travel art 600 mph at 700ft altitude, if you were not a complete idiot you would know that. It would shake apart. Study aeronotics and "velocity" instead of cocksucking - and you would see that none of what you say is possible. Dumb bitch.
thePRfirm 3 years ago
@thePRfirm Idiot? you might want to reconsider that comment. A good friend of mine flies a 757 and i asked him this question point blank. He said. "You can fly the plane at full power and full speed at any altitude, it has no bearing on speed or engine performance"...
Of course it is possible!!!
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
@roquefortfiles
I am a fully licensed and qualified pilot. I belong to a group called pilots for 911 justice.
I don't know who your so called friend is, but that is a completely idiotic statement. Even a realistic flight simulator would not let you fly at that speed and at that altitude. Or simply call Boeing and ask them. Or maybe ask a real pilot instead of a fake one.
There is something called a shaker system that regulates air intake. IIt can't be done. It never has been done. Stupid.
thePRfirm 1 year ago
This is the most obvious piece of evidence and yet still the hardest by far to convince people of. It is so strange the way people will not question the Televison. It has literally become our God! It is freightening to even think about it's powers!
Soupdragoon 3 years ago 3
The clip at 5:22 is a TOTAL FAKE! That clip is not an original video. I've spent more than 3,000 hours studying 9/11, for 5 years, and I've never seen that video clip. That one is a fake, and its not evidence of tv fakery.
The others however, I have seen and may be part of the historical record.
RpKingman 3 years ago
Yes. It is a total fake. Hence...... FAKE VIDEO! do you GET IT? You say it's fake but not evidence of fakery. Uh, what??? It's actually The same software that was used on the Hezarkhani fake (show at 1:35 and 3:05). They both show the same pasted foreground buildings which are out of place. ALL the clips in this video are fake. Every single one. That's the point. Historical record? the clip at 5:23 is attributed to the same account that posted the clip at 1:50.
soundboy72 3 years ago 5
I noticed the shill channel fidelio76 changed its personal profile in order to look less "shillaberate". new tactics, same results.
soundboy72 3 years ago
I sent fidelio a link to the weirzbicki work in which he basically debunks himself, of course he didn't comment on that. I can't paste links in comments on this vid so I messaged him directly. No response. He keeps quoting nonsensical calculations and phrases like "vertical damage" (as opposed to horizontal damage) while ignoring physical law. typical shill.
soundboyskip 3 years ago 3
Nonsensical calculations? Er.. it was basic high school trigonometry. Roll angle, wingspan, easy enough to work out the vertical distance over which damage occurred and hence the affected floors. Ignoring physical laws? Do you have an engineering degree, as a matter of interest?
I haven't commented on the paper you sent because I haven't finished reading it yet. Although so far I've found nothing in it that contradicts his previous paper, in fact he references it on more than one occasion.
Fidelio76 3 years ago
You are exactly right, you're arguements are out of a High School science book. (not even in the right context) I have a degree in aeronautics. I'm not even sure you went to college. You sound like a child. You have ignored every serious question and spat useless statistics. You obviously have no life but I don't have to feel sorry for you.
thePRfirm 3 years ago
Oh yes. Do you think it's more convincing now? I want people to think fidelio76 is a normal human being when in fact we are many.
Fidelio76 3 years ago
You're off your head, sunshine. How about backing up some of your wild ridiculous claims with some calculations or science? Or at the very least, references. It's perfectly clear that the leprechauns did it in conjunction with the martians and the fairies that live in my garden.
Fidelio76 3 years ago
This idiot fidelio76 is a total shill account. He just left the same comment on "the big takeover". There is nothing BUT science and calculations in this video!!! It's straight from the quoted MIT interview!!! What a twank this moron is, he probably didn't even watch the video. He has no counter argument or point of fact. Shills are like alcoholics - funny yet sad.
soundboy72 3 years ago
How pathetic this doushe fidelio is to say that there's no science or "calculations" in a video that ONLY HAS scientific data and physical evidence. What an inadequate bastard this guy must be. Lying about being an engineer is like insult to injury. He's probably a security guard or garage janitor. Nothing wrong with that - just don't lie, moron.
thePRfirm 3 years ago
OK, (1) you say "Based on an MIT study of the 9/11 WTC attacks, it is established fact that an airliner could not do any of the things shown." I'd love to read this paper, you obviously have as you despise liars, so please let me know its title or authors.
(2) The plane is not in the shadow of the South Tower - it is illuminated (like all the other buildings) from the right of the still you used.
Fidelio76 3 years ago
(3) The only reference to a scientific source is where you cite Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT. You claim he said that "The visible flying craft cuts through six floors which is impossible given the size of the alleged aircraft and wing density (aluminium)". He actually wrote a paper (with X. Teng) that proves the exact opposite, i.e. the wings would easily cut through the outer columns and enter the building. Unless he wrote another paper - let me know.
Fidelio76 3 years ago
And finally, I don't see what my profession has to do with my opinions but I am in fact an electronics engineer. I am also, as you rightly determined, a 'shill' for the Bush government. Well, he pays me to write comments on YouTube. Seriously, it's a great part time job. The hours aren't too bad and the money's great. I'm thinking of giving up my day job, to be honest. Apollo 11 went to the moon by the way. Kerching! Another $50!
Fidelio76 3 years ago
You never really answered my question, and it took you 3 days to answer period. I'm positive you are not an electronic engineer, but you claim to be as that could be your excuse to being ignorant of physical law somehow. Look up the stats for a 767, get the specs for 6 floors of the WTC. Just do it. Are you afraid? Are you a child? No, you are a pathetic shill. Research is easy. You are a joke.
soundboyskip 3 years ago
Not afraid at all. OK:
767-200ER wingspan = 47.57m
roll angle of UA175 on impact = approx 35 degrees
vertical height of damage is therefore
47.57m * sin(35) = 27.3m
Distance between WTC floors = 3.7m
so it will impact across
(27.3m/3.7m) = 7.3 floors
So am I missing something? And what question did you ask that I haven't answered?
Fidelio76 3 years ago
There is space between floors in a skyscraper, which you did not factor. Also Just like wierzbicki, you accept averaging the denity of the engine with that of the hollow wing. You never addressed that, typically, also - Why no deceleration? Why some videos of angled trajectory "planes" and some flat? Why no explosion at impact? You are starting to waste my time, and you are more than one person judging from the disparity of your initial comments. ah-ah-SHILL!
soundboy72 3 years ago
I did factor the space between the floors.
Height of WTC from ground to the roof = 417m
Number of floors above ground level = 110
Therefore each floor is 417/110 = 3.7m.
Let's see your calculations?
There was plenty of deceleration, the plane didn't come out the other side did it?
Sorry about wasting your time, I'm just trying to offer some concrete evidence that what you are saying is provably wrong. You're getting annoyed. That's understandable.
We are many. You are few. We will win.
Fidelio76 3 years ago
No one can be as dumb as you appear to be. You calculations don't average in the mezzanine levels. again, for the annoying idiot - Why no explosion at impact! deceleration - as in when it impacted the outer surface. your fake video shows the plane moving through it just as it were air. You are the few my shillistic little moron. Look around you. Get that feeling of drowning?
soundboyskip 3 years ago 3
The calculations did average the total number of floors. But if you want specific heights of the impact floors, they are 14' for floor 78 and 12' for the floors above that. 14' is 4.267m and 12' is 3.6576m. So it actually works out to 6 floors. Thanks for making my calculations more accurate! No explosion at impact... er there was one hell of an explosion as I remember. It wasn't instantaneous and on the entry wall because the 127 tonne plane entered the building at 503mph.
Fidelio76 3 years ago
So, you don't understand either aeronautics or physics, despite your claimed fake profession. 1 Top speed for a boeing at that altitude is 250MPH, call boeing or any pilot. 2 the supposed angle of entry doesn't matter because the impact of the nose and fuselage would make the wings flip forward and possibly hit 4-5 floors but not slice through any of them. It's a law of density. Any engineer would know that. You're a fraud.
soundboyskip 3 years ago 4
@soundboyskip Your an idiot!!!
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
@roquefortfiles
I think you meant "you're" an idiot, you idiot. lol -what a dumbass.
thePRfirm 1 year ago
X Teng? What are you talikng about? Any basic web search of Wierzbiki will have links to his work, the work MIT fired him for doing. How many inerviews have you conducted with MIT scientists?
soundboyskip 3 years ago
I can safely say I've never interviewed any MIT scientists.
Fidelio76 3 years ago
Wirz and Teng - one of their assumptions was not realistic, as the wing they modeled combined the mass of the engine and wing mass into one thick box beam, which they treated as rigid and not deformable.
soundboyskip 3 years ago
Your precious commission report and the fake video both claim to show the plane in the towers shadow. Thank you for confirming the opposite. You seem very confused for a shill, but as there was no plane it's a moot point.
soundboyskip 3 years ago
I've actually never read the commission report. I just go by the multitude of videos and eyewitness accounts. (well, ok, I speak to them at my monthly Shill gatherings). Also sorry about taking so long to reply, it took a while to get hold of Uncle George W. so I could get my story straight.
Fidelio76 3 years ago
You left similar comments on some of my other videos. Shills are so easy to spot and shake loose it isn't even a challenge anymore. Your responses are vague and unfounded: you said of Wierzbicki "He actually wrote a paper (with X. Teng) that proves the exact opposite, i.e. the wings would easily cut through the outer columns and enter the building" No paper in the world proves that. And NO aluminum on earth can slice through concrete and steel - especially without breaking or bending. dummy
soundboyskip 3 years ago
"How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center" T. Wierzbicki, X. Teng // INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPACT ENGINEERING. 2003. Vol. 28, N 6. С. 601-625. ISSN 0734-743X
Taken from the abstract: "Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column."
Fidelio76 3 years ago
You have completely misunderstood me. He is the source for the statement that the plane cut through six floors. Not only is that impossible due to the planes size, the desity also makes it impossible - that is what they cannot disprove and there is no paper on that. Get iot? see next comment
soundboyskip 3 years ago
Wierzbicki also states that damage to the plane dissipated 23% of the initial kinetic energy, but his 23% is the reaction of the airplane not only to the external columns as in Hoo Fat's 46%, but also to the floors and the core columns. This just does not add up. The bottom line is that those buildings would have provided much more resistance to a Boeing 767, which would show at least deceleration, if not gross deformation, fragmentation, and fuel explosion outside the building.
soundboyskip 3 years ago
The floors are massive structures, and Wierzbicki shows in the second paper that the plane either hit one floor head-on, or hit two floors. The latter would result in more loss of kinetic energy, so he averaged the two assumptions. It should be fairly easy for FEMA or NIST to determine exactly where the planes hit in relation to floors. Read the second paper where he realized how dumb his conclusions were
soundboyskip 3 years ago
I'll happily read the paper, I'm quite interested actually. What was it called? And did MIT give him his job back after being fired cos from what i can tell he's still employed there.
Fidelio76 3 years ago
NOTHING the government has said about 911 was true!! I have questioned everything form the very beginning. Demolitionists can control just about everything about the explosives. Size, direction, vibrations, flash, timing down to the nanosecond!! Anything is possible when you get rid of the evidence!!!
Only a bunker buster could have penetrated the Pentagon all the way to the C ring leaving a round 16ft hole!!
The elite banking bastards that carried out 911 wont get away with this!!
1NWOMD 3 years ago 3
well said
thePRfirm 3 years ago
Why do they keep removing this video from your channel???
johnhart30 3 years ago
I'm not. It keeps saying video unavailable then I have to re-upload it. soundboy 72 is having the same problem. ONLY on this video. no such thing as coincidence.
thePRfirm 3 years ago
I think that's bulls#@t...more "selective" removal if you ask me.
Just keep posting man. I'll keep watching.
johnhart30 3 years ago 2
you might try metacafe or veho those sites are not owned by the nwo
after all google is a government owned search engine and google owns youtube
buttpluger56 3 years ago 2