Fearful people embrace unprovable, preposterous allegations as Truth in the face of logic and science, sharing their faith and finding strength in a social unity with their fellow believers.
Conspiracy theories:
Fearful people embrace unprovable, preposterous allegations as Truth in the face of logic and science, sharing their faith and finding strength in a social unity with their fellow believers.
Fourteen Points...[Bentham]... Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink], .....Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [The Open Chemical Physics Journal] . Also see: Pilots for 911 truth, Patriots for 9/11 truth, US Military Officers for 911 truth, Firefighters for 911 truth, Scientists for 911 truth, Religious Leaders for 911 truth, Medical Professionals for 911 truth..............
Nano-Thermite 9/11 Truth. Independant Scientists from around the world have found traces of this highly engineered, weaponized super thermite. Google: steven jones down under. Google: Bentham Open "Active Thermetic Material". THE WORLD KNOWS.
Nano-Thermite 9/11 Truth. Independant Scientists from around the world have found traces of this highly engineered, weaponized super thermite. Google: steven jones down under. Google: Bentham Open "Active Thermetic Material". THE WORLD KNOWS.
@1nephi13v37 No, the world knows 911 was an outside job and there was ZERO "nano-thermite" found. You're an idiot for believing that nonsense. Steven Jones and Niels Harritt found paint chips, nothing more. Their own "paper" proves this, the spectrometer graphs show spikes for Kaolin and Hematite, do some REAL research idiot. The BENTHAM OPEN journal is a sham. Research what happened following that papers publishing. Especially when they published a COMPLETE HOAX of a paper and 2 editors resign
@Oz1976 Differential Scanning Calorimetry, obviously you do not understand the science in the paper. The red/gray chips are ENERGETIC. Of course the truth of 9/11 is controversial. It is difficult even impossible for many to believe that their could be people so evil within our own leadership. Sorry friend the world knows, and good people are finding the truth. The evidence to support the truth is conclusive. The earth does indeed revolve around the sun, truth will prevail.
@1nephi13v37 Of course they're energetic dumbass, everything is energetic, fucking plastic is energetic, and in fact has a higher PE than thermite. In fact their PE scale as well shows it's not fucking thermite. Thermite has a PE of 4.5 kj/h, their sample was 7.5 kj/h. You're wrong again, nice attempt to try and sound knowledgeable, but you're nothing more than a pseudo-science shmuck. The world DOES know. They know it was terrorists and you're a moron:
@Oz1976 So help me to understand the simple science. Why did their red/gray crystals not disolve in paint thinner, though you argue they are paint chips?
@Oz1976 I dont need to debate with you. I am intelligent enough to have known those collapses were orchastrated as I watched them. I am happy to see science which finally proves my understanding of what really occured. I am sorry you have been deluded and feel it neccessary to call me names, in your frustration. Again, EXPLOSIVES were FOUND in the dust. Look into it, the citizens of this world have been deceived. and now THE WORLD KNOWS. google:911 truth UN
@1nephi13v37 You mean your stupid enough to believe what's spoon fed to you by idiots who haven't the feintest clue what they're talking about. There is no science that proves your "understanding of what occured". There is not one single scientific paper published in any engineering or physics journal supporting your idiocy. Please try and prove me wrong. Source any single paper published from a peer reviewed journal. Explosives were NOT found in the dust. You dont even know what thermite is...
2. WTC 7 collapsed because of tons of concrete and steel damaging it's side and main support column and the fire inside caused many generators in the building to explode, therefore damaging the remaining columns.
3. Completely different buildings, different designs, different walls, different speeds of the plane. It's called Physics.
4. The terrorists are dead, in GITMO, and are still being pursued.
Al Qaeda does exist, are you serious? Do you have any idea how many attacks Al Qaeda has done? Do you know how much over whelming, clear as day proof there is that Al Qaeda exists? You need a rude awakening buddy, stay out of the chat rooms and read a book for God's sake. The truth is there, you just choose too ignore it. Yes, things are sometimes different then what they seem, but not everything. Jeez.
They have proved Oswald killed JFK. Not only with ballistics tests, recreation tests, eye witness accounts, and the fact that Oswald said in his own words "I killed that son of a bitch JFK." Dear God do you live under a rock? WAKE UP!!! Again, stay out of the chat rooms and stop watching "documentaries." They do nothing but promote bullshit so impressionable people like yourself will buy into it.
Nobody said anything about planes filled with explosives, including me. I said buildings filled with explosives. If the buildings could not have pancake collapsed as CTs claim and you can see them exploding on every floor then it took over 100 tons of explosives to accomplish that identical collapse appearance on every single floor all the way down.
Do conspiracy theorists think government agents create giant Rube Goldberg machines every time they need to flip a light switch? The amount of pointless complexity that that these conspiracy scenarios have is mind boggling.
The whole "airplanes can't fly fast at low altitude" BS is one of the most annoying abortions of physics the truthers have come up with. They think recommended safe practices are the same thing as maximum possible speeds. IF the planes were military remote drones then why crash them at high speed at all if you're going to bring down the building with explosives? As usual the conspiracy scenarios don't even make sense, regardless of how impossible they are.
@DRAT311 I for one do not believe that the planes were remote drones, but the point of the planes was to "sell" the attacks to the people of the US. Had the buildings come down from explosives without a plane striking that raises a lot of questions however if you have a plane strike it and hype up a war for Islam you now have a society willing to go to war with an entire religion. Whether WTC1,2 were brought down by planes or bombs who knows. WTC7 is the one that raises all the questions.
@DRAT311 Now this is the problem you look for answers in publications that are government own. Hypothetically speaking if the 911 attacks were an inside job or there was foreknowledge do you really think that the government would publish data that would raise questions? The 911 commission was a joke and a sick one at that. A NEW INDEPENDENT STUDY IS NEEDED. Fuck the NIST those bastards strangled the truth by not releasing the tapes when they were supposed to
@colombiaje Your problem is that you think of the the government as one unified entity. As if the millions of people who work for the government are all willing to cover up the mass murder of thousands and never leak any information. The president can't get a blow job without it getting leaked to 10 news agencies but thousands of people can be involved in covering up mass murder and no one leaks evidence because the government is this all knowing big brother than can cover up anything.
@DRAT311 You keep making these theory's up and claiming they are mine...Of course all of the government was not aware, all it takes are the major players like the President/Vice president,Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and the likes. Our government is not autonomous it is controlled by the central bankers, and corporate lobbyists from GE,Boeing,Lockheed Martin,Haliburton,Blackwater,Monsanto all of them war profiteers. 911 was our key into the middle east.
@colombiaje No no, you say only those people need to be in on but then who planted the bombs? Who controlled the planes? What happened to the people on board? If the NIST report can't be believed then the 100s of scientists at NIST have to be in on it. Silverstein has to be in on it. The FBI investigators who spent months at ground zero all have to be in on it. Quit kidding yourself. If it was a conspiracy it takes hundreds of people, including those with nothing to gain.
@colombiaje Then build a structure thats 1 foot tall by 4 feet wide. Pull out a support. The collapse will not spread straight sideways like it spread straight up.
@colombiaje In the end a 911 conspiracy would be nothing but a giant Rube Goldberg machine. It would be infinitely easier to just set off a bomb or chemical weapon attack and hold a fake investigation and say it came from Iraq. 911 wasn't even linked to Iraq AT ALL. If the govt can stretch Al Qaeda attacking us into momentum to go to war they could easily stretch a bomb or any other attack without all of this remote controlled planes, 100k tons of explosives, nonsense.
@colombiaje Seriously, sit down and think about it. If you wanted a reason to invade Iraq, how high on acid would you have to be to come up with remote controlling planes into buildings filled with hundreds of tons of explosives(snuck in by ninjas and hidden by cloaking devices) and flying another plane into the pentagon(just to make yourselves look incompetent?) and blaming the entire thing on a bunch of people who have NOTHING to do with the country you're trying to justify invading?
@DRAT311 Who said anything about remote controlled planes being loaded with explosives? You must be high on acid sir. 911 was the catalyst to start a war against Islam not just Iraq...The US had been calling for a war with Iraq for years and could not find the means to justify one, 911 happened and the govnt. connected Saudi Arabians with Saddam, and if you look at the region today the war has expanded to Afghanistan,Pakistan,Yemen,Iran,Lebanon its geopolitics, false flag just like tonkin
@colombiaje You still haven't explained why the govt would execute such an overly pointlessly complicated conspiracy that doesn't even connect to Iraq just to force themselves to come up with dubious CIA documents to try to tie 911 to Iraq after the fact. Its straight up silly. If they planned 911 as an excuse to attack Iraq they would have made it Iraqi's attacking us, not someone who has nothing to do with Iraq at all. Explain that or you've got nothing.
@DRAT311 I dont see your point since after 9/11 the first thing the United States did was declare war on Iraq. It's really sick that they carried out such a heinous crime to instill their illegal wars but they needed a massive attack to sell it to the people. 911 left America traumatized the media then amplified this feelings of fear,anger, and worst of all HATE against muslims by making connections that did and to this day do NOT exist. Remember Bush saying "your with us or against us"
@colombiaje You don' t understand my point because you don't want to. If can reach the conclusion that benefiting from something is proof of causing it, then there is no hope for you to be logical. Just go ahead and lock away every person who's family member has ever died with a life insurance policy. The first thing he did after his wife died is cash the insurance policy, therefore he must have killed her right? Motive - proof? Luckily only CT's think like that and they aren't judges.
@DRAT311 The fact that he managed to stretch, fight, and lie his way into war with Iraq after 911 isn't proof that he caused it in order to invade Iraq. It's the opposite. It's proof that 911 is the worst conspiracy to justify war with Iraq that anyone could have thought of. It's downright laughable.
@DRAT311 That was they way that Bush generalized this war against an entire region, 911 was a power grab. Look at the US today, The Patriot act can deem ANYONE a terrorist, political dissidence is terrorism now. We are at war with Iraq,Afghanistan killing innocents and looting them of their oil,and natural resources over 1trillion worth of lithium. We are flirting with war in Iran, Yemen, Somalia and bombing Pakistan with Predator drones. All because of the "WAR ON TERROR"
@colombiaje If they wanted to justify a war with Iraq they would have just faked Iraqi spies bombing time square or something. Everyone would have backed an invasion of Iraq in a heartbeat. Simple and effective. If I wanted to steal my neighbors TV I would just break in and steal it, not kill someone to frame someone, to then spend months faking documents to try to connect a 3rd unrelated person to the crime just so I could sneak into their house and steal the TV.
@DRAT311 You have made it apparent that you have some deformity when it comes to logical reasoning. Enjoy being manipulated and lied to by your government. Cheers.
@DRAT311 How can you possibly have a war on a concept. Terror is not a person,group,country,religion.
This is what the US got out of 911: they consolidated power,got a war for the major corporations like GE,Boeing,Haliburton,LockheedMartin,Monsanto,Blackwater to make money off of and are looting the nations they are fighting. Thats basically the end of my rant, I know 911 conspiracy sounds crazy but a inside job or not we need a new investigation we have already lost so much we cant afford more
@colombiaje 911 as a planned plot to justify invading Iraq would be the worst plot EVER. It would be like me wanting to steel my neigbors TV. So I kill a random guy by cutting their head off. Then i plant the murder weapon in the house of Susan. Susan is a red head so when they find her guilty of murder I can argue that since Bob is also a red head he's probably planning on murdering someone too and SWAT needs to break into his house. Then while they're not looking I take the TV.
@colombiaje You know waht else the US got out of that wear? One word: Debt. Now tell me if you can, what country would go to war to put themselves into debt, hmm?
@colombiaje Sure, Alex Jones is free to pay for an independent investigation with the millions of dollars he's made off of 911. 911 is a multi million dollar industry for conspiracy theorists. If they're really just selling DVD's bumper stickers, coffee mugs, signed books, and key chains to spread awareness and uncover the truth then why don't they spend the proceeds on uncovering the truth? Or at least give all the money to the victims.
@colombiaje The most important question is have you even read the final report on WTC7 or do you just dismiss is out of hand because some website is telling you its bogus and that you should buy their DVD to get the real truth™?
@DRAT311 The WTC7 report claims that the building came down due to fire damage that spread throughout leading to structural damage, thats what our government said caused the collapse. Yet there werer smaller buildings, closer to the WTC1,2 that had fires and debris falling onto them and did not come down. I dont need a DVD in order to have questions. You watch the buildings come down and they are reminiscent of demolitions, that plus Silversteins "pull it" comment raise a ton of questions.
@colombiaje Wow, I'm sorry but the Silverstein "pull it" comment raises no questions at all unless you try to take it out of context and claim that pull it has ever meant demolish a building. You think he just accidentally admitted to their plot for mass murder on TV? I'm sorry but that's absurd. Because the other buildings had collapsed the fire chief made the decision to pull out because they knew it might collapse. Stretching that into demolition is flat out self delusion.
@colombiaje You need to know something about structure design and physics before you can argue that if a 50 story building collapses after failure then a 10 story building must do the same. Its laughable really. First off, they're designed completely differently. If you DID read the WTC7 report you'd know it didn't collapse from load but from thermal expansion. A factor not previously considered in fire scenarios.
@colombiaje Buildings such as WTC5 did fail due to the fires. Everything above the failure points caved in. The building was just too short for their to be a progressive collapse. A collapse isn't going to progress straight sideways. Try this experiment...(or just imagine it) Build a structure out of something like Jenga blocks that's 1ft wide X 4ft tall. Pull out one of the center supports at the bottom. The collapse will progress upwards and the entire building will come down.
The aim of all the disinformation forcedly circulated is to destroy the US society. Its done by snitchers spreading lies and hatred. The reason is to impede the US superpower which had been, in the eyes of the world, a shining example of freedom, justice and democracy. The US did not change in respect to freedom, justice and democracy but nevertheless these constant attacks have destroyed the reputation of the US. My brother Markus Bott had been tortured and was murdered because of our homepage.
Comparing a 767 to a beer can is extremely simple minded. Rigid aircraft grade aluminum is not comparable to a micro thin flexible can. The engines are titanium steel. There is also a steel keel beam under the fuselage. The whole thing weighs about 140 tons.
@fizziwig88 nothing of what you said makes sense. At high speeds it most certainly behaves like a beer can! Just look at it the other way around. Pretend the plane was stationary, and the building was moving at speed, the plane would be cut like butter, not the other way around. The biggest problem is the wings and tail. Wings carry the fuel and are delicate. Even a bird in the "titanium" engine can bring down the plane. You lack common sense. see dollarpages [] org
@fizziwig88 Also, relatively speaking, the thickness of the WTC steel many inches, compared to about 1/4 inch for the fuselage, you pretty much have a beer can sewer grate {or BBQ grille} situation, the ratios are right on.
@vhsjvc The thickness of the steel was only 1/4 inch at the level where the planes struck. Not many inches!! The mass of the plane at 137 tons is greater than the mass of the individual columns that it struck even at rest. Mass increases with velocity The planes were estimated to be travelling near 500mph. Your bird and Titanium engine metaphor proves my point , not yours!
@fizziwig88 Why don't you do some research on what a bird does to the exterior of a plane when it is hit by a plane. The aluminum would have broken up at impact, not melt through the steel grid. Newton's Law's, maybe you need to learn them.
@blite13 WHY DONT YOU DO SOME RESEARCH! Only complete idiots subscribe to the no plane theories. The vast majority of your fellow paranoid conspiracy buffs denounce them. A 767 weighs 137 tons. It has a rigid frame. It has steel components. The outer frame of the WTC was 1/4 inch thick hollow steel box columns bolted together, so the towers could bend with the wind. At 500mph they offered minimal resistance.
@fizziwig88 Why don't you get your 'facts' straight. 1/4", MY ASS, the planes were not going 500 mph, don't be ridiculous, those airliners cannot fly at those speeds at sea level. They would not withstand the pressure. Most of the airplane is aluminum, only the landing gear and engines could break through the outer steel frame. So, taking that into consideration, how could an airliner melt through THICK steel? The outer shell wasn't a 1/4', that is an absurd statement... =mhum#p/f/87/Fet5o3wbq30
@blite13 It is complete BS that jet liners cannot maintain such speeds in a long vertical dive at such altitude. There are several videos on my favorites by alawson 911, who is a Truther by the way, debunking this claim as well as the nose in nose out hogwash and other no plane theories. Aside from the engines and landing gear there is a large keel beam beneath the fuselage and wing box. There is also a rigid inner frame composed of an aluminum titanium alloy.
@blite13 I suggest you watch a video that has narration next time. There are dozens of them. For that matter just google Wtc design. The perimeter columns were pre-fabbed panels of box columns. They were thicker at the base to about a quarter of the way up the tower. They were tapered and at the level where the planes struck THEY WERE 1/4 IN. THICK. THIS IS A FACT! They were not welded but bolted together so the buildings could bend with the wind.
your completely wrong --- and there is NOT ONE structural engineer or architect that would support this theory --- why do you think AE911 bans no plane idiots like you?
@Denierbud11 How do you explain the nose of the missle, I mean plane make from one side of the building through the other? The footage shot by the helicopter camera from the local NY station clearly shows a nose coming out the other side. Impossible for an airliner to do that.
it clearly shows debri, it does not clear show the nose -- how do you explain the sides of the tower bowing out in the minutes before the towers collapsed
@Denierbud11 You better change your glasses, you can't see. What in the fuck does the bowing out have to do with a collapse with little or no resistance. Nice try ....damn, the group of debunkers on this vid are very lame. Guess they are running out of people who actually believe the 9/11 lie. All the new footage, all the testimony on NYCCAN dot com, building what dot org, the commission members "were set up to fail in there" 'official report' that was signed off by no one who made up the report
if you do not know what the significance of bowing means then your ability to reason is about zero [[ what do you think when metal heats, would you expect it to weaken, lose its integrity and begin to bow out? because when the NYPD aviation saw it, that is what they thought was happening, and guess what , they were right
bowing is directly on point regarding evidence of fire and structural damage induced collapsed - if there were explosives, there would have beeen no bowing
Rigid wall of what properties?.. Some concrete walls you can smash through with a big enough mallet, but other concrete walls are used in nuclear bunkers, which is it?..
Actually if you ask me this is well applicable to the Pentagon strike, only, that one was moving at higher speed, but the wings on a Boeing 767 aren't strong enough to pierce reinforced concrete.
The shattering is very real, we saw that at the WTC as well, all of the fireball outside the entry hole. Concrete and glass turn to dust.
At the towers the wings were only piercing hollow steel tubes, which were also too much for the wingtips, and the rudder.
It is just your unsubstantiated opinion, that this is just an animation. In fact, this is not an animation but a simulation by the Purdue University's 911 impact project. On their webpage, they state:
"We simulated the frontal impact of our plane model with a large concrete barrier, like the one used in the 1988 Sandia Labs F-4 crash test and computed the reaction force variation during the simulated crash duration."
ya, so metal wings cant pierce concrete but a thin plastic straw can pierce a telephone pole in a hurricane..... the speed of the plane does a number on the concrete...
Show me a plastic straw that has pierced a telephone pole. REINFROCED concrete is superb, why do you think nuclear stations are made from (extra strong) ref- concrete?
There's a funny picture of a car wrapped around a telephone pole, as a result of a tornado, on wikimedia commons's tornado page, so please explain to me in what universe can a telephone pole survive a car but not a straw?
This is a simulation by the Purdue University'S 911 simulation project. These are the same guys, who created the simulation seen in watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8. Merlin5x5 clearly doesn't know, what he's talking about. If you want, you can learn of the whole project from their webpage. I will post the link on your profile. If you don't want to get involved, just ignore my post.
Since you probably blocked me, I cannot post messages on your channel and I can't post a webpage link here.
There is a webpage of the Purdue University 911 simulation project. If you would google for nsf-itr dsc-0325227 (which is the signature of this project's founding), the very first link should lead you to aforementioned webpage. They use IBM mainframes and a state-of-the-art simulation software, so this is not an animation.
@whiterottenrabbit, I have been to the Purdue 9/11 simulation website since the original Pentagon FEA analysis and animation in 2003, and have followed them for almost seven years now.
I build UNIX compute clusters for exactly these kind of applications, and have talked to the Purdue academic staff that come to IEEE graphics meetings here in Las Vegas.
They have an old surviving CRAY, and a LINUX renderman / compute cluster that is more powerful, Nastran, and custom post processors.
It is secondary, what hardware they used. You asked my, what animation software they used. Well, according to their webpage, hey used not animation but simulation software LS-Dyna. Also they state, that this is not an animation, but a simulation. So your opinion that this is "amateur animation" is simply wrong.
It was used for the Pentagon simulation in 2003, not for this animation.
By the way, LS-DYNA is based on their CRAY computer. That would be a 1990s original hw/sw setup.
Ancient, in computer graphics terms.
NASTRAN, the standard FEA system that is open source, is extensible, which is why they extended it, and not the commercial LS-DYNA, which they would have had to pay to extend it.
Well, maybe we talk at cross-purposes here. You said that this is an "amateur animation". While this is an animation, it is based on a simulation using LS-Dyna conducted by the Purdue University - this is what the Purdue University's webpage states. So either your opinion about "amateur animation" is wrong or the Purdue University'S webpage is wrong.
@whiterottenrabbit Merlin pulls his rabbits out of a hat but there is no magic to it. Or science. The other thing he pulls is his pud. He thinks the Purdue video is good science. It isn't even a good cartoon. and he is a bad joke.
Actually, I don't think that he thinks the Purdue video is good science. The point I was trying to make almost 5 months ago was, that he said that this video is just an animation. This implies that somebody just drawn it without having some sort of an underlying model of simulated physical laws - like a cartoon. But in fact, it is not just a cartoon but a simulation. Whether it is a truthful one depends on the model they used, IMHO. But this is not important right now.
What is important, however, is that this Merlin guy already talked rubbish in a comment on another 911 video and I had a longer conversation with him. What I especially don't like about all this commenting on 911 videos is that there are extremely few real experts who actually know, what they're talking about. Almost all people (including me) are just laymen, who often are trying to inflict their smattering on others. And the string-pullers of 911 are still as merry as larks.
whiterabbit All true. Our lack of expertize never keeps us from making judgments in life on many levels of expertize. Yet we do it. What happened on 911 we were fed Lies. And once we wake up and look at the evidence we can make judgments on the lies. We sit in juries and do this. We make many critical judgments w/o phd's. Only on 911 do we hear "Who are you, non expert?.We know the lie is good. Experts like R Gage just woke up. I have friends w/ phd's who won't look at it.. One w/ phd in vision
1 yes both objects aren't rigid...the...so you might expect the ALUMINUIM PLANE TO COME APART AT LEAST A BIT...when impacting a SOLID building...rather than go through it like a "knife"
2 Hurricanes DO NOT drive wooden planks of 2 by 4 through concrete walls...they drive them through wooden walls.. and at high speeds...brick single-skin walls by knocking out a brick or two from it's moarter-bed
please put your further bullshit with your "collection of Asian's Ears" ...Sabertooth
@homerbear46 , can't help it if you can't read that it's an amateur animation, super-genius, that's your problem.
Second, notice the plane disintegrates but doesn't even AFFECT the wall in any way?
This is NOT FEA, which is far more accurate.
Second, high speed drives WATER thru steel, why not aluminum? The fact is, the essential equation of ANY impact on a stationary object, Momentum, doesn't mention material, MORON.
Make 120 TONS of marshmallow go 500 mph, you get the same damage.
Dude, relax for a moment, stop calling people names and try for a civilized conversation for a moment.
As with the TV, not everything you see is like you believe it is. This is not an amateur animation, it was carried out by the same guys, who created the simulation in watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8. Check their webpage, I will post the link on your profile.
Their first video of the Pentagon in 2003, is actually on my channel.
This is an animation, not a simulation.
Notice the nose goes into the wall with little or no interaction with it at all.
The yellow debris doesn't even start until the aircraft reaches the wing roots.
IF you can actually inform on what animation system this is produced with, let me know. I used to be a Walt Disney engineer, and I am familiar with Maya, 3D studio.
If you do a little research on tolerances, flight stress and the types of spars and bolts used to secure the wings onto a commerical jets fuselage you might discover a few things. Planes have been in production for longer than the Towers were standing, and when you consider the tolerances they can stand withstand at high speeds, high altitude, sheering winds - I'm sure that they cut into the WTC like a knife through butter. Infact, we SAW it happen. Sliced clean through, with little resistance.
And even though I'm not a Truther, I'll give this effort 3* for the work that has gone into it. However, at the end of the day, plane wings are extremely strong and durable and can tolerate a great deal of stress. They undergo highly detailed testing during their experimental phase, prototypes, wind tunnels. All these exist to evaluate the strength and safety. Remember - if a wing comes off mid-flight, there's only one way down.
Research people - Google these things. Learn for yourselves! ;^)
What is the definition of a rigid wall here? The walls in an american house could be considered rigid by home building standards yet a 767 would pass through those wooden things without scratching paint.
The wall in this vid gives no access at all to the plane (which is easily programmed) yet completely lacking in real world relevance.
these videos showing planes crumbling into dust are the biggest load of horseshit ever!! it never happened b4 911 and has never happened after, all we see these days from a plane wreck are what u expect to c!
and as for flight 93 crash, search lockerbie and take a look at that wreck!
Israel attacked us on 9-11 so we would fight all over the Middle East on their behalf. Dual citizen Israeli / Americans in our Government are more loyal to Israel than to AMERICA. GOOGLE : TED OLSEN CALL LIE GOOGLE : ODIGO WARNING GOOGLE : UNUSUAL EVACUATIONS GOOGLE : SILVERSTEIN PULL IT GOOGLE : DANCING MOSSAD GOOGLE : MEXICO MOSSAD GOOGLE : BIN LADEN DENIED 9-11 GOOGLE : ADAM PEARLMAN ADL GOOGLE : CHENEY JONESREPORT GOOGLE : NEUTREI KARTA
The 9/11 was a fake the Sears tower being hit by a B52 bomber didn't collapse while the world trade center designed to resist storms tornadoes and earthquakes collapsed perfectly, the pentagon it wast really an aeroplane, it was a tomahawk cruise missile painted in American Airlines Livery, which explodes very lightly. Investigators didn't even find turbofan parts while in all plane parts those were the strongest designed to resist internal explosions and blade-offs yet didn't even found one
@jamesha175 It's a beercan containing 11,000 gallons of kerosene. How'd you like to get hit in the face with a full beercan? Also the keel and the wingbox are pretty substantial structures.
@punxsutawneybarney This plane is constructed of aluminum alloy frame members, and a composite aluminum skin. The fuel was atomized into aerosol and produced the explosion seen on impact. The fuel had little impact on the structure and did little but start the fires in the towers. NIST would have you believe the plane was able to completely sever 4ft thick steel columns in the core after passing through a 2ft thick steel beam perimeter wall that absorbed almost all the impact energy. NIST=JOKE!
@talltatguy A fireball is not an explosion. It burns only at the surface--the inside is cool, and it does not expert explosive pressure. Not the the impressive fireballs in WTC2 did not break windows. What I'm saying is that the fuel provided the mass enabling lightweight aluminum wings to penetrate the box columns of the perimeter columns, just as a full beercan has the potential to crack your skull.
@punxsutawneybarney You are correct about the beer can. yet you forget the plane was half full of fuel. It was not full and in no way can beer compared to the beer can, because the beer can is full, and has the total mass of the can, and its full contents. The planes were essentially hollow and the tanks were nowhere near their full mass. Maybe, just maybe, if they had been fully fueled I might be able to accept the heat, and damage explanation. As of now it makes no sense. Cont
@punxsutawneybarney As stated before, most of the aircraft's potential stored energy was released on impact with the outer wall. There is no way this plane could have the energy or solid mass to severe enough core beams to allow for heat deformation to collapse the building. NIST entire scenario counts on events that could not have possibly been achieved by this aircraft alone! If it used its energy to penetrate the outer wall, how did it strip 60000 sq ft of insulation, ta facilitate collapse?
@talltatguy The perimeter columns were 13" square and at the level of impact the perimeter columns were built of at most 3/8" steel plate. The core columns at that level were H-sections and nowhere near 4 feet thick. NIST is a joke, I agree, but you need to get your facts straight before you'll be able to convince anybody of that fact.
@punxsutawneybarney 3/8 thick box columns made the perimiter. The total box columns was 2 ft thick. it was comprised of 4 sides 3/8 inch thick. The interior core beams were also box columns. At the base they measured 4 ft thick and tapered to 2 1/2 feet thick at the top of the tower to allow for the "flex" of the tower. I do not claim to be an expert, but have done exhaustive research on the towers and their construction. The exterior columns were the same size from ground to top.
@talltatguy The best research resource on the the towers is the 911research website. The perimeter columns were not the same size from the ground. The ground columns were those "tree" form columns.Above those they were 13" X 13" but wall thickness ranged form 4" to 1/4". The core columns transitioned to an H-beam cross section at the top where the planes hit. You need to get clear on this stuff before you canconvince anybody.
@ImyManz99 lol... even the same conspiracies contradict themselves, one says the plane where holograms, other say bombs where planted, other says one plane hit north tower but south tower was a bomb, other says it was a military plane.... so which one should we believe?... people are so stupid that some even say that the earthquake in Haiti was an underground bomb planted by the U.S government
how about we start treating each other with a little respect, instead of calling each other names. then perhaps we could have a real debate on the issue, you lot sound like politicians always bickering..
there arent even videos of a plane hitting the pentagon.. and if u have seen some movies.. u can see the crash site is fucked up and not like it should if a plane crashed there
You or whoever did that simulation pulled it out of your ass. There was nothing to make the empanage flip upward or the wingtips to accelerate beyond the wing roots. Go look at the F-4 crash test done at Sandia. The fuselage did not accordian, nor did the empanage rise in the least bit beyond what piled up at the interface with the wall. You're an blithering fool.
How completely do they fool you? Just Google any of these and Matt Marriott
Lottery
ISS
BECAUSE the TRUTH is NEVER TOO HORRIBLE, even if YOU, the sheep, realize it only INSIDE the slaughterhouse.
9/11 FULL STORY was exposed worldwide first long ago.
From TV Fakery (no planes) to mini H bombs upwards directed, how Barbara Olson was murdered immediately after Massood, how Lisa Beamer was fooled, why the Pentagon and WTC7 were in the script, etc.
which truther??? alex jones??? and his fake truth movement?
they sold out... moron. how mad r u??? to honestly beieve that a 767 can butter into a steel/concrete structure without any physical reaction to the wings or the tail??? this video doesnt prove anything. u cant compare this video to the fake footages... its inaccurate
so the fuseluge is traveling faster than the wing section? Upon impact to the air/building interface,the deceleration is only incremental not as you have it depicted here.WTCtribute,has it right.
This is at normal cruising speed. The terrorists on 9/11 were flying over 400 knots, much faster then this simulation. Another error here is that surely the aircraft would break up all together, the same as many crashes in the history of aviation.
The ones on Flight 175 blew up inside the building. When a plane going 590 miles an hour hits a building, nothing will happen on impact because of the force of impact. When it goes in though, it's suddenly stopped by the beams and concrete, and then it explodes.
America is a zionist bitch and playground till someone does something about it. Wear a dress a sqwat to pee. Obey your masters.
Jimbofx911 1 month ago
M&M's did it...
proboscum 2 months ago
I have a computer animation of an alien invasion force being dispatched by a scientist wielding a crowbar. Gordon Freeman did 911!
jmurockstar 2 months ago
Religion:
Fearful people embrace unprovable, preposterous allegations as Truth in the face of logic and science, sharing their faith and finding strength in a social unity with their fellow believers.
Conspiracy theories:
Fearful people embrace unprovable, preposterous allegations as Truth in the face of logic and science, sharing their faith and finding strength in a social unity with their fellow believers.
Same need, different answers. 8-)
carmium 4 months ago
@carmium Religion:
Start with an answer, finds facts which fit with this answer.
Pseudo-skepticism:
Start with an answer, finds facts which fit with this answer.
Your thinking is outdated, and you're only a parody of yourself.
forestloves 3 months ago
Fourteen Points...[Bentham]... Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink], .....Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [The Open Chemical Physics Journal] . Also see: Pilots for 911 truth, Patriots for 9/11 truth, US Military Officers for 911 truth, Firefighters for 911 truth, Scientists for 911 truth, Religious Leaders for 911 truth, Medical Professionals for 911 truth..............
1nephi13v37 5 months ago
A good youtube video on the EXPLOSIVES found in the dust of the World Trade Center Collapse.
/watch?v=23n0Vr_A1TQ
1nephi13v37 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nano-Thermite 9/11 Truth. Independant Scientists from around the world have found traces of this highly engineered, weaponized super thermite. Google: steven jones down under. Google: Bentham Open "Active Thermetic Material". THE WORLD KNOWS.
1nephi13v37 5 months ago
Nano-Thermite 9/11 Truth. Independant Scientists from around the world have found traces of this highly engineered, weaponized super thermite. Google: steven jones down under. Google: Bentham Open "Active Thermetic Material". THE WORLD KNOWS.
1nephi13v37 6 months ago
@1nephi13v37 No, the world knows 911 was an outside job and there was ZERO "nano-thermite" found. You're an idiot for believing that nonsense. Steven Jones and Niels Harritt found paint chips, nothing more. Their own "paper" proves this, the spectrometer graphs show spikes for Kaolin and Hematite, do some REAL research idiot. The BENTHAM OPEN journal is a sham. Research what happened following that papers publishing. Especially when they published a COMPLETE HOAX of a paper and 2 editors resign
Oz1976 5 months ago
@Oz1976 Differential Scanning Calorimetry, obviously you do not understand the science in the paper. The red/gray chips are ENERGETIC. Of course the truth of 9/11 is controversial. It is difficult even impossible for many to believe that their could be people so evil within our own leadership. Sorry friend the world knows, and good people are finding the truth. The evidence to support the truth is conclusive. The earth does indeed revolve around the sun, truth will prevail.
1nephi13v37 5 months ago
@1nephi13v37 Of course they're energetic dumbass, everything is energetic, fucking plastic is energetic, and in fact has a higher PE than thermite. In fact their PE scale as well shows it's not fucking thermite. Thermite has a PE of 4.5 kj/h, their sample was 7.5 kj/h. You're wrong again, nice attempt to try and sound knowledgeable, but you're nothing more than a pseudo-science shmuck. The world DOES know. They know it was terrorists and you're a moron:
(bastison . net)
Oz1976 5 months ago
@Oz1976 So help me to understand the simple science. Why did their red/gray crystals not disolve in paint thinner, though you argue they are paint chips?
1nephi13v37 5 months ago
@Oz1976 I dont need to debate with you. I am intelligent enough to have known those collapses were orchastrated as I watched them. I am happy to see science which finally proves my understanding of what really occured. I am sorry you have been deluded and feel it neccessary to call me names, in your frustration. Again, EXPLOSIVES were FOUND in the dust. Look into it, the citizens of this world have been deceived. and now THE WORLD KNOWS. google:911 truth UN
1nephi13v37 5 months ago 2
@1nephi13v37 You mean your stupid enough to believe what's spoon fed to you by idiots who haven't the feintest clue what they're talking about. There is no science that proves your "understanding of what occured". There is not one single scientific paper published in any engineering or physics journal supporting your idiocy. Please try and prove me wrong. Source any single paper published from a peer reviewed journal. Explosives were NOT found in the dust. You dont even know what thermite is...
Oz1976 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...and you're full of shit.
Born2Flesh 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuk-u-shima reactor 3, March 13: 500 NY firemen were nuked by a similar column on 911
***
911 = 0 planes
***
the explosion in basement of WTC1 and WTC2 was of the same type as Fukushima 3.
The only difference is that the illuminati BushClinton did the first two.
Google
****
911 for dummies basic facts
****
Truth666 8 months ago
.... Where are the black boxes of all those planes?
why the towers crumbled, however, have found their passports?
as they used to call from plane with the phone?
why WTC7 collapsed?
because it was immediately rebuilt?
how can the aluminum fuselage of a plane broke more sections of the walls of the pentagon?
this year 's are 10 years of Afghanistan, Iraq was a disaster ......
where are these terrorists?
Americans .... wake up.
MrChanakkale 9 months ago
@MrChanakkale
1. The B.B.s have been found
2. WTC 7 collapsed because of tons of concrete and steel damaging it's side and main support column and the fire inside caused many generators in the building to explode, therefore damaging the remaining columns.
3. Completely different buildings, different designs, different walls, different speeds of the plane. It's called Physics.
4. The terrorists are dead, in GITMO, and are still being pursued.
MrChanakkale...WAKE UP!!!
UFOAnswers 8 months ago
@UFOAnswers
....quindi tu credi che al quaeda esista veramente?....
avrete un brutto risveglio.....la verità non ve la diranno mai.
chiedi a zapruder.....le cose sono sempre diverse da come sembrano.
MrChanakkale 8 months ago
@MrChanakkale
These few points from NIST's report on 7 might surprise you
-Kink unexplainable
-Diesel explosions and long span trusses were negligible
-Fires sustained would have brought down undamaged building
-Thermal expansion is the primary culprit
None of that floats my boat very well. I do appreciate their acknowledgement of at least 2.25 seconds and 105 feet of free fall.
JSSTyger 8 months ago
@JSSTyger
....guardando le fotografie dall'alto delle torri gemelle dopo un mese l' attentato.....le cose sono più chiare.
avete visto queste foto?
MrChanakkale 8 months ago
@MrChanakkale
Al Qaeda does exist, are you serious? Do you have any idea how many attacks Al Qaeda has done? Do you know how much over whelming, clear as day proof there is that Al Qaeda exists? You need a rude awakening buddy, stay out of the chat rooms and read a book for God's sake. The truth is there, you just choose too ignore it. Yes, things are sometimes different then what they seem, but not everything. Jeez.
UFOAnswers 8 months ago
@UFOAnswers
... then you are convinced of these things the same way you believe that Oswald killed JFK......
perhaps 48 years are enough to power a doubt?
MrChanakkale 8 months ago
@MrChanakkale
They have proved Oswald killed JFK. Not only with ballistics tests, recreation tests, eye witness accounts, and the fact that Oswald said in his own words "I killed that son of a bitch JFK." Dear God do you live under a rock? WAKE UP!!! Again, stay out of the chat rooms and stop watching "documentaries." They do nothing but promote bullshit so impressionable people like yourself will buy into it.
UFOAnswers 8 months ago
....dove sono finite le scatole nere di tutti quegli aerei?
perchè si sono sbriciolate le torri però hanno trovato i passaporti?
come facevano a chiamare dall' aereo con il telefono?
perchè è crollato il wtc7?
perchè è stato subito ricostruito?
come può la carlinga in alluminio di un aereo passare più sezioni dei muri del pentagono?
quest' anno sono 10 anni di afghanistan, in iraq è stata una sciagura......
dove sono questi terroristi?
americani....svegliatevi.
MrChanakkale 9 months ago
Nobody said anything about planes filled with explosives, including me. I said buildings filled with explosives. If the buildings could not have pancake collapsed as CTs claim and you can see them exploding on every floor then it took over 100 tons of explosives to accomplish that identical collapse appearance on every single floor all the way down.
DRAT311 11 months ago
Do conspiracy theorists think government agents create giant Rube Goldberg machines every time they need to flip a light switch? The amount of pointless complexity that that these conspiracy scenarios have is mind boggling.
DRAT311 1 year ago
The whole "airplanes can't fly fast at low altitude" BS is one of the most annoying abortions of physics the truthers have come up with. They think recommended safe practices are the same thing as maximum possible speeds. IF the planes were military remote drones then why crash them at high speed at all if you're going to bring down the building with explosives? As usual the conspiracy scenarios don't even make sense, regardless of how impossible they are.
DRAT311 1 year ago
@DRAT311 I for one do not believe that the planes were remote drones, but the point of the planes was to "sell" the attacks to the people of the US. Had the buildings come down from explosives without a plane striking that raises a lot of questions however if you have a plane strike it and hype up a war for Islam you now have a society willing to go to war with an entire religion. Whether WTC1,2 were brought down by planes or bombs who knows. WTC7 is the one that raises all the questions.
colombiaje 11 months ago
@colombiaje Questions are fine, here are the answer - wwwDOTnistDOTgov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7DOThtm
DRAT311 11 months ago
@DRAT311 Now this is the problem you look for answers in publications that are government own. Hypothetically speaking if the 911 attacks were an inside job or there was foreknowledge do you really think that the government would publish data that would raise questions? The 911 commission was a joke and a sick one at that. A NEW INDEPENDENT STUDY IS NEEDED. Fuck the NIST those bastards strangled the truth by not releasing the tapes when they were supposed to
colombiaje 11 months ago
@colombiaje Your problem is that you think of the the government as one unified entity. As if the millions of people who work for the government are all willing to cover up the mass murder of thousands and never leak any information. The president can't get a blow job without it getting leaked to 10 news agencies but thousands of people can be involved in covering up mass murder and no one leaks evidence because the government is this all knowing big brother than can cover up anything.
DRAT311 11 months ago
@DRAT311 You keep making these theory's up and claiming they are mine...Of course all of the government was not aware, all it takes are the major players like the President/Vice president,Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and the likes. Our government is not autonomous it is controlled by the central bankers, and corporate lobbyists from GE,Boeing,Lockheed Martin,Haliburton,Blackwater,Monsanto all of them war profiteers. 911 was our key into the middle east.
colombiaje 11 months ago
@colombiaje No no, you say only those people need to be in on but then who planted the bombs? Who controlled the planes? What happened to the people on board? If the NIST report can't be believed then the 100s of scientists at NIST have to be in on it. Silverstein has to be in on it. The FBI investigators who spent months at ground zero all have to be in on it. Quit kidding yourself. If it was a conspiracy it takes hundreds of people, including those with nothing to gain.
DRAT311 11 months ago
@colombiaje Then build a structure thats 1 foot tall by 4 feet wide. Pull out a support. The collapse will not spread straight sideways like it spread straight up.
DRAT311 11 months ago
@colombiaje In the end a 911 conspiracy would be nothing but a giant Rube Goldberg machine. It would be infinitely easier to just set off a bomb or chemical weapon attack and hold a fake investigation and say it came from Iraq. 911 wasn't even linked to Iraq AT ALL. If the govt can stretch Al Qaeda attacking us into momentum to go to war they could easily stretch a bomb or any other attack without all of this remote controlled planes, 100k tons of explosives, nonsense.
DRAT311 11 months ago
@colombiaje Seriously, sit down and think about it. If you wanted a reason to invade Iraq, how high on acid would you have to be to come up with remote controlling planes into buildings filled with hundreds of tons of explosives(snuck in by ninjas and hidden by cloaking devices) and flying another plane into the pentagon(just to make yourselves look incompetent?) and blaming the entire thing on a bunch of people who have NOTHING to do with the country you're trying to justify invading?
DRAT311 11 months ago
@DRAT311 Who said anything about remote controlled planes being loaded with explosives? You must be high on acid sir. 911 was the catalyst to start a war against Islam not just Iraq...The US had been calling for a war with Iraq for years and could not find the means to justify one, 911 happened and the govnt. connected Saudi Arabians with Saddam, and if you look at the region today the war has expanded to Afghanistan,Pakistan,Yemen,Iran,Lebanon its geopolitics, false flag just like tonkin
colombiaje 11 months ago
@colombiaje If you don't think that the planes were remote controlled then who was flying them?
DRAT311 11 months ago
@colombiaje You still haven't explained why the govt would execute such an overly pointlessly complicated conspiracy that doesn't even connect to Iraq just to force themselves to come up with dubious CIA documents to try to tie 911 to Iraq after the fact. Its straight up silly. If they planned 911 as an excuse to attack Iraq they would have made it Iraqi's attacking us, not someone who has nothing to do with Iraq at all. Explain that or you've got nothing.
DRAT311 11 months ago
@DRAT311 I dont see your point since after 9/11 the first thing the United States did was declare war on Iraq. It's really sick that they carried out such a heinous crime to instill their illegal wars but they needed a massive attack to sell it to the people. 911 left America traumatized the media then amplified this feelings of fear,anger, and worst of all HATE against muslims by making connections that did and to this day do NOT exist. Remember Bush saying "your with us or against us"
colombiaje 11 months ago
@colombiaje You don' t understand my point because you don't want to. If can reach the conclusion that benefiting from something is proof of causing it, then there is no hope for you to be logical. Just go ahead and lock away every person who's family member has ever died with a life insurance policy. The first thing he did after his wife died is cash the insurance policy, therefore he must have killed her right? Motive - proof? Luckily only CT's think like that and they aren't judges.
DRAT311 11 months ago
@DRAT311 The fact that he managed to stretch, fight, and lie his way into war with Iraq after 911 isn't proof that he caused it in order to invade Iraq. It's the opposite. It's proof that 911 is the worst conspiracy to justify war with Iraq that anyone could have thought of. It's downright laughable.
DRAT311 11 months ago
@DRAT311 That was they way that Bush generalized this war against an entire region, 911 was a power grab. Look at the US today, The Patriot act can deem ANYONE a terrorist, political dissidence is terrorism now. We are at war with Iraq,Afghanistan killing innocents and looting them of their oil,and natural resources over 1trillion worth of lithium. We are flirting with war in Iran, Yemen, Somalia and bombing Pakistan with Predator drones. All because of the "WAR ON TERROR"
colombiaje 11 months ago
@colombiaje If they wanted to justify a war with Iraq they would have just faked Iraqi spies bombing time square or something. Everyone would have backed an invasion of Iraq in a heartbeat. Simple and effective. If I wanted to steal my neighbors TV I would just break in and steal it, not kill someone to frame someone, to then spend months faking documents to try to connect a 3rd unrelated person to the crime just so I could sneak into their house and steal the TV.
DRAT311 11 months ago
@DRAT311 You have made it apparent that you have some deformity when it comes to logical reasoning. Enjoy being manipulated and lied to by your government. Cheers.
colombiaje 11 months ago
@DRAT311 How can you possibly have a war on a concept. Terror is not a person,group,country,religion.
This is what the US got out of 911: they consolidated power,got a war for the major corporations like GE,Boeing,Haliburton,LockheedMartin,Monsanto,Blackwater to make money off of and are looting the nations they are fighting. Thats basically the end of my rant, I know 911 conspiracy sounds crazy but a inside job or not we need a new investigation we have already lost so much we cant afford more
colombiaje 11 months ago
@colombiaje 911 as a planned plot to justify invading Iraq would be the worst plot EVER. It would be like me wanting to steel my neigbors TV. So I kill a random guy by cutting their head off. Then i plant the murder weapon in the house of Susan. Susan is a red head so when they find her guilty of murder I can argue that since Bob is also a red head he's probably planning on murdering someone too and SWAT needs to break into his house. Then while they're not looking I take the TV.
DRAT311 11 months ago
@colombiaje You know waht else the US got out of that wear? One word: Debt. Now tell me if you can, what country would go to war to put themselves into debt, hmm?
Waroftheworlds112 9 months ago
@colombiaje Sure, Alex Jones is free to pay for an independent investigation with the millions of dollars he's made off of 911. 911 is a multi million dollar industry for conspiracy theorists. If they're really just selling DVD's bumper stickers, coffee mugs, signed books, and key chains to spread awareness and uncover the truth then why don't they spend the proceeds on uncovering the truth? Or at least give all the money to the victims.
DRAT311 11 months ago
@colombiaje The most important question is have you even read the final report on WTC7 or do you just dismiss is out of hand because some website is telling you its bogus and that you should buy their DVD to get the real truth™?
DRAT311 11 months ago
@DRAT311 The WTC7 report claims that the building came down due to fire damage that spread throughout leading to structural damage, thats what our government said caused the collapse. Yet there werer smaller buildings, closer to the WTC1,2 that had fires and debris falling onto them and did not come down. I dont need a DVD in order to have questions. You watch the buildings come down and they are reminiscent of demolitions, that plus Silversteins "pull it" comment raise a ton of questions.
colombiaje 11 months ago
@colombiaje Wow, I'm sorry but the Silverstein "pull it" comment raises no questions at all unless you try to take it out of context and claim that pull it has ever meant demolish a building. You think he just accidentally admitted to their plot for mass murder on TV? I'm sorry but that's absurd. Because the other buildings had collapsed the fire chief made the decision to pull out because they knew it might collapse. Stretching that into demolition is flat out self delusion.
DRAT311 11 months ago
@colombiaje You need to know something about structure design and physics before you can argue that if a 50 story building collapses after failure then a 10 story building must do the same. Its laughable really. First off, they're designed completely differently. If you DID read the WTC7 report you'd know it didn't collapse from load but from thermal expansion. A factor not previously considered in fire scenarios.
DRAT311 11 months ago
@colombiaje Buildings such as WTC5 did fail due to the fires. Everything above the failure points caved in. The building was just too short for their to be a progressive collapse. A collapse isn't going to progress straight sideways. Try this experiment...(or just imagine it) Build a structure out of something like Jenga blocks that's 1ft wide X 4ft tall. Pull out one of the center supports at the bottom. The collapse will progress upwards and the entire building will come down.
DRAT311 11 months ago
The aim of all the disinformation forcedly circulated is to destroy the US society. Its done by snitchers spreading lies and hatred. The reason is to impede the US superpower which had been, in the eyes of the world, a shining example of freedom, justice and democracy. The US did not change in respect to freedom, justice and democracy but nevertheless these constant attacks have destroyed the reputation of the US. My brother Markus Bott had been tortured and was murdered because of our homepage.
wwwtotalitaerde 1 year ago
Comparing a 767 to a beer can is extremely simple minded. Rigid aircraft grade aluminum is not comparable to a micro thin flexible can. The engines are titanium steel. There is also a steel keel beam under the fuselage. The whole thing weighs about 140 tons.
fizziwig88 1 year ago
@fizziwig88 nothing of what you said makes sense. At high speeds it most certainly behaves like a beer can! Just look at it the other way around. Pretend the plane was stationary, and the building was moving at speed, the plane would be cut like butter, not the other way around. The biggest problem is the wings and tail. Wings carry the fuel and are delicate. Even a bird in the "titanium" engine can bring down the plane. You lack common sense. see dollarpages [] org
vhsjvc 1 year ago
@fizziwig88 Also, relatively speaking, the thickness of the WTC steel many inches, compared to about 1/4 inch for the fuselage, you pretty much have a beer can sewer grate {or BBQ grille} situation, the ratios are right on.
vhsjvc 1 year ago
@vhsjvc The thickness of the steel was only 1/4 inch at the level where the planes struck. Not many inches!! The mass of the plane at 137 tons is greater than the mass of the individual columns that it struck even at rest. Mass increases with velocity The planes were estimated to be travelling near 500mph. Your bird and Titanium engine metaphor proves my point , not yours!
fizziwig88 1 year ago
@fizziwig88 Why don't you do some research on what a bird does to the exterior of a plane when it is hit by a plane. The aluminum would have broken up at impact, not melt through the steel grid. Newton's Law's, maybe you need to learn them.
blite13 1 year ago
@blite13 WHY DONT YOU DO SOME RESEARCH! Only complete idiots subscribe to the no plane theories. The vast majority of your fellow paranoid conspiracy buffs denounce them. A 767 weighs 137 tons. It has a rigid frame. It has steel components. The outer frame of the WTC was 1/4 inch thick hollow steel box columns bolted together, so the towers could bend with the wind. At 500mph they offered minimal resistance.
fizziwig88 1 year ago 2
@fizziwig88 Why don't you get your 'facts' straight. 1/4", MY ASS, the planes were not going 500 mph, don't be ridiculous, those airliners cannot fly at those speeds at sea level. They would not withstand the pressure. Most of the airplane is aluminum, only the landing gear and engines could break through the outer steel frame. So, taking that into consideration, how could an airliner melt through THICK steel? The outer shell wasn't a 1/4', that is an absurd statement... =mhum#p/f/87/Fet5o3wbq30
blite13 1 year ago
Comment removed
blite13 1 year ago
@blite13 It is complete BS that jet liners cannot maintain such speeds in a long vertical dive at such altitude. There are several videos on my favorites by alawson 911, who is a Truther by the way, debunking this claim as well as the nose in nose out hogwash and other no plane theories. Aside from the engines and landing gear there is a large keel beam beneath the fuselage and wing box. There is also a rigid inner frame composed of an aluminum titanium alloy.
fizziwig88 1 year ago
@fizziwig88 Watch this vid......"WTC Construction 1967 - 1973"...it clearly shows you are a liar
blite13 1 year ago
@blite13 I suggest you watch a video that has narration next time. There are dozens of them. For that matter just google Wtc design. The perimeter columns were pre-fabbed panels of box columns. They were thicker at the base to about a quarter of the way up the tower. They were tapered and at the level where the planes struck THEY WERE 1/4 IN. THICK. THIS IS A FACT! They were not welded but bolted together so the buildings could bend with the wind.
fizziwig88 1 year ago
exactly, the wings would , snap-off, and land on the streets, and what ever else below.
manfromregina 1 year ago
@manfromregina
your completely wrong --- and there is NOT ONE structural engineer or architect that would support this theory --- why do you think AE911 bans no plane idiots like you?
Denierbud11 1 year ago
@Denierbud11 How do you explain the nose of the missle, I mean plane make from one side of the building through the other? The footage shot by the helicopter camera from the local NY station clearly shows a nose coming out the other side. Impossible for an airliner to do that.
blite13 1 year ago
@blite13
it clearly shows debri, it does not clear show the nose -- how do you explain the sides of the tower bowing out in the minutes before the towers collapsed
Denierbud11 1 year ago
@Denierbud11 You better change your glasses, you can't see. What in the fuck does the bowing out have to do with a collapse with little or no resistance. Nice try ....damn, the group of debunkers on this vid are very lame. Guess they are running out of people who actually believe the 9/11 lie. All the new footage, all the testimony on NYCCAN dot com, building what dot org, the commission members "were set up to fail in there" 'official report' that was signed off by no one who made up the report
blite13 1 year ago
@blite13
if you do not know what the significance of bowing means then your ability to reason is about zero [[ what do you think when metal heats, would you expect it to weaken, lose its integrity and begin to bow out? because when the NYPD aviation saw it, that is what they thought was happening, and guess what , they were right
fucking truther moron
Denierbud11 1 year ago
@Denierbud11 Bowing has nothing to do with how the buildings collapsed with little or no resistance, stay on topic mr. deceit boy.
blite13 1 year ago
@blite13
bowing is directly on point regarding evidence of fire and structural damage induced collapsed - if there were explosives, there would have beeen no bowing
Denierbud11 1 year ago
Rigid wall of what properties?.. Some concrete walls you can smash through with a big enough mallet, but other concrete walls are used in nuclear bunkers, which is it?..
SexyMelon 1 year ago 2
@SexyMelon
good point. not all "engineers" uphold the same safety standards.
The building codes are a guide line .. I hope all working building engineers got at least a 90% on thier exams, and not 80%.
manfromregina 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
manfromregina 1 year ago
was anybody else turned on by this video
cetaka 1 year ago
There was something strange on all videos with planes
1. First the plane enters the builting with its load of fuel complete
2. Once the pane is inside the building, two fires outide starded burning
The fire on the inpact side seems a little peculiar.
3. a few seconds afterwards we see black smoke appearing outside within the fire.
That is suspicious, because outside was oxygen enough. Why should there be so much black smoke? To hide to hide what ?
And the tail entry ,,, strange
luiwimmes 2 years ago
This is a good simulation of my career right now!
wanageeska 2 years ago
Airplane engines are designed with break away bolts in the case of crashes the engines separate from the fuselage to prevent further devastation.
jdiggemz 2 years ago
This animation has a few OBVIOUS problems.
1. It treats BOTH objects as rigid, and they are not. Aluminum is highly ductile.
2. It ignores the effect of speed. Hurricanes routinely drive debris through concrete walls, utility poles, and building walls.
Virtually everything liquifies at high impact speeds, including glass, aluminum and concrete. It doesn't shatter, like this video.
It also doesn't do anything without damage, as this video does, I could do better with flipcards.
Merlin5x5 2 years ago
This's a simulation by Purdue, I think.
Actually if you ask me this is well applicable to the Pentagon strike, only, that one was moving at higher speed, but the wings on a Boeing 767 aren't strong enough to pierce reinforced concrete.
The shattering is very real, we saw that at the WTC as well, all of the fireball outside the entry hole. Concrete and glass turn to dust.
At the towers the wings were only piercing hollow steel tubes, which were also too much for the wingtips, and the rudder.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
No, it's not by Purdue, that's a SIMULATION, and is math and physics based.
This is an animation, not a simulation.
You can tell from the lack of a wireframe, the lack of a time index, and it's preposterous NON damaging wall.
Merlin5x5 2 years ago
Plus, just to add sully to stupid.
The Pentagon plane was a 757.
Not that truthers can tell.
Merlin5x5 2 years ago
It is just your unsubstantiated opinion, that this is just an animation. In fact, this is not an animation but a simulation by the Purdue University's 911 impact project. On their webpage, they state:
"We simulated the frontal impact of our plane model with a large concrete barrier, like the one used in the 1988 Sandia Labs F-4 crash test and computed the reaction force variation during the simulated crash duration."
whiterottenrabbit 2 years ago
ya, so metal wings cant pierce concrete but a thin plastic straw can pierce a telephone pole in a hurricane..... the speed of the plane does a number on the concrete...
BantamAbyss 2 years ago
Show me a plastic straw that has pierced a telephone pole. REINFROCED concrete is superb, why do you think nuclear stations are made from (extra strong) ref- concrete?
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
There's a funny picture of a car wrapped around a telephone pole, as a result of a tornado, on wikimedia commons's tornado page, so please explain to me in what universe can a telephone pole survive a car but not a straw?
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
This is a simulation by the Purdue University'S 911 simulation project. These are the same guys, who created the simulation seen in watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8. Merlin5x5 clearly doesn't know, what he's talking about. If you want, you can learn of the whole project from their webpage. I will post the link on your profile. If you don't want to get involved, just ignore my post.
whiterottenrabbit 2 years ago
I doubt that, this was a lot less than 800km/h. I thought this was an earlier sim. but the wings do similar damage as what we saw at the Pentagon.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Since you probably blocked me, I cannot post messages on your channel and I can't post a webpage link here.
There is a webpage of the Purdue University 911 simulation project. If you would google for nsf-itr dsc-0325227 (which is the signature of this project's founding), the very first link should lead you to aforementioned webpage. They use IBM mainframes and a state-of-the-art simulation software, so this is not an animation.
whiterottenrabbit 2 years ago
@whiterottenrabbit, I have been to the Purdue 9/11 simulation website since the original Pentagon FEA analysis and animation in 2003, and have followed them for almost seven years now.
I build UNIX compute clusters for exactly these kind of applications, and have talked to the Purdue academic staff that come to IEEE graphics meetings here in Las Vegas.
They have an old surviving CRAY, and a LINUX renderman / compute cluster that is more powerful, Nastran, and custom post processors.
Merlin5x5 2 years ago
It is secondary, what hardware they used. You asked my, what animation software they used. Well, according to their webpage, hey used not animation but simulation software LS-Dyna. Also they state, that this is not an animation, but a simulation. So your opinion that this is "amateur animation" is simply wrong.
whiterottenrabbit 2 years ago
@whiterottenrabbit
LS-DYNA is software that I can run at home.
It was used for the Pentagon simulation in 2003, not for this animation.
By the way, LS-DYNA is based on their CRAY computer. That would be a 1990s original hw/sw setup.
Ancient, in computer graphics terms.
NASTRAN, the standard FEA system that is open source, is extensible, which is why they extended it, and not the commercial LS-DYNA, which they would have had to pay to extend it.
AH, college, cheap is better.
.
Merlin5x5 2 years ago
Well, maybe we talk at cross-purposes here. You said that this is an "amateur animation". While this is an animation, it is based on a simulation using LS-Dyna conducted by the Purdue University - this is what the Purdue University's webpage states. So either your opinion about "amateur animation" is wrong or the Purdue University'S webpage is wrong.
whiterottenrabbit 2 years ago
@whiterottenrabbit Merlin pulls his rabbits out of a hat but there is no magic to it. Or science. The other thing he pulls is his pud. He thinks the Purdue video is good science. It isn't even a good cartoon. and he is a bad joke.
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
@IExposeMormonism
Actually, I don't think that he thinks the Purdue video is good science. The point I was trying to make almost 5 months ago was, that he said that this video is just an animation. This implies that somebody just drawn it without having some sort of an underlying model of simulated physical laws - like a cartoon. But in fact, it is not just a cartoon but a simulation. Whether it is a truthful one depends on the model they used, IMHO. But this is not important right now.
whiterottenrabbit 1 year ago
@IExposeMormonism
What is important, however, is that this Merlin guy already talked rubbish in a comment on another 911 video and I had a longer conversation with him. What I especially don't like about all this commenting on 911 videos is that there are extremely few real experts who actually know, what they're talking about. Almost all people (including me) are just laymen, who often are trying to inflict their smattering on others. And the string-pullers of 911 are still as merry as larks.
whiterottenrabbit 1 year ago
whiterabbit All true. Our lack of expertize never keeps us from making judgments in life on many levels of expertize. Yet we do it. What happened on 911 we were fed Lies. And once we wake up and look at the evidence we can make judgments on the lies. We sit in juries and do this. We make many critical judgments w/o phd's. Only on 911 do we hear "Who are you, non expert?.We know the lie is good. Experts like R Gage just woke up. I have friends w/ phd's who won't look at it.. One w/ phd in vision
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
Google automatically deletes links... but you're not blocked, check if it has the add comment thing there.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@ Morlon
1 yes both objects aren't rigid...the...so you might expect the ALUMINUIM PLANE TO COME APART AT LEAST A BIT...when impacting a SOLID building...rather than go through it like a "knife"
2 Hurricanes DO NOT drive wooden planks of 2 by 4 through concrete walls...they drive them through wooden walls.. and at high speeds...brick single-skin walls by knocking out a brick or two from it's moarter-bed
please put your further bullshit with your "collection of Asian's Ears" ...Sabertooth
LMFAO
homerbear46 2 years ago
@homerbear46 , can't help it if you can't read that it's an amateur animation, super-genius, that's your problem.
Second, notice the plane disintegrates but doesn't even AFFECT the wall in any way?
This is NOT FEA, which is far more accurate.
Second, high speed drives WATER thru steel, why not aluminum? The fact is, the essential equation of ANY impact on a stationary object, Momentum, doesn't mention material, MORON.
Make 120 TONS of marshmallow go 500 mph, you get the same damage.
Merlin5x5 2 years ago
Dude, relax for a moment, stop calling people names and try for a civilized conversation for a moment.
As with the TV, not everything you see is like you believe it is. This is not an amateur animation, it was carried out by the same guys, who created the simulation in watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8. Check their webpage, I will post the link on your profile.
whiterottenrabbit 2 years ago
@whiterottenrabbit
No, actually, this is NOT RCAC.
Their first video of the Pentagon in 2003, is actually on my channel.
This is an animation, not a simulation.
Notice the nose goes into the wall with little or no interaction with it at all.
The yellow debris doesn't even start until the aircraft reaches the wing roots.
IF you can actually inform on what animation system this is produced with, let me know. I used to be a Walt Disney engineer, and I am familiar with Maya, 3D studio.
Merlin5x5 2 years ago
If you do a little research on tolerances, flight stress and the types of spars and bolts used to secure the wings onto a commerical jets fuselage you might discover a few things. Planes have been in production for longer than the Towers were standing, and when you consider the tolerances they can stand withstand at high speeds, high altitude, sheering winds - I'm sure that they cut into the WTC like a knife through butter. Infact, we SAW it happen. Sliced clean through, with little resistance.
MarcusBritish 2 years ago
And even though I'm not a Truther, I'll give this effort 3* for the work that has gone into it. However, at the end of the day, plane wings are extremely strong and durable and can tolerate a great deal of stress. They undergo highly detailed testing during their experimental phase, prototypes, wind tunnels. All these exist to evaluate the strength and safety. Remember - if a wing comes off mid-flight, there's only one way down.
Research people - Google these things. Learn for yourselves! ;^)
MarcusBritish 2 years ago
thats exectly what i said. and if people really believe that a plan can go trough a steel tower and explode from the other side. its bullshitttt.
elelisrael 2 years ago
What is the definition of a rigid wall here? The walls in an american house could be considered rigid by home building standards yet a 767 would pass through those wooden things without scratching paint.
The wall in this vid gives no access at all to the plane (which is easily programmed) yet completely lacking in real world relevance.
TankSombrero 2 years ago
these videos showing planes crumbling into dust are the biggest load of horseshit ever!! it never happened b4 911 and has never happened after, all we see these days from a plane wreck are what u expect to c!
and as for flight 93 crash, search lockerbie and take a look at that wreck!
02ellwoj 2 years ago
Look up the F-4 Phantom test.
It's is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
FidgetTucker 2 years ago
Ha that F-4 Phantom was a quarter of the weight of a B767 and was railed into a reactor facsimile wall which was nuke proof.
Take your own advice and remain silent.
TankSombrero 2 years ago
Oh yeah Flight 103 over Locherbie was explosed in air and not a controlled flight into terrain.
FidgetTucker 2 years ago
Oh yea even better, exploded in the air and the free fall into the ground.....still debris!
where is flight 93?
02ellwoj 2 years ago
wouldnt wnt to be in the fornt, it looked like it went straight through!
DonkeyManda432 2 years ago
And the point of this video is what?
MGR1900 2 years ago
To see how many condescending rhetorical questions will be posted.
xC3110x 2 years ago
LS-DYNA ? If so, can you post your source data please ?
femr2 2 years ago
How fast was this plane traveling? Very similar to what the plane from flight 93 would have experienced.
Could you run this at say... 600mph?
EPyles 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JesSaves 3 years ago
never thought computers could do this much lol
Weirdal56492 3 years ago
They can do more.
Weirdo10o4 3 years ago
What is that wall made of? Iridium?
Weirdo10o4 3 years ago
diamonds
pieheavenly 3 years ago
sugar pops...
NXNskater 3 years ago
i think diamonds is the strongest material to date
pieheavenly 3 years ago
no strongest natural element to date
sayanythingkicksass 2 years ago
Nope, carbon ist the Element. Diamond is the hartest structure of Carbon.
A weaker one is found in pencils.
Tsutomu6 2 years ago
lol, pencils
DonkeyManda432 2 years ago
crashing into a cement wall and a glass wall are completely different.
Dustmuffins 3 years ago
When did a plane crash into a glass wall?
bweazel 3 years ago
What are windows made out of?
Dustmuffins 3 years ago
They can be made out of plenty of different materials. But you said a glass wall. You didn't say a concrete wall with glass windows. Big difference.
bweazel 3 years ago
The 9/11 was a fake the Sears tower being hit by a B52 bomber didn't collapse while the world trade center designed to resist storms tornadoes and earthquakes collapsed perfectly, the pentagon it wast really an aeroplane, it was a tomahawk cruise missile painted in American Airlines Livery, which explodes very lightly. Investigators didn't even find turbofan parts while in all plane parts those were the strongest designed to resist internal explosions and blade-offs yet didn't even found one
jewelshare 3 years ago
the fuselage of a real 767 is just a giant flying beercan.
jamesha175 3 years ago 2
@jamesha175 It's a beercan containing 11,000 gallons of kerosene. How'd you like to get hit in the face with a full beercan? Also the keel and the wingbox are pretty substantial structures.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney This plane is constructed of aluminum alloy frame members, and a composite aluminum skin. The fuel was atomized into aerosol and produced the explosion seen on impact. The fuel had little impact on the structure and did little but start the fires in the towers. NIST would have you believe the plane was able to completely sever 4ft thick steel columns in the core after passing through a 2ft thick steel beam perimeter wall that absorbed almost all the impact energy. NIST=JOKE!
talltatguy 1 year ago
@talltatguy A fireball is not an explosion. It burns only at the surface--the inside is cool, and it does not expert explosive pressure. Not the the impressive fireballs in WTC2 did not break windows. What I'm saying is that the fuel provided the mass enabling lightweight aluminum wings to penetrate the box columns of the perimeter columns, just as a full beercan has the potential to crack your skull.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney You are correct about the beer can. yet you forget the plane was half full of fuel. It was not full and in no way can beer compared to the beer can, because the beer can is full, and has the total mass of the can, and its full contents. The planes were essentially hollow and the tanks were nowhere near their full mass. Maybe, just maybe, if they had been fully fueled I might be able to accept the heat, and damage explanation. As of now it makes no sense. Cont
talltatguy 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney As stated before, most of the aircraft's potential stored energy was released on impact with the outer wall. There is no way this plane could have the energy or solid mass to severe enough core beams to allow for heat deformation to collapse the building. NIST entire scenario counts on events that could not have possibly been achieved by this aircraft alone! If it used its energy to penetrate the outer wall, how did it strip 60000 sq ft of insulation, ta facilitate collapse?
talltatguy 1 year ago
@talltatguy The perimeter columns were 13" square and at the level of impact the perimeter columns were built of at most 3/8" steel plate. The core columns at that level were H-sections and nowhere near 4 feet thick. NIST is a joke, I agree, but you need to get your facts straight before you'll be able to convince anybody of that fact.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney 3/8 thick box columns made the perimiter. The total box columns was 2 ft thick. it was comprised of 4 sides 3/8 inch thick. The interior core beams were also box columns. At the base they measured 4 ft thick and tapered to 2 1/2 feet thick at the top of the tower to allow for the "flex" of the tower. I do not claim to be an expert, but have done exhaustive research on the towers and their construction. The exterior columns were the same size from ground to top.
talltatguy 1 year ago
@talltatguy The best research resource on the the towers is the 911research website. The perimeter columns were not the same size from the ground. The ground columns were those "tree" form columns.Above those they were 13" X 13" but wall thickness ranged form 4" to 1/4". The core columns transitioned to an H-beam cross section at the top where the planes hit. You need to get clear on this stuff before you canconvince anybody.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
CRAP, the plane magically penetrates the wall half-way through before it finally starts to atomize? Stupid perp video.
The 9/11 crash videos are fake. 9/11 was an inside job!
ImyManz99 3 years ago 2
@ImyManz99 lol... even the same conspiracies contradict themselves, one says the plane where holograms, other say bombs where planted, other says one plane hit north tower but south tower was a bomb, other says it was a military plane.... so which one should we believe?... people are so stupid that some even say that the earthquake in Haiti was an underground bomb planted by the U.S government
mrboredlolz 1 year ago
@ImyManz99 You're a nimrod.
DJEclipseNiagara 1 year ago
of course! how were we so blind as to not see this before?
cetaka 3 years ago
how about we start treating each other with a little respect, instead of calling each other names. then perhaps we could have a real debate on the issue, you lot sound like politicians always bickering..
research WTC 7 for the lie that wont go away.
minteko 3 years ago 2
This is fake. Didn't you see what happened at the Pentagon? The plane went through 4 of these reinforced walls like pancake at the WTC's. haha
Yerizzo 3 years ago
haha stfu, how can a plane of that size make such manouvers at this low altitude?
the only video that has been released doesnt show a plane
haha you fail
Michkuty 3 years ago
there arent even videos of a plane hitting the pentagon.. and if u have seen some movies.. u can see the crash site is fucked up and not like it should if a plane crashed there
qcow 3 years ago
... owned
DlrtyD 3 years ago
You or whoever did that simulation pulled it out of your ass. There was nothing to make the empanage flip upward or the wingtips to accelerate beyond the wing roots. Go look at the F-4 crash test done at Sandia. The fuselage did not accordian, nor did the empanage rise in the least bit beyond what piled up at the interface with the wall. You're an blithering fool.
leftysergeant 3 years ago 2
and so are you...for comparing the fuselage of a jet airline to that of an F-4. RANDOM!!
bluefrenchfries 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How completely do they fool you? Just Google any of these and Matt Marriott
Lottery
ISS
BECAUSE the TRUTH is NEVER TOO HORRIBLE, even if YOU, the sheep, realize it only INSIDE the slaughterhouse.
9/11 FULL STORY was exposed worldwide first long ago.
From TV Fakery (no planes) to mini H bombs upwards directed, how Barbara Olson was murdered immediately after Massood, how Lisa Beamer was fooled, why the Pentagon and WTC7 were in the script, etc.
Google:
9/11 for dummies Matt Marriott
Truth666 3 years ago
those images of the planes were fake
chibangin007 3 years ago
Nutbar. Even truthers are starting to distance themselves from the no-planers. If it's too mental them just how mad are you?
911TruthMatters 3 years ago
which truther??? alex jones??? and his fake truth movement?
they sold out... moron. how mad r u??? to honestly beieve that a 767 can butter into a steel/concrete structure without any physical reaction to the wings or the tail??? this video doesnt prove anything. u cant compare this video to the fake footages... its inaccurate
chibangin007 3 years ago
so the fuseluge is traveling faster than the wing section? Upon impact to the air/building interface,the deceleration is only incremental not as you have it depicted here.WTCtribute,has it right.
995715202 3 years ago
why the nose goes across the wall without pieces coming out while when the wings touch the wall there are pleny of particles around?
BTW these wings go forward as real wings do at moment of the deceleration.
theonlyreallaz 3 years ago
i think its because of the speed the plane was going at. i wouldn't expect debri to fall out 0.1 sec. after the nose crashed in.
chocolaberry 3 years ago
Those yellow "particles" are fuel, numbnuts!
bazil83 3 years ago
mmmmm plane sex
virtualgoose628 4 years ago 3
This is at normal cruising speed. The terrorists on 9/11 were flying over 400 knots, much faster then this simulation. Another error here is that surely the aircraft would break up all together, the same as many crashes in the history of aviation.
On the other hand, I see Coach survived!
BritishAgent 4 years ago 4
OK! You proof with this video that a plane CAN'T penetrate a building.
And remember, a have 15 old! And Dassado is me.
HijoozuRakoi 4 years ago
oh so the fuel tanks explode on impact in this one!
villhiemdeverm2 4 years ago
The ones on Flight 175 blew up inside the building. When a plane going 590 miles an hour hits a building, nothing will happen on impact because of the force of impact. When it goes in though, it's suddenly stopped by the beams and concrete, and then it explodes.
WTCTribute 4 years ago
the back tail and elevators should have fallen to the ground
python1294 4 years ago