In the weeks after 9/11, the news media told us that the towers fell down because the jet fuel fires had melted the structural steel. This was absolutely ridiculous. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. But there was molten steel in the debris pile. So what caused the molten steel, and why do officials find it necessary to lie about it?
@AceofDlamonds Here you go: guardian (dot) co (dot) uk/world/2002/mar/19/september11 (dot) iraq The passport belong to one of the alleged hijackers, Atta. There are many more articles and pictures of this, it was all over the news.
@AceofDlamonds Here is aoffical government report citing the discovery of the passports: govinfo (dot) library (dot) unt (dot) edu/911/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2 (dot) pdf
@AceofDlamonds Through the same circumstances of flying out of a human being, through skyscraper, a stream of air, fire ball, and out blocks into the sidewalk of a NYC street? Now YOU provide me with articles of your claims.
Now Don't make strawmen. These are unusual circumstances we all know. But we've see weirder things from other disasters and environmental phenomena where you think "o that can't be real".
I'll message you photos if you let me lmfao. Clearly shows much debris on the ground. It's not totally disintegrated....is that what you were expecting Mr. Physicist?
Cool. Looks ok, but if the simulation data says it wont collapse - then it wont collapse. Maybe they need to enter more data into their simulator - some extra data in the basement maybe?
1:05 ... lol, Purdue shows 15 cut columns on the south side and debris penetrating the entire buidling. In reality only one landing gear exited the buidling, taking out 3 columns on the south side - the landing gear flew directly through the core hallway.
Skeptic 121 and the rest of you scientists, there is one thing that runs constant through all of you: You are 110% ignorant and absolutely, completely full of Shista.
Where is the 47 column core? Where's the elevator shafts? Where's all that lack of those hundreds of tons of concrete in between the 4 floors it crashed on? The simulation is nice and all but if you're going to make a simulation by making the tower to be to it's weakest possible, it wouldn't be accurate at all.
I really hate how Purdue obviously put a huge amount of time and resources into producing this simulation, not to show off but to try to explain to people what happened, and the stupid, stupid 'truthers' are still like "Nahh, watch some videos of controlled demo and you'll see it looks like that' or 'lolwhut? the jews sucked it into their underground lair" or just 'this video is sooo wrong".
Why don't they produce their own version? I'd pay good money to see it.
This video should not be controversial. It shows a plane hitting the north tower, which we have all seen on video. The damage is plausible. This video does NOT show the collapse, which IS controversial. Why not simulate the collapse? My guess: can't do it with plausible assumptions.
Umm, read the comments! Plenty of whackos criticizing away. Plenty of troofers don't even believe they were planes, right?
Also I wasn't aware that the collapse was any more controversial than the impacts; the engineering and science community says one thing, a couple of dipshits say something else (about 100 other things) I miss something?
Umm, ethan, I said this video SHOULD NOT be controversial. Some do not believe planes hit the towers but many more do not believe we have the whole truth about how why collapsed as they did.
Would you like to address my point? It ought to be possible for the Purdue group to simulate the collapse, given two years since they published this video.
Simulation seems to be their academic field of study; the collapse would seem to be a worthy challenge to simulate.
@taledarkside I think YOU have an unhealthy obsession with OTHER PEOPLE making money. A friggin' Corvette? Even the racing version is what, $100K? For most people in a decent job $100K just doesn't buy their soul. I would certainly not take that kind of money to support the official story here on insignificant YouTube! Get over your petty, money-grubbing personality.
So whats with truthers giving silverstein a hard time when you claim hes making money. LOL
And richard gage is taking in donations. So if he is using donations to buy his self personal goods, that is simply wrong. If he worked at his architect job, and bought a corvette, thats a different story. Lying about 9/11 and scamming people for money is wrong.
@taledarkside I don't care about Larry Silverstein making money; he can HAVE them money if I get to know the truth. This is bigger than one old fart: Larry or Richard.
@Skeptic121 Mabey its because they didnt feel like doing it because their is already confiremd truth that the tiwn towers collasped from the steel ccolums collasping from the weight of the plane and the collumns breaking. deal with it truther
@jubjubcat Umm....I thought you were joking because you misspelled TEN words! Glad you think I'm "retarded"....if you told me you thought I was a smart guy I might begin to worry!
Money-saving suggestion for you: don't bother with the SAT.
No, because none of the scientists who ran this experiment found it controversial at all... It's a given that the (16) professors who worked on this project accepted that the towers WERE brought down by 757s.
Fine; so why not simulate the collapse? Because it is not controversial? The planes hitting the towers was not controversial and they simulated that, so obviously your explanation is wrong. The purpose of asking for the collapse to be simulated it to find out how to prevent other buildings from failing during similar disasters.
Exactly. This video looks pretty accurate actually. It seems to show a military grade titanium framed aircraft crashing into the WTC based on the rate of penetration and structural stability. Isnt that what everyone saw?
@splendid1000 Nearly everyone agrees with that this video actually shows: a plane hitting the tower. They COULD try to simulate the collapse but would not be able to do so without ridiculous assumptions.
Yep. And NIST refuses to release the raw data that supports their virtual simulation of collapse. They know their data is embellished, speculative and virtually statistically impossible.
@2210ethan what is your favorite Koolaid? All you need to do is point to the NOSE OUT of the plane and compare plane crash footage. DONE!
Wings are full of fuel {hollow} and should have broke off and exploded! NO WAY the nose of the plane could have made it out the other side! COMMON SENSE is all that is required not some cooked up Perdue study! ROFL, LMAO, i would be so embarrassed to say i go to that university! an excellent site is DOLLARPAGES[][][][]ORG see the A Wicked Plan link. ;-)
So why don't the core columns move in unison as the plane comes into the building? The plane had to push against the floor slab and the slab had to move the columns since they were connected horizontally by beams.
Computer simulations are great when they are correct but if there is a flaw they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure it out.
Most of the work has already been done to simulate the collapse of the tower. Just continue the simulation with various assumptions about the severity of the initial damage and the temperature of the beams near the impact. Let us know what assumptions are required to duplicate the observed collapse of the north tower.
I am especially interested in the collapse of the structure BELOW the fire and damage zone.
hahaha jeez, who would believe that the wings were torn inside of the building, and not at the moment of impact. the buildings were made out of steel god damn it!
Purdue's Rosen Center for Advanced Computing [the investigators] have gotten tons of gotten tons of government grants for defense research and would not exist without them. Independent my ass.
Purdue team: is your representation of the core columns based on the tower blueprints? They seem too widely spaced and too thin compared with the photos of the core taken during construction. See this video: watch?v=ZILQsCQsSXA
Which is correct?
Perhaps your representation used "not strictly accurate" core columns to allow us to see the plane better ?
First of all, nobody ever claimed that jetfuel melted the steel. Second, nobody ever claimed the steel melted, it WEAKENED from impact+ heat provided by OFFICE FIRES. Get it?
i love how they show a sheet of aluminum ( the planes hull) slicing through steel girders. i-beams which are made from steel thats at least half an inch thick.
Actually at that level the I-Beams were still at least 2 inches thick. I dare anyone to try and convince me that there is a single part on those planes that could cut steel that thick. And NO, the kerosene would not produce a strong enough explosion to shear the columns. (Maybe bend the columns but not shear them as the simulation depicts). The planes were strictly for pyrotechnics - distract the observer from the actual thermite explosions.
I know it didn't go all the way through, I also said that doesn't prove the video a fraud, just inaccurate. You are repeating what you said earlier when I didn't deny that it was true.
What have happened? Where did I say something didn't happen? I said it might have been a fluke; those things happen a lot, like the rubber piercing the wing of a Concorde jet!
"So, if I look up the word 'simulation' I will get 'similar'
You know, like a dove is similar to an eagle"
Joe, this simulation is quite accurate, in no way like comparing a dove to an eagle. In fact the only inaccuracy I detect is that a few of the columns survived the impact if the left wing.
It might not be 100% accurate but it is still quite accurate nonetheless.
"You are unable to provide any proof that the WNYW nose out fails to match the nose in as proven by this video watch=NCLL6h6-vvc"
No stupid, I will not. As I have already made clear, if you will not make the simple effort of googleing a video, I will not make the effort to watch your stupid videos.
I have already told you wow to get evedance to the contrary so I will ignore yours just as you have ignored mine.
No, I won't. I'm not trying to prove myself to you. I gave you something that would prove you wrong but you ignore it, big fucking surprise. So take this Asshole, I don't do URLs from Assholes.
Wonder how much Govt. funding some otherwise completely useless tenured Perdue Professor got to make this video?? Let me guess - $1 Million and change.
Truthers, are plane wings supposed to go through a building or are they not? For WTC you say they shoulden't, for the pentagon (a stronger building) you say they should what is it?
No major parts of either plane made it out the other side of the towers. Yet the jet was supposed to have made it thru three layers of steel reinforced concrete at the pentagon?
Even if that were true thats four steel reinforced concrete walls 2 feet thick. how does the plane have enough structural integrity to punch a hole tru the last layer yet leave NO large debris parts? Funny though cruise missles do that all the time!!
there are many photos out there that show holes made by cruise missiles that are very similar to the size hole made at the pentagon. NO landing gear or any other plane parts were found outside the hole made thru the last layer of the pentagon penetrated.
actually the plane was not "dust" but it was shredded into fragments as you see in the vidio. These fragments still had the energy to destroy many of the core collums as you see
Why do they show a semi intact plane tumbling through the building? When a plane impacts concrete alone. The plane atomizes. Why? Its lightly plated aluminum. At those speeds. Look it up. Type in "f4 phantom vs wall". The phantom is 60,000 pounds with just fuel in itand is armor plated. the boeing is 145,500 lb at maximum.
in "f4 phantom vs wall" the plane srikes a special type of concrete used in the blast doors of a nuclear bunker, niether the world trade center or the pentagon were nearly as strong as that
Not a bunker a nuclear reactor. It was just concrete with the ability to sway. The world trade was designed to take an impact of a plane as we all know. It too can sway. The core of the building was surrounded by thick concrete walls that were steel reinforced.
it was desighned to survive a hit by a plane correct...IN THE 1970's! A 707 to be exact, going at low speeds with little fuel remaining. They were hit by a 767 going 500mph with a lot of fuel remaining.
Explain the boiling metal that burned for week's without any fuel? It's called thermite dumbshit's! stop dreamin we need real peep's to solve this shit not a bunch of pussy ass dupe's.
actually brianloden222, nobody said it was the jet fuel. Have you ruled out all possabilities besides thermite? do decribe how thermite would be used to bring the towers down.
When I said fuel I was talking about flameble material not jet fuel. As far as thermite just go to i am the witness .......com When you are done with your research you will know, just like the rest of us good luck!
So, how do you know there was no other fuel, it was an office building lots of flamable stuff, how do you know thermte would have kept it at that heat, really a 100+ story building just fell down in 15 seconds, I think some preatty wierd stuff can happen.
But a plane did hit the WTC and hit it at 450mph! Unless you are one of the "No Planers" this simulation has no effect on the controlled demolition argument. But truthers hate real science as a whole so this they don't like.
Is anybody else getting sick of the, "WTC 7 had structural damage" argument? Look at the two pictures in the link below. One is of the Federal building in OKC, it is almost half-way gone and yet it did not collapse. The Damage to WTC 7 does not even come close, yet it fell onto itself in 6.5 seconds. So how did WTC 7 fall?
w ww. prisonplanet. com/articles/july2007/250707damage. htm
look u cant belive any of the pics u see on conspiracy terrorist websites. they show pics of the south side when the major damage was on the north side. and if u notice part of the building starts collapsing before the rest of it. its accually falls in about 13 seconds
It's disgusting what money can buy but this animation is just a side issue to blind people with theoretical 'science'. Search scroogle for 'OKC 9/11 Sozen Purdue' for confirmation that your tax dollars are being used to deceive you.
In October 2000 N.Rockefeller admitted to Aaron Russo that there was going to be a 'big paradigm shifting event soon'. He also admitted that it would be a gigantic hoax. He found this amusing...
This has got to be the most ridiculous 'scientific' cartoon of all time.
Please take an hour of your life to understand how 9/11 was pulled off - no, it's not another proofless theory: search and watch SEPTEMBER CLUES (part 1 to 6)on livevideo com.
Seems every stinking CT vidio has someone taking about September Clues! oooooo wow! I really wouldn't need an hour but are always trying to force your made-up "Truths" down my throat.
Its a simple matter of mass and energy. Think of a bullet. It you drop a bullet in your hand you can catch it and it will not hurt. Now if the same bullet is fired from a gun and you try to cath it it will blast smash a hole through your hand. Same mass just way more energy. Basic physics
Any object with mass could cut through a 2 inch steel box if it is given enough energy to do it. A 1 tonne aluminium aircraft hitting it at 1 mph will do nothing, but the same aircraft at 450 mph will have 450 times more effective mass behind it
2 mph = 2 x force? I don't think so, but thanks for trying. I think the equation is more complex than that but, it still seems perculiar to me that the planes made it into the buildings without leaving broken bits outside, *much less* have enough cutting force remaining after that entry (which is akin to throwing a hard-boiled egg at a barbecue grid, not firing a bullet at a human hand), to also damage core columns.
My equation was a little simplistic actually the energy of the mass increases by dramatically with speed. E=1/2mv2 so my 1000kg mass will have 4x as much energy when hitting at twice the speed.
If our 757 was say 80000kg travelling at 460mph it would have had 1736 Mega Joules of energy behind it. A Stick of dynomite has 2.1MJ thus it hit with the equivilent of 823 sticks of dynomite
Because energy is perpetual, that 1736 MJ has to get disapated some where. Yes a good amount will get turned into heat energy etc but much of the energy will be absorbed by the building and the aircraft. Now if you cant comprehend how major parts of the buildings structure where not damaged and destroyed then you are ignoring basic physics.
Furthermore becuase the aircrafts mass contains a large quantity of fuel which in itself contains further potential energy easily converted to the form of heat, the equation for keeping the building standing becomes even harder.
While i do not claim to be 100% accurate with my quick analysis. Combining the impact forces of the aircraft hitting the building and the fuel contained in the aircraft. To think this is not going to do substantial damage to the building is just simplistic and of poor judgement.
My point is that by just concetrating on just the fire and heat, you probably wont get a collapse. But combine the impact forces with the heat and you will.
I am interested as to why they are using a Steel excavator bucket to dig out "flowing" molten metal. Surely the bucket would melt or is it covered in fire retardant material?
No, they weren't scooping up flowing metals, they were grabbing VERY HOT solid metals. Iron melts at 2800F, anything below that is very hot solid metal. The metals that flowed were allowed to cool until they solidified enough to be picked up.
"For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel," Fuchek said."
Yet NIST reported temps never higher than 600C for a max 10 minutes - curiouser & curiouser...
w ww. gcn. com/print/21_27a/19930-1. html?topic=news paras 6 & 7
Agreed. Can you also calculate at what factor the kinetic energy dissipates over time? To the extent that shards of wing have penetrated and almost 'broken through both sides of the core structure. From this cartoon it would appear that thin aluminum is still capable of slicing through inch-thick steel H columns after that time period...
You are suggesting that all the Energy is absorbed by the disintegrating aircraft structure on no or minimal Energy is absorbed by the building structure. Oh yeah the building swayed a bit. Pig ass
How does an Armour Peircing bullet peirce thick armour? Simple a high mass with a high velocity concentrated at a small point. Here we have an object with high mass travelling at high speed imposing its force of a small area. Newtons Law mate.
Relatively speaking, it is! If a large bird can rip a hole in an aircraft taking off at 200 mph, imagine what structural beams, which are 13.5 x 14.5 inches, over 300 feet long, made from 2 inch thick steel AND anchored firmly to the ground below can do to a soft aluminum aircraft.
what kind of aircraft? also "soft" aluminum arcraft is misleading, in loose change it says that what the plane is made out of of a company secret, the NOSE CONE is aluminum. still BIG PLANE vs 2" steel = f***ed up steel.
If I remember correctly, the question was "was there enough force left after entry through the tough grid of the outer columns, to damage core (inner) columns?" My answer, via analogy, is "No real (structural) damage was done to the inner core columns by the shredded airplane pieces." and I'm sticking to it! :-)
dude... 200,000lbs of ANY metal could cut throught 2" of steel! do you even know how much 2" is? compare that to a boeing 767 and it doesent even need to move fast.
The footage released from the Supposed Pentagon attack is from a security checkpoint and before the supposed plane crash a guy walks by in real time and he's moving at full speed and without any cuts. Slow frame rate cameras are only used at cheap gas stations and liquor stores. Any facility such as the Pentagon has full speed high frame rate cameras but if you want to continue with your lies THEODDKIWI go right ahead.
Based on what information do you have the knowledge that the Pentagon has high frame rate cameras to monitor traffic in and out of a vehicle check point. Some one can only lie if they submit information knowing it to be untrue
The Sheraton tape existed. Multiple witnesses watched men identifying themselves as FBI agents take the tape. Then the gov released their own footage of the Pentagon supposed crash and it doesn't show anything but a computer animated explosion. There is a perfect view of the Pentagon and even a fast flying jet could be seen on slowed down tape but do we see even a hint of a jet? No! Because they can't even fake a tape right. Government idiots and murderers!
I am interested to hear what you would expect to see on a stationary security camera as far as seeing a very fast moving object. Considering most security cameras are slow frame rate devices eg service station cameras. They never show a smooth image.
I don't mean literally buried you retard. It's a figurative use of language and if you've never heard it used before then you are probably in middle school and you shouldn't be logging in using your parents ID.
A body is found with two gunshot wounds to the head and one to the chest. The gun is found in the right hand of the victim. The victim is left handed.
The coroner declares it a suicide. Despite the absurdity of the conclusion, Trajan can't think for himself but believes in the "official" explanation.
A psychotic dependence on authority for his sense of reality.
I don't know what staff members viewed at the Sheraton or if any staff members viewed the video. All I know is the FBI confiscated the video tape from the hotel. They may have simply walked in and asked if the Sheraton had any surveillance video. The manager probably led them to the recorder and they took the tape. No one may have ever viewed the tape as they were probably outside trying to see what happened to the Pentagon. But the FBI was there and they took the tape.
The Sheraton hotel across the street from the Pentagon got the entire fake crash on surveillance video. However, the FBI showed up within the hour and confiscated it. They then buried it, because it showed the truth. You government supporting losers need to stop huffing glue in your parents basement and grow a brain. You are your own worst enemy.
Then why exactly has the Sheraton hotel staff never once stated that it was not the official flight? You truther nutters need to pull you heads out of your cracks and look at the evidence and review the facts, a plane hit the pentagon it's indisputable.
Who is the idiot here? Someone who believes photographic evidence, or someone who believes an absurd story that the government took and BURIED a tape?
Anyone with half a brain (which these FBI people would have to have in order to commit your alleged conspiracy) would know that the best way of disposing of a video tape certainly wouldn't be to BURY it!
dude u know nothing about me. ur a fuckin retard for even judging me. those planes were fake. the 9/11 truth movement is also fake. tv fakery is real!
you retards need some pussy. oh too bad u fags cant get any. fuckin losers. the planes were fake, get over it. to bad u retards also believe in santa and the easter bunny. and u call urself adults?
Hehe is painfully obvious you have some sort of learning disability / mental illness. i suppose that is bound to happen when you spend your life trying to convince people that a circle is actually a square. I laugh in your general direction...
ur the dumbass without a brain. u have no common sense what so ever. u dont even understand the law of physics. and second im in second year at iadt studying visual communication- game designing. dude go get ur life together, quit talkin shit. u prove no point. i sent u info, and u ignored it. its ur fault so fuck off
This has been flagged as spam show
In the weeks after 9/11, the news media told us that the towers fell down because the jet fuel fires had melted the structural steel. This was absolutely ridiculous. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. But there was molten steel in the debris pile. So what caused the molten steel, and why do officials find it necessary to lie about it?
See my video:
The 9/11 "Deep Mystery" and the Crazy Engineers
punxsutawneybarney 7 months ago
@jaguarclaw
funny...I don't recall any of the passports surviving that at all. Refresh my memory with a paper or two.
AceofDlamonds 9 months ago
@AceofDlamonds Here you go: guardian (dot) co (dot) uk/world/2002/mar/19/september11 (dot) iraq The passport belong to one of the alleged hijackers, Atta. There are many more articles and pictures of this, it was all over the news.
EmperorSanz 9 months ago
@AceofDlamonds That's assuming Atta WAS one of the hijackers and the passport found was indeed him/his. Assuming.
EmperorSanz 9 months ago
@AceofDlamonds Here is aoffical government report citing the discovery of the passports: govinfo (dot) library (dot) unt (dot) edu/911/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2 (dot) pdf
EmperorSanz 9 months ago
@EmperorSanz
Also wedding rings, photos, and other odd things have survived unbelievable crashes. What is your point.
AceofDlamonds 9 months ago
@AceofDlamonds Through the same circumstances of flying out of a human being, through skyscraper, a stream of air, fire ball, and out blocks into the sidewalk of a NYC street? Now YOU provide me with articles of your claims.
EmperorSanz 9 months ago
@EmperorSanz
Now Don't make strawmen. These are unusual circumstances we all know. But we've see weirder things from other disasters and environmental phenomena where you think "o that can't be real".
I'll message you photos if you let me lmfao. Clearly shows much debris on the ground. It's not totally disintegrated....is that what you were expecting Mr. Physicist?
AceofDlamonds 9 months ago
YEah this is the university I'm going to soon.
AceofDlamonds 9 months ago
BLACK i couldnt see anything
soldier68able 10 months ago
Cool. Looks ok, but if the simulation data says it wont collapse - then it wont collapse. Maybe they need to enter more data into their simulator - some extra data in the basement maybe?
srkh28 11 months ago
What program was used to make this?
wr433 1 year ago
Strange to see those aluminium wings cut through those steel collums.
LithuanianGuitar 1 year ago
1:05 ... lol, Purdue shows 15 cut columns on the south side and debris penetrating the entire buidling. In reality only one landing gear exited the buidling, taking out 3 columns on the south side - the landing gear flew directly through the core hallway.
Purdue overestimated the damage by 50%.
nehorlavazapalka 1 year ago
This video doesn't say much for Purdue Univ.....
conbat18 1 year ago
Skeptic 121 and the rest of you scientists, there is one thing that runs constant through all of you: You are 110% ignorant and absolutely, completely full of Shista.
Have a nice day morons.
Kapindur 1 year ago
lets rebuild a part of the tower and take a boing and slam it into it to see what happen ... i dont give a shit on such simulations
55758 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw
thats right....
55758 1 year ago
Knife through butter springs to mind.
the plane just carries on with no effgect
zenoist2 1 year ago
this video should be controversial.
whetr is the effect on the plane ramming a solid object?
zenoist2 1 year ago
Where is the 47 column core? Where's the elevator shafts? Where's all that lack of those hundreds of tons of concrete in between the 4 floors it crashed on? The simulation is nice and all but if you're going to make a simulation by making the tower to be to it's weakest possible, it wouldn't be accurate at all.
ArcanineKing 1 year ago
Take a look at this video and another one:
watch?v=ZILQsCQsSXA
The core beams seem thicker and closer together in the second video than in this one...
Skeptic121 1 year ago
I really hate how Purdue obviously put a huge amount of time and resources into producing this simulation, not to show off but to try to explain to people what happened, and the stupid, stupid 'truthers' are still like "Nahh, watch some videos of controlled demo and you'll see it looks like that' or 'lolwhut? the jews sucked it into their underground lair" or just 'this video is sooo wrong".
Why don't they produce their own version? I'd pay good money to see it.
2210ethan 1 year ago
This video should not be controversial. It shows a plane hitting the north tower, which we have all seen on video. The damage is plausible. This video does NOT show the collapse, which IS controversial. Why not simulate the collapse? My guess: can't do it with plausible assumptions.
Skeptic121 1 year ago 2
Umm, read the comments! Plenty of whackos criticizing away. Plenty of troofers don't even believe they were planes, right?
Also I wasn't aware that the collapse was any more controversial than the impacts; the engineering and science community says one thing, a couple of dipshits say something else (about 100 other things) I miss something?
2210ethan 1 year ago
Umm, ethan, I said this video SHOULD NOT be controversial. Some do not believe planes hit the towers but many more do not believe we have the whole truth about how why collapsed as they did.
Would you like to address my point? It ought to be possible for the Purdue group to simulate the collapse, given two years since they published this video.
Simulation seems to be their academic field of study; the collapse would seem to be a worthy challenge to simulate.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@Skeptic121
maybe you should make richard gage donate all the money he has conned people and give it to Purdue so they can use the money to make a simulation.
oh wait, that would never happen, richard gage is going to use the money to buy a corvette.
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside I think YOU have an unhealthy obsession with OTHER PEOPLE making money. A friggin' Corvette? Even the racing version is what, $100K? For most people in a decent job $100K just doesn't buy their soul. I would certainly not take that kind of money to support the official story here on insignificant YouTube! Get over your petty, money-grubbing personality.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@Skeptic121
So whats with truthers giving silverstein a hard time when you claim hes making money. LOL
And richard gage is taking in donations. So if he is using donations to buy his self personal goods, that is simply wrong. If he worked at his architect job, and bought a corvette, thats a different story. Lying about 9/11 and scamming people for money is wrong.
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside I don't care about Larry Silverstein making money; he can HAVE them money if I get to know the truth. This is bigger than one old fart: Larry or Richard.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@Skeptic121 Mabey its because they didnt feel like doing it because their is already confiremd truth that the tiwn towers collasped from the steel ccolums collasping from the weight of the plane and the collumns breaking. deal with it truther
jubjubcat 11 months ago
@jubjubcat Very funny! You had me going until the second time you misspelled "columns"
If you knew it ended in "mn" you couldn't be stupid enough to misspell all those other words!
Good one!
Skeptic121 11 months ago
@Skeptic121 Oh my bad i misspelled one word on the internet you fucking retarded truther.
jubjubcat 11 months ago
@jubjubcat Umm....I thought you were joking because you misspelled TEN words! Glad you think I'm "retarded"....if you told me you thought I was a smart guy I might begin to worry!
Money-saving suggestion for you: don't bother with the SAT.
Skeptic121 11 months ago
@Skeptic121
No, because none of the scientists who ran this experiment found it controversial at all... It's a given that the (16) professors who worked on this project accepted that the towers WERE brought down by 757s.
l3lip 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@l3lip " the towers WERE brought down by 757s. "
Fine; so why not simulate the collapse? Because it is not controversial? The planes hitting the towers was not controversial and they simulated that, so obviously your explanation is wrong. The purpose of asking for the collapse to be simulated it to find out how to prevent other buildings from failing during similar disasters.
Skeptic121 10 months ago
@Skeptic121
Exactly. This video looks pretty accurate actually. It seems to show a military grade titanium framed aircraft crashing into the WTC based on the rate of penetration and structural stability. Isnt that what everyone saw?
splendid1000 8 months ago
@splendid1000 Nearly everyone agrees with that this video actually shows: a plane hitting the tower. They COULD try to simulate the collapse but would not be able to do so without ridiculous assumptions.
Skeptic121 8 months ago
@Skeptic121
Yep. And NIST refuses to release the raw data that supports their virtual simulation of collapse. They know their data is embellished, speculative and virtually statistically impossible.
splendid1000 8 months ago
@2210ethan what is your favorite Koolaid? All you need to do is point to the NOSE OUT of the plane and compare plane crash footage. DONE!
Wings are full of fuel {hollow} and should have broke off and exploded! NO WAY the nose of the plane could have made it out the other side! COMMON SENSE is all that is required not some cooked up Perdue study! ROFL, LMAO, i would be so embarrassed to say i go to that university! an excellent site is DOLLARPAGES[][][][]ORG see the A Wicked Plan link. ;-)
vhsjvc 1 year ago
@vhsjvc
OK, once you've published your paper, please provide a link.
Good luck.
2210ethan 1 year ago
Skyscrapers have to sway in the wind.
So why don't the core columns move in unison as the plane comes into the building? The plane had to push against the floor slab and the slab had to move the columns since they were connected horizontally by beams.
Computer simulations are great when they are correct but if there is a flaw they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure it out.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
@psikeyhackr
Why don't you write in to Purdue or NCE magazine and ask them?
Let me know how you get on.
2210ethan 1 year ago
At least three major errors in the assumptons of this simulation. Guess which ...
PincezMoiJeReve 2 years ago
Most of the work has already been done to simulate the collapse of the tower. Just continue the simulation with various assumptions about the severity of the initial damage and the temperature of the beams near the impact. Let us know what assumptions are required to duplicate the observed collapse of the north tower.
I am especially interested in the collapse of the structure BELOW the fire and damage zone.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
hahaha jeez, who would believe that the wings were torn inside of the building, and not at the moment of impact. the buildings were made out of steel god damn it!
TheBreezebloxxx 2 years ago
oh my goodness. if you were in that Flight 11, you would be sliced to pieces!!! and at the same time, burned in jet fuel.
it would be a miracle if someone from the airplane was alive.
7dawgs0809 2 years ago
are you fucking stupid?
wideout06 2 years ago
Purdue's Rosen Center for Advanced Computing [the investigators] have gotten tons of gotten tons of government grants for defense research and would not exist without them. Independent my ass.
auditthepolls 2 years ago
Purdue team: is your representation of the core columns based on the tower blueprints? They seem too widely spaced and too thin compared with the photos of the core taken during construction. See this video: watch?v=ZILQsCQsSXA
Which is correct?
Perhaps your representation used "not strictly accurate" core columns to allow us to see the plane better ?
Skeptic121 3 years ago
How much did Purdue get to publish this crap?
aztiff 3 years ago
LOL. Take chalk resistance instead of steel resistance and you have that model. How convenient it is.
Try to study first the shape of the core columns and their thickness and pick up correctly in you handbook the elastic resistance of the steel.
Please, go back to school and learn how to make realistic modelling.
That's not only about making colored animation, you know.
ZuluKika 3 years ago
totalmente errado isso ai.
fica parecendo que aluminio "corta" aço como manteiga...
faça a sua própria simulação mané!
=)
caxopinhao 3 years ago
heil amerika... :(
dontcensormebro 3 years ago
anyone with a brain knows that if they are supporting the jetfuel melted the tower "theory" then they are truly complicit in the cover-up.
youtube:
"purdue study heat melted twin towers"
blawyer 3 years ago
First of all, nobody ever claimed that jetfuel melted the steel. Second, nobody ever claimed the steel melted, it WEAKENED from impact+ heat provided by OFFICE FIRES. Get it?
Horjan 3 years ago
its a false simulation which has been crafted in order to support the fake videos of boeings hitting the south tower, broadcast on 911.
youtube:
"NIST versus Purdue Boeing Crash Simulation"
"911 amateur part 3"
google:
"purduesimulation.doc"
blawyer 3 years ago
amen bro
spark162 3 years ago
are you for real?
Horjan 3 years ago
you all have to remember the aluminum may not be able to cut the steel but the jet fuel and explosives they had could have done that quite nicely
sddragon28 3 years ago
And the buildings collapsed because of that?...wow I would understand if the plane crashed near the base of the building....
saltydog78 3 years ago
i love how they show a sheet of aluminum ( the planes hull) slicing through steel girders. i-beams which are made from steel thats at least half an inch thick.
acme420 3 years ago
Actually at that level the I-Beams were still at least 2 inches thick. I dare anyone to try and convince me that there is a single part on those planes that could cut steel that thick. And NO, the kerosene would not produce a strong enough explosion to shear the columns. (Maybe bend the columns but not shear them as the simulation depicts). The planes were strictly for pyrotechnics - distract the observer from the actual thermite explosions.
klimon53 3 years ago
I agree, and lets not forget significantly aged reinforced concrete!
a2zhandi 3 years ago
It's a visualization of a simulation.
"Quite accurate' doesn't cut it when people died and more were killed because of what this video claims."
Why? It's just visualizing a plane crash. It's not a insult to all who died on AA11 like say *cough* "September Clues"
"In this case it falls completely under
Inaccurate
And, thus,
Fraud."
"Inaccurate" does not make fraud, as a matter of fact; it is a genuine, inaccurate, visualization. :p
DkEugen 4 years ago
I know it didn't go all the way through, I also said that doesn't prove the video a fraud, just inaccurate. You are repeating what you said earlier when I didn't deny that it was true.
I am a genius thank you.
DkEugen 4 years ago
"Can't have happened according to you."
What have happened? Where did I say something didn't happen? I said it might have been a fluke; those things happen a lot, like the rubber piercing the wing of a Concorde jet!
No comment of Air France 4590?
DkEugen 4 years ago
So you just repeat what you just said?
alright then
DkEugen 4 years ago
"If you just throw an egg fast enough, it won't break."
Never said that.
"If the wing tips of 2 planes strike at 33000 ft going in opposite directions, he claims neither will be harmed."
Could it have been a fluke?
Air France 4590's wing blew up, What hit it? Rubber from it's own poped tire!
DkEugen 4 years ago
"Can't even slice thru a thin piece of aluminum!"
I doubt a 767's wing at 500mph would fail to cut a thin piece of aluminum. If you aren't using a 767's wing at 500mph then you have proven nothing.
DkEugen 4 years ago
"The port wing never cut thru unscathed as shown in several spots."
Watch the simulation they break apart after impact.
"Broken aluminum fuselage could not slice thru central core columns, not ever."
Prove it.
"The starboard wing could not ever slice thru the 14" columns nor the concrete floor"
gain prove it. (I don't know what the hell your link was supposed to prove)
DkEugen 4 years ago
"So, if I look up the word 'simulation' I will get 'similar'
You know, like a dove is similar to an eagle"
Joe, this simulation is quite accurate, in no way like comparing a dove to an eagle. In fact the only inaccuracy I detect is that a few of the columns survived the impact if the left wing.
It might not be 100% accurate but it is still quite accurate nonetheless.
DkEugen 4 years ago
"Seems I forgot to say 'fraud'
Look up fraud; trying to sell something different than what was promised."
Look up precision & accuracy, that's what we should consider with a scientific analysis such as this.
Precision is getting multiple results consistent with each other.
Accuracy is getting results close to a known true fact.
In this case it could be, good precision, not so good accuracy.
Also a 100% accurate simulation was not promised.
DkEugen 4 years ago
"This video is a fraud because it disagrees with what we all saw on 911."
Odd, I saw a plane crash onto a building quite similarly to this simulation.
I know where you are going with this; just give some hard evidence HERE that the videos were "fake"
"It's the only way you can win.
The only way."
Depends on what you call win; If win means "get you to shut up" then yes it is the only way.
DkEugen 4 years ago
It is a blessing on humanity every time your profile is deleted.
DkEugen 4 years ago
or they don't like stupid people.
DkEugen 4 years ago
...It's called a glitch Joe.
DkEugen 4 years ago
"You are unable to provide any proof that the WNYW nose out fails to match the nose in as proven by this video watch=NCLL6h6-vvc"
No stupid, I will not. As I have already made clear, if you will not make the simple effort of googleing a video, I will not make the effort to watch your stupid videos.
I have already told you wow to get evedance to the contrary so I will ignore yours just as you have ignored mine.
DkEugen 4 years ago
thank you
someone agrees with me
villhiemdeverm2 4 years ago
yeah, you would think that they might be smart enough not to.
DkEugen 4 years ago
No, I won't. I'm not trying to prove myself to you. I gave you something that would prove you wrong but you ignore it, big fucking surprise. So take this Asshole, I don't do URLs from Assholes.
DkEugen 4 years ago
HAHA
LOSER
U GOT DEBUNKED
villhiemdeverm2 4 years ago
If I were two I might find that insulting.
DkEugen 4 years ago
but its true
villhiemdeverm2 4 years ago
I already gave it. Are you intelligent enough to google something?
DkEugen 4 years ago
The "nose out" changes shapes between shots, other camera angles show it as debris being ejected from the façade.
Google the video: September Clues BUSTED, It's not a complete debunking but it puts you dwebes in your place.
You would have to be a complete idiot to believe September Clues' "pixel analysis" oh wait, you are one!
DkEugen 4 years ago
The "nose out" was on the south tower stupid, and even then it is not the nose, it is probably drywall dust being ejected through the facade.
If you compare the nose of the plane with the "nose out" they are CLEARLY different.
DkEugen 4 years ago
....so what is video is saying that an aluminum plane has managed to slice all the way through steel and concrete?!
villhiemdeverm2 4 years ago
a 200,000 lb jet traveling at 750km/h... what do you expect?!
crushnkill 4 years ago
and literally slicing clean through those huge steel columns and the parts emerging on the other side of the biulding
villhiemdeverm2 4 years ago
those "huge steel columns" were a) hollow and b) not as huge as you think
DkEugen 4 years ago
Wonder how much Govt. funding some otherwise completely useless tenured Perdue Professor got to make this video?? Let me guess - $1 Million and change.
kurt84fstom2 4 years ago
Truthers, are plane wings supposed to go through a building or are they not? For WTC you say they shoulden't, for the pentagon (a stronger building) you say they should what is it?
DkEugen 4 years ago
This video has been thoroughly debunked. See h t t p : / / stj911 . org/ryan/PurdueLetter . html
Vierotchka 4 years ago
No major parts of either plane made it out the other side of the towers. Yet the jet was supposed to have made it thru three layers of steel reinforced concrete at the pentagon?
lovepg 4 years ago
actually that was just the landing gear, also the wat the pentagon was constructed it only had to go throgh 2 layars
DkEugen 4 years ago
Even if that were true thats four steel reinforced concrete walls 2 feet thick. how does the plane have enough structural integrity to punch a hole tru the last layer yet leave NO large debris parts? Funny though cruise missles do that all the time!!
lovepg 4 years ago
it was the landing gear nothing else, do show evidance that cruise missles do that?
DkEugen 4 years ago
there are many photos out there that show holes made by cruise missiles that are very similar to the size hole made at the pentagon. NO landing gear or any other plane parts were found outside the hole made thru the last layer of the pentagon penetrated.
lovepg 4 years ago
I appear to be blocked here even before I made a single post.
machfron 4 years ago
That plane was dust as it entered. The thickness of the concrete and steel floors alone were enough to wipe out the plane.
ORACLE063 4 years ago
actually the plane was not "dust" but it was shredded into fragments as you see in the vidio. These fragments still had the energy to destroy many of the core collums as you see
DkEugen 4 years ago
Why do they show a semi intact plane tumbling through the building? When a plane impacts concrete alone. The plane atomizes. Why? Its lightly plated aluminum. At those speeds. Look it up. Type in "f4 phantom vs wall". The phantom is 60,000 pounds with just fuel in itand is armor plated. the boeing is 145,500 lb at maximum.
ORACLE063 4 years ago
in "f4 phantom vs wall" the plane srikes a special type of concrete used in the blast doors of a nuclear bunker, niether the world trade center or the pentagon were nearly as strong as that
DkEugen 4 years ago
Not a bunker a nuclear reactor. It was just concrete with the ability to sway. The world trade was designed to take an impact of a plane as we all know. It too can sway. The core of the building was surrounded by thick concrete walls that were steel reinforced.
ORACLE063 4 years ago
oops not a reactor the outer walls of nuclear powerplant.
ORACLE063 4 years ago
it was desighned to survive a hit by a plane correct...IN THE 1970's! A 707 to be exact, going at low speeds with little fuel remaining. They were hit by a 767 going 500mph with a lot of fuel remaining.
DkEugen 4 years ago
Demonstration outside the European Parliament(Brussels).
September 11th 2007.
Europeans are saying "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" "NO SHARIA HERE!"
So join the call. All European nations must be represented.
SO, IF YOU LOVE FREEDOM,
S.I.O.E. is growing in Europe with the amalgamation of similarly minded groups
Abys1000 4 years ago
Explain the boiling metal that burned for week's without any fuel? It's called thermite dumbshit's! stop dreamin we need real peep's to solve this shit not a bunch of pussy ass dupe's.
brianloden222 4 years ago
actually brianloden222, nobody said it was the jet fuel. Have you ruled out all possabilities besides thermite? do decribe how thermite would be used to bring the towers down.
DkEugen 4 years ago
When I said fuel I was talking about flameble material not jet fuel. As far as thermite just go to i am the witness .......com When you are done with your research you will know, just like the rest of us good luck!
brianloden222 4 years ago
So, how do you know there was no other fuel, it was an office building lots of flamable stuff, how do you know thermte would have kept it at that heat, really a 100+ story building just fell down in 15 seconds, I think some preatty wierd stuff can happen.
DkEugen 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
visit FLINGDATINGSITE . COM for hot women to date
shelbysweetmommaae 4 years ago
But a plane did hit the WTC and hit it at 450mph! Unless you are one of the "No Planers" this simulation has no effect on the controlled demolition argument. But truthers hate real science as a whole so this they don't like.
911truthiness 4 years ago
Is anybody else getting sick of the, "WTC 7 had structural damage" argument? Look at the two pictures in the link below. One is of the Federal building in OKC, it is almost half-way gone and yet it did not collapse. The Damage to WTC 7 does not even come close, yet it fell onto itself in 6.5 seconds. So how did WTC 7 fall?
w ww. prisonplanet. com/articles/july2007/250707damage. htm
Thermate 4 years ago
look u cant belive any of the pics u see on conspiracy terrorist websites. they show pics of the south side when the major damage was on the north side. and if u notice part of the building starts collapsing before the rest of it. its accually falls in about 13 seconds
jflyin123 4 years ago
DUH. Because the OKC building was not set on fire like WTC7 you idiot. It was the fire that did the major damage.
911truthiness 4 years ago
The AP Murrah buidingwas cmpleatly different constuction as WTC7 and was not on fire...Duh
DkEugen 4 years ago
The inner beams were double the size then in this video.
christophermarshall 4 years ago
It's disgusting what money can buy but this animation is just a side issue to blind people with theoretical 'science'. Search scroogle for 'OKC 9/11 Sozen Purdue' for confirmation that your tax dollars are being used to deceive you.
In October 2000 N.Rockefeller admitted to Aaron Russo that there was going to be a 'big paradigm shifting event soon'. He also admitted that it would be a gigantic hoax. He found this amusing...
w ww. youtube. com/watch?v=YCmsT_I6SaE
Thermate 4 years ago
It is science, I don't know what the Murrah building has to do with 9/11 (that IS what you mean by OKC right)
DkEugen 4 years ago
This has got to be the most ridiculous 'scientific' cartoon of all time.
Please take an hour of your life to understand how 9/11 was pulled off - no, it's not another proofless theory: search and watch SEPTEMBER CLUES (part 1 to 6)on livevideo com.
simonshack 4 years ago
Seems every stinking CT vidio has someone taking about September Clues! oooooo wow! I really wouldn't need an hour but are always trying to force your made-up "Truths" down my throat.
DkEugen 4 years ago
I'd still like to know how aluminum, even fast-moving aluminum, can cut through 2 inch thick high-grade steel boxes. Thanks
fred10538 4 years ago
Its a simple matter of mass and energy. Think of a bullet. It you drop a bullet in your hand you can catch it and it will not hurt. Now if the same bullet is fired from a gun and you try to cath it it will blast smash a hole through your hand. Same mass just way more energy. Basic physics
Theoddkiwi 4 years ago
Any object with mass could cut through a 2 inch steel box if it is given enough energy to do it. A 1 tonne aluminium aircraft hitting it at 1 mph will do nothing, but the same aircraft at 450 mph will have 450 times more effective mass behind it
Theoddkiwi 4 years ago
2 mph = 2 x force? I don't think so, but thanks for trying. I think the equation is more complex than that but, it still seems perculiar to me that the planes made it into the buildings without leaving broken bits outside, *much less* have enough cutting force remaining after that entry (which is akin to throwing a hard-boiled egg at a barbecue grid, not firing a bullet at a human hand), to also damage core columns.
fred10538 4 years ago
My equation was a little simplistic actually the energy of the mass increases by dramatically with speed. E=1/2mv2 so my 1000kg mass will have 4x as much energy when hitting at twice the speed.
Theoddkiwi 4 years ago
If our 757 was say 80000kg travelling at 460mph it would have had 1736 Mega Joules of energy behind it. A Stick of dynomite has 2.1MJ thus it hit with the equivilent of 823 sticks of dynomite
Theoddkiwi 4 years ago
Because energy is perpetual, that 1736 MJ has to get disapated some where. Yes a good amount will get turned into heat energy etc but much of the energy will be absorbed by the building and the aircraft. Now if you cant comprehend how major parts of the buildings structure where not damaged and destroyed then you are ignoring basic physics.
Theoddkiwi 4 years ago
Furthermore becuase the aircrafts mass contains a large quantity of fuel which in itself contains further potential energy easily converted to the form of heat, the equation for keeping the building standing becomes even harder.
Theoddkiwi 4 years ago
While i do not claim to be 100% accurate with my quick analysis. Combining the impact forces of the aircraft hitting the building and the fuel contained in the aircraft. To think this is not going to do substantial damage to the building is just simplistic and of poor judgement.
Theoddkiwi 4 years ago
See the opinions presented at watch?v=Q2gn1e5O3s4. I doubt these people were being simplistic or had poor judgement, but that's just me :-)
fred10538 4 years ago
My point is that by just concetrating on just the fire and heat, you probably wont get a collapse. But combine the impact forces with the heat and you will.
Theoddkiwi 4 years ago
I am interested as to why they are using a Steel excavator bucket to dig out "flowing" molten metal. Surely the bucket would melt or is it covered in fire retardant material?
Theoddkiwi 4 years ago
No, they weren't scooping up flowing metals, they were grabbing VERY HOT solid metals. Iron melts at 2800F, anything below that is very hot solid metal. The metals that flowed were allowed to cool until they solidified enough to be picked up.
fred10538 4 years ago
fred: Indeed and many wonder why:-
"For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel," Fuchek said."
Yet NIST reported temps never higher than 600C for a max 10 minutes - curiouser & curiouser...
w ww. gcn. com/print/21_27a/19930-1. html?topic=news paras 6 & 7
Thermate 4 years ago
Agreed. Can you also calculate at what factor the kinetic energy dissipates over time? To the extent that shards of wing have penetrated and almost 'broken through both sides of the core structure. From this cartoon it would appear that thin aluminum is still capable of slicing through inch-thick steel H columns after that time period...
Thermate 4 years ago
You are suggesting that all the Energy is absorbed by the disintegrating aircraft structure on no or minimal Energy is absorbed by the building structure. Oh yeah the building swayed a bit. Pig ass
Theoddkiwi 4 years ago
How does an Armour Peircing bullet peirce thick armour? Simple a high mass with a high velocity concentrated at a small point. Here we have an object with high mass travelling at high speed imposing its force of a small area. Newtons Law mate.
Theoddkiwi 4 years ago
Why is it that 9/11 deniers ALWAYS resort to name calling when they run out of brain?
Please answer my query.
You might also want to refer to the WTC designers, who confidently declared the buildings 'could withstand multiple 707 impacts'
Thermate 4 years ago
Why is it no one has found a truly smart truthers?
A 707 at 180mph is not nears as damaging as a 757 at 450mph.
911truthiness 4 years ago
767, not 757, a 767 is wider.
DkEugen 4 years ago
That's why it's a cartoon! ;-)
fred10538 4 years ago
TERRABLE analogy fred10538, 200,000lbs of aluminum going at 400+ mph into 2" steel collums... well... thats no egg.
DkEugen 4 years ago
Relatively speaking, it is! If a large bird can rip a hole in an aircraft taking off at 200 mph, imagine what structural beams, which are 13.5 x 14.5 inches, over 300 feet long, made from 2 inch thick steel AND anchored firmly to the ground below can do to a soft aluminum aircraft.
fred10538 4 years ago
what kind of aircraft? also "soft" aluminum arcraft is misleading, in loose change it says that what the plane is made out of of a company secret, the NOSE CONE is aluminum. still BIG PLANE vs 2" steel = f***ed up steel.
DkEugen 4 years ago
TERRABLE analogy fred10538, 200,000lbs of aluminum going at 400+ mph into 2" steel collums... well... thats no egg.
DkEugen 4 years ago
If I remember correctly, the question was "was there enough force left after entry through the tough grid of the outer columns, to damage core (inner) columns?" My answer, via analogy, is "No real (structural) damage was done to the inner core columns by the shredded airplane pieces." and I'm sticking to it! :-)
fred10538 4 years ago
dude... 200,000lbs of ANY metal could cut throught 2" of steel! do you even know how much 2" is? compare that to a boeing 767 and it doesent even need to move fast.
DkEugen 4 years ago
yes the pentagon didnt even need fighter jets to defend it..it has anti aircraft defence there allready...beside the piolets couldnt fly..
occision 4 years ago
this vid is bullshit
killinthepit 4 years ago
The footage released from the Supposed Pentagon attack is from a security checkpoint and before the supposed plane crash a guy walks by in real time and he's moving at full speed and without any cuts. Slow frame rate cameras are only used at cheap gas stations and liquor stores. Any facility such as the Pentagon has full speed high frame rate cameras but if you want to continue with your lies THEODDKIWI go right ahead.
elwahl28 4 years ago
Based on what information do you have the knowledge that the Pentagon has high frame rate cameras to monitor traffic in and out of a vehicle check point. Some one can only lie if they submit information knowing it to be untrue
Theoddkiwi 4 years ago
Do a Google search for: "gr911.avi" to view a forensic analysis of how the towers fell. It will prove that explosives were used.
felicity5150 4 years ago
The original blueprints were also leaked online recently . This simulation can't be reliable.
am87fl 4 years ago
The Sheraton tape existed. Multiple witnesses watched men identifying themselves as FBI agents take the tape. Then the gov released their own footage of the Pentagon supposed crash and it doesn't show anything but a computer animated explosion. There is a perfect view of the Pentagon and even a fast flying jet could be seen on slowed down tape but do we see even a hint of a jet? No! Because they can't even fake a tape right. Government idiots and murderers!
elwahl28 4 years ago
I am interested to hear what you would expect to see on a stationary security camera as far as seeing a very fast moving object. Considering most security cameras are slow frame rate devices eg service station cameras. They never show a smooth image.
Theoddkiwi 4 years ago
I don't mean literally buried you retard. It's a figurative use of language and if you've never heard it used before then you are probably in middle school and you shouldn't be logging in using your parents ID.
elwahl28 4 years ago
Trajan goes by this kind of logic,
A body is found with two gunshot wounds to the head and one to the chest. The gun is found in the right hand of the victim. The victim is left handed.
The coroner declares it a suicide. Despite the absurdity of the conclusion, Trajan can't think for himself but believes in the "official" explanation.
A psychotic dependence on authority for his sense of reality.
Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic.
Koralaa 4 years ago
I don't know what staff members viewed at the Sheraton or if any staff members viewed the video. All I know is the FBI confiscated the video tape from the hotel. They may have simply walked in and asked if the Sheraton had any surveillance video. The manager probably led them to the recorder and they took the tape. No one may have ever viewed the tape as they were probably outside trying to see what happened to the Pentagon. But the FBI was there and they took the tape.
elwahl28 4 years ago
The Sheraton hotel across the street from the Pentagon got the entire fake crash on surveillance video. However, the FBI showed up within the hour and confiscated it. They then buried it, because it showed the truth. You government supporting losers need to stop huffing glue in your parents basement and grow a brain. You are your own worst enemy.
elwahl28 4 years ago
Then why exactly has the Sheraton hotel staff never once stated that it was not the official flight? You truther nutters need to pull you heads out of your cracks and look at the evidence and review the facts, a plane hit the pentagon it's indisputable.
Trajan319 4 years ago
Who is the idiot here? Someone who believes photographic evidence, or someone who believes an absurd story that the government took and BURIED a tape?
sdjerabek 4 years ago
Anyone with half a brain (which these FBI people would have to have in order to commit your alleged conspiracy) would know that the best way of disposing of a video tape certainly wouldn't be to BURY it!
sdjerabek 4 years ago
/watch?v=KKyGQ2FpnDo
holy shit i found it!!!!
chibangin007 4 years ago
dude u know nothing about me. ur a fuckin retard for even judging me. those planes were fake. the 9/11 truth movement is also fake. tv fakery is real!
chibangin007 4 years ago
/watch?v=RY5VGZUOC8Q
chibangin007 4 years ago
I believe that flight 77 was a Boeing 757 not a Boeing 767
thermate911 4 years ago
wow, u are fuckin stupid.
have u ever seen a real plane? ive heard enough of both of u. u guys are fuckin retarded brain dead faggots
chibangin0000001 4 years ago
you retards need some pussy. oh too bad u fags cant get any. fuckin losers. the planes were fake, get over it. to bad u retards also believe in santa and the easter bunny. and u call urself adults?
chibangin0000001 4 years ago
Obvious mental instability, key characteristic of tin-foil hat wearing moon bat nutters.
oakheadfootball 4 years ago
Hehe is painfully obvious you have some sort of learning disability / mental illness. i suppose that is bound to happen when you spend your life trying to convince people that a circle is actually a square. I laugh in your general direction...
oakheadfootball 4 years ago
ur the dumbass without a brain. u have no common sense what so ever. u dont even understand the law of physics. and second im in second year at iadt studying visual communication- game designing. dude go get ur life together, quit talkin shit. u prove no point. i sent u info, and u ignored it. its ur fault so fuck off
chibangin007 4 years ago
yeah keep leaving comments u loser, like i wanna listen to some retards that have no education what so ever. go get some pussy u losers
chibangin007 4 years ago
the planes were fake! to bad u dumb fucks cant realize it
chibangin007 4 years ago
I think you'll find Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 miss, and there is no evidence to suggest it hit the Pentagon.
However two jets did strike the towers.