These Videos of REAL Plane Crashes Explain 9/11 TV-Fakery Very Clearly

Submitted by CB_Brooklyn on Thu, 2007-01-18 03:12.

Airplanes are extremely delicate

Watch These Videos of Real Crashes:

Video 1, Video 2, Video 3, Video 4

Now Watch These 9/11 Videos:

Video 1, Video 2

Note the Following in the 9/11 Videos:

* There's no crushing, no bending, no twisting
* Tail does not snap off
* Fuel filled wings do not explode on impact
* Wing tips (which are swept back 35 degrees) sawing through structural steel
* The building self-heals itself before the explosion

If a bird can rip an airplane, why can't structural steel?

As retired Aerospace Engineer Joseph Keith says: "The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"

CB_Brooklyn's blog

Login or register to post comments

7835 reads

Clips from CB

Submitted by Coffinman on Thu, 2007-01-18 05:09.

Coffinman
The first four are real, and the last two, allegedly of "Flight 175" are cartoons.

9/11 TV Fakery Mash-Ups

Submitted by ewing2001 on Thu, 2007-01-18 16:43.

A fresher way to help out, which currently reaches 1,000s of YOUTUBE-, Veoh-, Livevideo and other video portal viewers are 9/11 Video Mash-ups, which explain 9/11 TV Fakery with additional graphic explanations and music.
(Some of them now also include the other oppressed evidence of ExoW use on 9/11)

Check out the current best off and more at:
(Doublepress Go! in the widgets)

9/11 Video Mashup Watch (01/17)
http://www.911bloglines.com/node/17

Genghis6199- The shell game
Check out also New Roundup from latest Genghis6199 MashUp Entries (01/17)

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=genghis6199

Genghis6199-Fairbanks Analysis (vs. Soft Cell-Tainted Love)
January 15, 2007

Genghis Video Roundup

Fred aka BSReg- Octopus 5 (Video Tag Mirror Search, * please doublepress Go!)

...
2007 starts with exponential Increase of 9/11 Video Mash-Ups with 9/11 TV Fakery Evidence
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/2007/01/2007-year-starts-with-exponentia...

Rick is da man ; )

Submitted by ewing2001 on Thu, 2007-01-18 17:11.

Here is a small present for Rick, who was working for hours, fixing some last minute bug from me during the launch of 911bloglines.com (v.4), which produced some server errors.

I'm not experienced anymore since 2004, when i was sub admin under the late great bpilgrim at globalfreepress, where we played with the first rss blogware.

I'm waiting and fighting for this moment since 3 years.
911researchers.com and 911bloglines.com made me happy ; )

Last night 911blogger.com censored a mini Promo Tour of our new launch, which is good news.
"Someone" put a little bit of it up again :)
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5543#comment-108984
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4773#comment-108990

Cheers and keep the great work and thanks for all your patience ; )

Hmmm.

Submitted by Ian Ballard on Mon, 2007-01-22 08:41.

Nobody has taken velocity into account. Kinetic energy squares with velocity and those demonstrated videos of plane crashes depict planes going CONSIDERABLY slower than the planes that hit the towers, in addition to the fact they are hitting much denser surfaces. The second video's resulting fireball is almost identical to the one seen occurring after "flight 175" hit the Tower 2.

I suppose I could use the analogy of one's hand striking a board. Slowly, a person's hand cannot break a board, but form it into a knife-like shape and strike it at a high velocity and it's possible to break it. Ask any Karate student. Hell, I've done it. Velocity is the key here.

It's also important to note that the steel used in both the core beams and the perimeter beams taper in thickness to reduce the weight as you progress upward (another fact that the NIST ignores when claiming how tremendous the dynamic load was on the lower portion of the building). In the upper portion of the buildings, it's perfectly conceivable that an airplane traveling near it's top speed could puncture 1/4" (or so) steel plates, given the amount of energy and knife-like shape planes have.

I mean, what caused plane-shaped holes in those buildings, or were those fake, too?

Trust me, I don't buy the OGCT, but equally don't buy the "we hallucinated the planes" theories either. I guess we just need to have Jimmy Walter build us a model of the upper 1/3 of the WTC, crash a 767 into it going full speed and see what it looks like, otherwise I don't see the point in arguing something that has no real data to back it up.
__________________________________________________________
Somewhere between "the government did nothing" and "the government did everything" lies The Truth.

TV-Fakery and Kinetic Energy

Submitted by CB_Brooklyn on Mon, 2007-01-22 23:00.

I agree that higher speeds mean more kinetic energy. But that doesn't mean an airplane wouldn't show any resistance. It should still show signs of striking a much harder surface.

The fuel-filled wings of a real airplane should explode on impact with a building, not glide smoothly through as though the building isn't even there.

And it's not only steel beams, but also multiple floors of steel reinforced concrete slabs, as demonstrated in this picture.

Cartoon cutouts are only made in... um.. cartoons.

Let's see some physical calculations.

Submitted by Ian Ballard on Tue, 2007-01-23 01:34.

So, what made the plane-shaped holes in the buildings?

Tornadoes have been known to lodge things like straws of hay into trees and high pressure water can physically rupture substances that would be deemed impossible under normal conditions. Your assumption that an airplane cannot penetrate those buildings as seen, needs to be backed up with calculations and data, not just conjectural claims. I agree, it's odd and I've questioned it myself, but grainy photographs don't PROVE "cartoon cutouts" to me. Since these are unprecedented events (like the NIST claims of "inevitability" of "global collapse"), they need to be thoroughly studied.

Personally, I find it fruitless to debate endlessly about these things on the internet. I think somebody who feels strongly about this, should write a paper, to be peer-reviewed.
___________________________________________________________________
Somewhere between "the government did nothing" and "the government did everything" lies The Truth.

There are several papers out already

Submitted by CB_Brooklyn on Tue, 2007-01-23 02:42.

written by scientists. See here for some of them. As for peer review, the time will come.

I'm all for calculations!

As for data that's already available, we have the videos of real crashes that I have linked to.

Straws of hay and trees are not that much different from one another.

To me, it defies logic and common sense for an aluminum airplane to glide smoothly through beams of structural steel and slabs of steel-reinforced concrete. That might happen in a video game or a sci-fi movie. But in reality?? Nope.

Let's not forget no explosion on impact, and that the building self-healed itself.

The photos of the cartoon cutout are not grainy.

You didn't answer my question...

Submitted by Ian Ballard on Tue, 2007-01-23 04:15.

But I'll form it differently.

Were the plane-shaped holes CGI?

okay, I understand your question.

Submitted by CB_Brooklyn on Tue, 2007-01-23 04:45.

All of the available evidence seems to suggest the holes were real. i.e. there's no pictures of the towers after the attacks without the holes.

I thought the holes "healed themselves".

Submitted by Ian Ballard on Tue, 2007-01-23 07:50.

This is sad.

The available data is what it is. You guys are wasting your faculties trying to prove what didn't happen, when we need to band together to figure out what did.

I think I'm done here.

Sponsor

Our Mission

Navigation

Popular content

All time:

Recent comments

9/11 Researchers