It's focused at point of Impact don't you know any basic physics?

And you would expect China and Russia to blow the whistle, why, exactly?

Like a ping pong ball?


A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo


The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

You keep messing up physics and have no clue why you are wrong -

Apparently a lot more than you do. The reason no one, from MIT, to Purdue, has calculated the physics between the wing and the column, is because they know basic physics too.

No. You keep proving that few people are as indoctrinated as military people.

Your talking about a million bullets even if the plane breaks up each having sufficient energy to penitrate the steel. Especially given the hardness if Alumnum oxide and it's potential to Oxidize at over 2500 degrees C.

Let's think about this for the moment. In this interaction between a column and the wing, where would you say the impact is focused on? The flat aluminum sheeting, or the protruding steel sides?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...1-48-16-PM.png

You must be confused, I didn't do that.

Now about that question you are avoiding: "How are you going with that explanation of how a cruise missile with airframe largely intact can pass through that little gap that is much too small for a cruise missile to pass through?"

Big lie, your missile wing can't do what you said it could, you have messed up again and lied.

Why do you lie? Flight 175 has the KE of 2093 pounds of TNT, your missile in flight has 17 pounds of TNT, and tiny weak wings with less mass than any of the 767 wings.

You missile wings would barely scratch the WTC shell. The dents were made by a 767.

Physics wins again.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein

And it shows

your tiny wings are not thick enough to do the damage - darn

I appreciate your need to keep muddying the waters, but it doesn't help your case.

No it was simply Irrelevant in the simulation so they did a simplification, your making the same Mistake that Tony Sambozzi made in Missing jolt.
Your mistaking a simulation for a real life event you simply do not understand.
You have to know how the structure of the plane and the structure of the buildings will react based on the energies and connection points involved.

My case Is solid yours is not, you didn't even take into account impact induced heating.

You keep proving this:
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein

Your prejudice of those in the military is showing, a bias that guides your lies.

Truth remains solid, you lie about 9/11, and can't gain the knowledge to save yourself from spreading really dumb lies.


A study you can't figure out
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

Who indoctrinated you to lie, and make up the missile fantasy.


How did they fake the 66,000 pounds of jet fuel for the jet fuel fireball?

See the above video, it proves your missiles were not there

How many missiles does it take

False it would be dragged across not a strait line.

It wasn't intact. You are distracting the thread with another red herring.
You say there is a gap behind the still standing cladding, but you have yet to explain how a wing could create the gap without cutting the cladding. The "gap" is easily explained with missile warhead, but not with a plane wing. Desperate men do desperate deeds.

Your asuming the Cladding is cut and not fractured you can't determine the difference without close examination the impact of the fuel would have fractured Caldding. Your Guessing.

Off topic!

Why? You have no clue there was no warhead explosion on 9/11. A warhead can't make the break in the WTC, a 767 did, not a missile.

How does your missile carry 66,000 pounds of jet fuel? It would take over 30 missiles. No missiles seen on 9/11

Are you missiles invisible and magic?

You keep forgetting your thread failed long ago when you posted your terrible analysis of the video!


A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo


The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

You failed, the thread failed when you posted your analysis

Depends on which "jet" you're taking about. Different angles of impact, but very similar "wrong' damage in the same place. The left wingtip. Do you think the NIST was accurate with their model?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...wing-burst.png

For a strait on Impact yes not for a glancing angled Blow.
In a glancing angled Blow the wing would not penitrate, because the structure would cause the wing joint to be destroyed and the wing to hinge in toward the Fuselage.
Everything will have an equal and opposite reaction.

I didn't see the distant plane and none of your missile videos showed the impact from an angle similar to Hezarkhani's, so they didn't show anything either. I didn't say Hez's vidwo showed no visible 'imact'. I said the impact shows no visible crash physics. Unlike your videos, thwe 'impact of the 2nd plANe at WTC is clearly visible.What is not visible is any damage to the plane or the building. I'll try to post a pic if I can figure out how.s

Because you are not an aircraft crash investigator, and can't do physics.

A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo


The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

You keep messing up physics and have no clue why you are wrong -

the thread is about video, one you can't prove is fake, and in your case the same boat as yankee451 - https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

You can't do physics, don't understand Radar, and ignore witnesses.

The topic about video, and now it is done because you and yankee451 can't prove they are fake. You never will, yet you will continue posting off topic tripe to support evidence free lies you can't explain.

That's a crock of feces. The best way to deal with them is how Metabunk dealt with me a few years ago.
After a lot of back and forth, one of their people, with the intention of proving my assertion wrong, created and posted a diagram that unbeknownst to him at the time, not only supported, but proved my assertion. s(This was about a different event- not 9/11).

When they realized what they had done, his post and all related posts were deleted from the thread. Not only at Metabunk, but as far as I could tell, also deleted from the Waybackmachine.

It was a clear demonstration of what I've said - that you truth deniers can NEVER, under any circumstances concede that a CT is actually true or your reason for being evaporates. Nevertheless, in the end, the stinking liars declared the matter 'debunked'.

You offer BS, no evidence, thus you can't debunk anything, you spread bunk.

Yes you posts are void of evidence, thus you can't post at Metabunk, all your junk is BS.

You got it backwards, you have to prove your claim, not the other way around. Like this topic, you can't prove any videos are fake, and never will - you don't have evidence.

All your claims are bunk.

They wish.

I think people missed this one.

I'm sure they're trying to.

How about the protruding sides of the columns. Wouldn't you say the mass and momentum of the wing was focused on a small point of impact when the rounded edge of the wing struck the sharp, laterally braced protruding steel sides of the columns, as it allegedly impacted them sequentially, one sharp side at a time?

That only happens in the movies, huh?

Yes, and according to you, despite the fact that one jet struck head-on, and the other one "dragged" the steel to the side, both towers show nearly identical damage in the same place, the left wing tip.

The physical evidence shows something small and not very dense struck the first columns to the left, but as it traveled to the right (equal and opposite!!!!), it became much more dense and much more massive, sharply bending steel columns in a completely different direction than the television jets were allegedly traveling. Either you don't understand equal and opposite reactions, or you are maintaining the jet wings that couldn't even slice all the aluminum sheeting, also changed direction.

The cognitive dissonance must be unbearable.

It takes very little energy to been that steel your first mistake is not realizing that.

"How they Faked the Videos"

Still waiting. 63 collected here.

How did they fake the NBC Chopper4 live shot? Video production expert Ace Baker said it could not have been done. You are not a video production expert, so you cannot answer.

How did Robert Cumins fake his 2 Fuji film negatives of the plane he shot from 14 miles away? I have 50 photos of the 2nd plane. You can't answer this question.

How did the smoking hot plane engine smash into the building at 50 Murray St. and drop parts (all matching a Boeing 767) along its trajectory, including atop 5 WTC, Vesey St., and the Federal Building? Plane parts PDF here (49 MB, 86 pages). You have no answers to these questions.

Name them.

Really. I live near SFO departures and hear planes roaring overhead frequently. So frequently that I can usually tell by the sound of the engines what type of plane it is - CRJ, 7-4, 767/757, Airbus types - Airbus seems quieter than Boeings.

So you're making **** up again. No worries, making **** up is no-planer 101. It's expected of you.

I understand that equal and opposite doesn't have to Apply to your theory the way you want it too because you want your theory to be true.
I have no Axe to grind so I look at the evidence as is not how I wanted to to view it.

from Hezarkhnai here the right wing has penetrated. No damage visible.How does the wing penetrate the wall without making a hole?

http://treshombres.ca/911/Plane2.png

unable to prove videos are fake, a gish gallop of failed claims continues
 

You don't know the topic?
A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

You failed, the thread failed when you posted your analysis

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be
Your movie with a movie used to support your failed analysis

I like that movie, you like fiction, and lies.

Projection again.

The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
You failed to prove it wrong. Thread is complete save your gish gallop of lies

Failed again to produce evidence of fake video? What now
 

Why are you 9/11 truth false claimers so darn bad at photos and video

resize the photo, or remove it please.

BTW, add halfway to things you can't do

This why you get booted from metabunk, you offer no evidence, just bunk

You failed to prove the video fake again.

You have no clue what halfway is.
Plus you can't do photo interpretation and have no clue your photo is not valid, there were not that many pixels, you messed up and have no clue what you are doing - why your posts at metabunk were bunk.

https://i.imgflip.com/3n5gzs.jpg

My meme is higher resolution than yours, and you don't know why.

How's the size noq? Still rtoo big? I'll resize again if needed. Why don't you chastise me for typos too, when it's all you've got?

I didn't get booted from metabunk. They simply deleted the posts where THEY proved my assertion and were unable to refute my evidence. Dishonest of them, wouldn't you say?

A low-resulotion compressed 240p screen grab from a freakin youtube constitutes evidence in your mind?

Little wonder your confusion.

Actually it has been answered a number of times in the last 1600 posts.

And it is in the OP.

how did you get more pixels than the real video?
 

I did not say you were booted, your posts were not up to evidence standards, aka BS, and bunk - go ahead post this claptrap, it is bunk, and you don't know why.

https://i.imgflip.com/3n5i10.jpg

Why is your photo so low resolution?

You don't understand your photo is not that big in the first place, but you sized it too big, and the page goes off the side. Your photo is bad, like your claims.

Why would you expect to see anything from this far away.
https://i.imgflip.com/3n5i10.jpg
That is all the pixels there are.

How can a low speed video show damage that is happening in microseconds. Do you know anything about video? No

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
you failed to prove any videos are fake, and never will

The self healing walls are a telltale sign of a mask layer.

The CGI plane was layered over footage of the undamaged tower and both were hung like a curtain in front of the "actual" footage of the missile impacts. The CGI jet melted into the undamaged tower layer, which explains the self-healing wall, because it was just another layer masking the real footage. After the missiles cut the hole in the real tower, the mask layers were removed to reveal the shock and awe fireball erupting through the hole.