I missed the titanium melting thread...magic something or other that
melts titanium??

The steel melting... what did happen to the core..its core dust from thermate.
Some parts must have disappeared... the magic core beams...


So we are at square one with low flying planes.

I got to say magic something....

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
I missed the titanium melting thread...magic something or other that
melts titanium??

The steel melting... what did happen to the core..its core dust from thermate.
Some parts must have disappeared... the magic core beams...


So we are at square one with low flying planes.

I got to say magic something....

Thank you. The poster was referring to the "evaporated" engines that no one credible has ever really said but Loose Change et al. take as the "official story." Loose Change says the engines should've been found "relatively intact," sauys one was found inside and identified it (??) and says the official story is they melted. Of course the engines wouldn't wind up intact at all, but neither do titanium and other solid metals melt in a fire like at the Pentagon. That's why there are recognizable but scattered engine parts left, at least three of which we've seen and many others presumably we haven't.

Also, great video, even seeing it for the fiftieth time. He's wrong on the plane ID in the video stills, tagging it as black w/white smoke at one point, white at another point, and trailing gray smoke after. A common error. The white stuff is what's supposed to be the plane, anyway. Gray is smoke (from the damaged engine is the best exp. I know of), and black is background, and none of the plane except maybe nose cone is hidden behind the security box. The "nosecone" peekin out to the left is part of the box and there the whole time.

Thank you.

ANOK. Maybe the reason that all of the engines in the photos you posted are relatively intact, is because, two of the airplanes were on final approach. Most airliners fly really close to stall speed when they're close to the airport on final. The other jet had actually touched down and overshot the runway and hit some trees. None of them hit a building that was made up of limestone, concrete, and steel and none of them was traveling above their maximum safe speed limitations. That's just a guess though.

OMG!

First step: State my position on the discussion of whether Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon or not.

Yes, I think Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon.

Second Step: Refute this video.

Solidworks is NOT a failure, strain or movement predicting piece of software. Holy MoF...this is an egregious attempt to misuse a piece of software on the general public who doesn't know its capabilities and thereby sway opinion through what I like to refer to as "techno-babble".

No no no - Solidworks CANNOT predict the direction in which a lightpole will fall when impacted by a plane wing. It CANNOT predict what damage (or lack thereof) that will take place on impact. The only way this video was done was by manual manipulation by the user that pre-mandated the movement of impacted objects.

This is a worthless piece of obfuscation.

Originally posted by Valhall
No no no - Solidworks CANNOT predict the direction in which a lightpole will fall when impacted by a plane wing. It CANNOT predict what damage (or lack thereof) that will take place on impact. The only way this video was done was by manual manipulation by the user that pre-mandated the movement of impacted objects.

This is a worthless piece of obfuscation.

Not that I disagree with you, but at least we know that the lightpoles moved - that in itself at least proves that something with a reasonable wingspan hit the pentagon. Otherwise you get left with the problem of how a small missile (since otherwise wings would make obvious dents, according to most CTs) does all that. Not to mention that if a missile had exploded there you might expect the damage to be wider inside, which it isn't.

The video The Pentacon is worth looking at in the context of this thread. Witnesses who seem pretty credible say that the plane came in from an angle which would make it impossible for the plane to hit the light poles. The NTSB animation gives the flight trajectory as being consistent with what the witnesses in the Pentacon said and also puts the plane at too high an altitude to hit the light poles.

The OP's video on the other hand reconstructs the plane's trajectory based on a few frames of a highly suspect video released by a highly suspect administration known to have lied repeatedly to the American people.

Bottom line, the video cited by the OP is nifty and nice but worthless as an evidentiary tool.

I saw an engine part, rotor hub ?, in one video of the pentagon hit.

Also on the street by the WTC.

People, that is posters, say it would be from a smaller plane.
OK, so there is a smaller plane theory.

You just can't plant a jet engine in a building and explode it out
on to the street. Or could you. Then you got a no plane theory
with the aid of planted engines.


Being a CTer, the first I thought, when downed lamp posts were pointed
out, was that some 'Black HUMVEE' did it. Course to be sure the posts
should be examined.

The same CT thought came when all the Arab hijacker pictures were
plastered over front page a few days lated. No way. Government
never worked that fast.


Subscribe to 9/11 CTers on YouTub and get their latest posts
and check out the comments posted.

New Videos from kuzja123

* 9/11 - Donald Rumsfeld Slip-up "Flight 93 shot down"???
* 9/11 - Small Flight 93 Crash Site Compilation
* Welcome To Thunder Bay, Ontario
* 9/11 - Rare Flight 93 News Broadcast


New Videos from Xenomorph911

* 9/11: WCBS Explosion report
* 9/11: Giuliani asked about explosions
* 9/11: Explosion #4 "The building is about to blow up"
* 9/11: Explosion #3 (better quality)
* 9/11: South Tower
* 9/11: ABC News: Building 7
* 9/11: ABC News: Evan Fairbanks interview

Use an id URL and find their posted videos.

Some big tower down by WTC caught fire, again... I don't think
it ever was on fire before. What damage did it have, oh yeah, from
the exploding buildings next to it. Poor German bank didn't go down
boom like the rest of them.

Originally posted by Valhall
OMG!
[...]
Solidworks is NOT a failure, strain or movement predicting piece of software. Holy MoF...this is an egregious attempt to misuse a piece of software on the general public who doesn't know its capabilities and thereby sway opinion through what I like to refer to as "techno-babble".

No no no - Solidworks CANNOT predict the direction in which a lightpole will fall when impacted by a plane wing. It CANNOT predict what damage (or lack thereof) that will take place on impact. The only way this video was done was by manual manipulation by the user that pre-mandated the movement of impacted objects.

This is a worthless piece of obfuscation.

Ha! Funny. Isn't this the same program Pilots for truth just used for their 3d analysis thing? Fact is, I'd guess it's not scientifically exact exact, but about as good as what's put in. Either way, it's a great visualization tool. In Wilson's case (the cartoon in discussion here) it's just to show general concepts evident esewhere - poles were clipped on this scale - all propoortions are about right. The video does the trick - if this was faked it was faked well, and opinions will differ on just how silly this is...

A program that does not take into effect any forces.
There is no physics in it.
So animation or carton is up to the discretion of the artist.
Have a scientist use a computer... bah.

What happened to all those airliner crash test films?
Where are they, lost in the archives?

What does happen in a high speed or high altitude air crash.
Those people that did safety testing all those years must know.
What do they think about all the 9/11 magic crashes.

The first document had an altitude profile.

Some directional data would give the 3d but its a trapezoid flight

path and no low level flight... except for the end of a plunge....

or some long low level under the radar maneuver and final drive.