It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 Animation

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 03:18 PM
9/11 animation

Thought this would be interesting to those who believe 9/11 was an inside job.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by GorehoundLarry]

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:40 PM
But there were no planes! If you do the research and watch the original footage -- especially the Fox chopper footage -- you will see there were no planes.

Like the "no plane" that (didn't) hit WTC 7.

So it suddenly becomes more curious...

Impressive animation is just impressive animation. That's all. The trick is that it doesn't mean or prove anything. The real perpetrators are very clever, with no shortage of money.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:43 PM
Um...okay, 9/11 was an inside job from the evidence that al qaeda is a CIA creation, built and funded to fight the soviets and that Bin Ladin is a Saudi Aristocrat and our beloved president likes to frolic through the rose garden with the Saudi prince.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:53 PM
Yes, we were attacked by Bin Laden's organization, that we trained in the 80's. I meant inside job by how Bush was behind the attacks.

There's just no evidence

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:57 PM
You're right, unfortunately, like almost everything else discussed here, the evidence is circumstantial. My mom works in local government and always says that the governement has a hard enough time just building roads and paying teachers and that they have neither the intelligence, time or resources to participate in a global conspiracy to enslave humanity. I, personally, think that there are too many coincedences to ignore.

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:38 PM
Does anyone else find this extremely unlikely? Unless I'm seeing it wrong?

Notice how that thin piece of aluminum skin slices through the columns and doesn't get shredded itself? They show it continue out of site undamaged but slicing through every single column it comes into contact with.

I wonder how they knew the strength of columns as NIST nor anyone else tells us where the strength increased as we go up the building along with how thick those columns were as NIST doesn't tell us where they transitioned. Only vaguely.

So, how was this finite element analysis done without knowing the finite elements?

Nice animation though.

Originally posted by 420prajna
our beloved president likes to frolic through the rose garden with the Saudi prince.

Don't forget kissing him. I wonder what else Bush kisses when the lights go out?

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by GorehoundLarry

It's obvious 9/11 was a pre-planned setup.

Now the question is even though the majority of us or those with a brain who THINK know this



What comes next a few dirty bombs going off in a city somewhere!


Again who in the US will and CAN do anything about it?


Sad but True!

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 07:33 PM
I think the US sold out a long time ago.
I was watching Pan's Labyrinth and there is a director's commentary by Guillermo del Toro.
He talks about how the republican rebels helped the Allies in WWII by sabotaging the Titanium mining in Spain, that the Germans needed for making steel.
We thanked them by leaving the fascist government in power.

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:03 AM
it has been proven time and time again that computer simulations can be horribly inaccurate.
there are just to many variables to calculate. this leads me to the conclusion that the simulation i just witnessed is to say the very least a terrible representation of true to life physics.
i have seen this before and i have to say yes, the planes do atomize, and yes this particular test is against a wall designed to absorb impact but the principal is essentially the same. An air plane VS a Sky scraper.
200 tons of jumbo jet vs 350,000 tons of cement and concreteat point of impact. at 500 MPH the plane would be hitting with like 200,000,000 pounds of force thats alot.
ofcourse alot of that energy is dispersed over the area of impact not on one general point. from what i hear correct me if im wrong, the central column of the WTC was pretty mch solid cement and steel, really thick hardened steel. i dont know the ratio just seems uneven in light of the plane. i can imagine it doing untold amounts of damage, but i just dont know about knocking it down fire or no fire. even the engineers were suprised.

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:04 AM
i dont know if the web site connected or not if not try this...

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:10 AM
by the way i dont know if anyone has seen what that wall looked like after the test, but there is hardly any damage at all, just a really big dirty spot and maybe a 12 inch wide 2 inch deep gouge where the nose cone hit.

in all actuality i would think a smaller jet would do more damage than a jumbo to some dgree as far as cement is concerned. alot more energy directed to a smaller point, similar to stabbing a wall with a screwdriver or punching it with your fist. one laves a mark the other one was spead out over to much area resulting in dissipated energy.

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:43 AM
I'm curious, do you have a animation for the part of the FOX news broadcast in nyc which shows the planes nose shooting THOUGH the building and appearing on the other side? Only for a split second tho, they must have lost that camera..

It would be so damm funny if it wasn't so damm sad.

new topics

top topics


log in