Fooled Again on 9/11

	Duration: 02:12 minutes Upload Time: 2007-02-09 22:03:20 User: dassado :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day
Description: I DIDN'T MAKE THIS VIDEO A close look at the crap video editing that everybody saw transmitted "live" on september 11 2001. Crash physics for everyone There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings. For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall. It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to pieces and fall into the street. I will deal with this first. REACTION/deflection "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". That means that the force received by both objects in a collision will be equal. Now what determines how much force goes into the objects? Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force received by EACH object. If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did not break up. I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what it would take to penetrate all those outerwall beams. Any remaining kinetic energy would be retained in any parts that had penetrated the wall and parts that had fragmented, the fragments undergoing a deflective process with their remaining energy. Some of the energy would convert to sound, heat and light. The heat would ignite any fuel spilled from the wings, a large amount of which would be vapourised instantly with the impact. Then there is TERMINAL BALLISTICS. If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane also, causing deceleration and deflection. The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble, in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through kevlar. AERODYNAMICS. The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and tailplane. The deceleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact to determine the direction of tumble. And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving us another, separate reason for the plane to tumble. With the diagonal rise of the nose being suddenly stopped upon penetrating the building, the rear of the plane should have continued upwards. Then there are the glaring anomalies. People trying desperately to prove planes always show a picture of a wrecked CFM56 engine in a NY street, an engine that could never have been fitted to a 767. And photographs of aircraft wheels, where the tyres have the wrong number of tread grooves to be from a 767. Yes, it's a good question, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM? And the engine at the Pentagon was a JT8D which is also wrong for the aircraft we were told hit the building. I think it likley that these engines were used in ordnance that was custom-made for the job. Then there is the cherry on the top of the planehugger sundae- A photo of a truck that has had "AIRCRAFT PARTS" spray-painted on the back. WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT ONE PROVE, ALEX? In fact, if they WERE collecting aircraft parts in that truck, why would they go and spray that on it? Do you think they might have lost it otherwise? None of the plane videos show a CRASH. There were no planes that hit the towers. There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the towers. And what about the fake eyewitness videos, mostly with the same pathetic voice actress who can't even change her act from one take to the next. Who made those? And why? Check 3 of them out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4PyME86eJ0 When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS ignore these most basic evidential facts I seriously doubt their intentions. Do you not think our truth movement would include WELL-PLACED psy-op agents? They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge? You want remove this video?
Comments