9/11 Phantom Planes: Impossible Collisions Prove Video CGI Trickery
In this video, Tim Truth dives deep into the phantom planes of 9/11. The North Tower was hit first and there is only one video of that crash, and the footage is poor quality but we are focusing on the second crash.
On the reverse side of where the North Tower was struck, the South Tower was struck. Since there was a lot of attention on the towers, more video footage exists of the South Tower being hit.
The footage of the South Tower being hit was in a single word, bizarre. The footage also raises several questions such as why did the planes fly right through the face of the building? No parts broke off, it didn’t crumble up and it didn’t slow down. It just went right into the building.
This defies the laws of physics. for a hollowed out aluminum airplane to act like a phantom, gliding straight into the building with no resistance. The body of the plane and the wings don’t change shape whatsoever, which can clearly be seen in the footage.
Source: BitchuteÂ
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.Â
Trackback from your site.
Howdy
| #
This has also been stated by PSI posters more than once. The undamaged aircraft in particular was rather odd.
Reply
Anapat
| #
B movie
Reply
VOWG
| #
Eyewitnesses watched it happen but hey, don’t let that get in the way of idiotic theories.
Reply
Howdy
| #
People actually died too, VOWG, which nobody disputes, but the article is in relation to the video footage, and it’s realism.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The wings were not hollow but filled with fuel, since the plane had just taken off from Boston and had mass and momentum.
Reply
Howdy
| #
The wing of the Concorde was punctured by a piece of rubber tyre from the undercarriage, Herb, but the impact shockwave was what actually caused the deformation of the wing that caused the leak as I recall, not the strength of the rubber itself. There are other factors at play.
Reply
VOWG
| #
The towers were brought down by two planes. The stupid think otherwise. Islam was and still is to blame.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi VOWG,
Skyscrapers get their structural strength from their steel skeletons and the side panels attached to the skeleton add nothing to this strength.
The Pentagon was constructed to withstand attacks and yet the idiots do not dispute that plane flew into it and penetrated the structure. Stupid people will believe anything except that what they believe could be wrong.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
We’ve been through this before, Herb, as noted earlier. The twin towers used the same concentric two tube construction, where the outside ‘cladding’ is a major support structure of the whole tower.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/world-trade-center-construction-unique.htm
As also noted, the video of emergence of the aircraft as undamaged in any way was odd. This alone gives credence to theories that all was not as it seemed. It’s obvious these days that mass murder and cover up is the order of the day, so why would the towers be any different? One should be forgiven for thinking it didn’t quite happen as was reported. Perhaps the deaths attributed to the jab are coincidence? Or is that just too obvious to be discussed?
Yes the planes hit, but was the damage and loss of life caused purely by that, or was a helping hand afforded along the way. This is the real question, not whether any planes crashed or not. It appears to me that is the forgotten part in all this.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy
After WWII a B-25 medium bomber collided with the Empire State building and penetrate into the building. The construction of that building was steel girder frame. yet the construction of the plane was weaker than that of a modern jet. The wings and engines remained on the plane, stuck in the wall with little debris falling to the sidewalks below. If a lighter slower plane can do this to a stronger building why do people find it hard to believe that a jet couldn’t do the same thing to a weaker building? The large loss of life was from the towers collapsing while the Empire State Building remained standing with the fire confined to the one floor.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
Firstly Herb, why was the empire state building stronger? H-beam girder skeleton? That doesn’t convince me.
So, different construction, RE girders, and the aircraft didn’t penetrate to the point of emerging from the opposite side.
Have you seen my other replies? The dome destroyed by a bird colliding with it?
There is no way a building would sacrifice it’s construction strength and allow a plastic/fibreglass dome to emerge unscathed.
Here’s a video of a ford focus hitting concrete at 120 mph. Notice that the plastics are shattered in all directions. The expected outcome of a soft material hitting a hard surface such as building construction.
If the fire was contained to one floor, either the fuel payload was low, the fuel couldn’t escape down stairs etc as claimed for the twin towers, or the twin towers blaze maybe had help. One would expect a similar outcome to the one in your example, if, say, a twin engined bombardier collided.
It seems the twin towers were designed to withstand a Boeing 707 collision, as well as earthquakes. Don’t forget tall buildings are designed to sway, which in itself will absorb energy, but the plane hitting it was larger in mass than the constructed limits.
Whether the destruction was given help or not is unknown, What is just completely at odds with reality is that the plastic didn’t deform in the video. I find this unacceptable.
Howdy
| #
Forgot the link:
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
Compare the thickness of the steel in old I beams to the thickness of the steel in modern beams. Modern construction uses shaped beams to give directional strength and use form instead of mass to give structural strength. The diameter of a tube determines the vertical strength of the tube while the horizontal strength is determined by then material and thickness of the skin. It is easy to crack an egg but hard to crush it. Have you seen pictures where a tornado has pushed a piece of straw through a telephone pole?
The twin towers were tube construction with a strong central core with steel flooring struts going from that core to the sides while the Empire State building is a stack of boxes. Once the fire compromised the strength of the flooring in the twin towers it was easy for some falling debris to provide enough force to buckle the beams and pull the sides in collapsing the building. With a stack of boxes the destruction of one of the boxes won’t compromise the strength of the rest of the stack.
The difference between the win towers and the Empire State building is that one relied on form to provide strength while the other depended on the strength of the material. When the form was compromised it lost its strength, just like an egg. A bird flying into a dome is a point strike but when the dome strikes something the force is distributed through the entire structure.
Herb
Howdy
| #
None of that matters Herb. I’ve brought one or two relevant points into the discussion that have not, to my knowledge, been presented before, yet it made no difference. The subject of the nose cone has not even been mentioned, yet it is critical to the discussion, and the video. I didn’t even bother with the video this time around as I’ve seen it before and the image alone, telling as it is, is sufficient to come to a conclusion
The twin towers don’t use beams in the same way as the empire state. That point is done and dusted allready.
Beam thickness in a skyscraper is irrelevant where a much softer material in collision is concerned.
Whatever the beam thickness, it will surely destroy a lesser soft object impinging on it with force. If I launch a ping-pong ball at a girder of any thickness at high speed, the ball will be obliterated. The effect on the beam is zero. It’s as simple as that.
Disregarding the expected people who normally engage such as yourself Herb, replies are none existent as usual. As such, I’ve exhausted my time with this subject, and I now find it pointless to continue.
Thanks for your time Herb.
D. Boss
| #
Are there really that many people who are complete idiots to believe such drivel without doing any cross checking? (answer is yes because even so called rocket scientists failed to calculate the ballistic energy of the 10 lb block of foam going 650 mph hitting the wing root of Shuttle Columbia and said it was not an issue after the launch videos were seen)
Facts a) Ballistic Energy in Joules = 1/2mv² where m is mass in kg, and v is velocity in meters per second. A B767 has a mass of 200,000 kg, which this one did on that day. The speed at impact was around 400 kt, which is 206 m/s. Therefore the ballistic energy impinging on the building was 4,243,600,000 Joules.
At 61 meters long the plane took only 0.29 seconds to deliver this energy traveling at 206 m/s. Therefore the power dissipated is 14,633,103,448 watts or 14.6 Gigawatts.
TNT when detonated releases 4,000 Joules per gram. So the plane released the equivalent of 1,060,900 grams of TNT which is 2,337 pounds of TNT! Do you think a 2 thousand pound bomb could not blow a hole in the side of one of the Twin Towers?
This does not include the energy released by the fuel burning after the impact …. (35,000 kg at 42.8 MJ/kg = 1,498,000,000,000 Joules)
Fact b) There exists video/film of high speed impacts, and specifically of an F4 Phantom hitting a huge concrete block at 500 knots or so, and the plane does not “buckle”, it merely disintegrates. The 60% glass facade of the twin towers is no match for a 140 ton block of concrete, so yes the plane sliced right into the building without the plane buckling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4CX-9lkRMQ (Total Destruction Redux: F4 Phantom vs. Concrete Wall)
Hence the idiotic argument that the 767 did not buckle is false. Both planes are essentially hollow aluminum structures. Neither the density nor the structural integrity of a ballistic object determines it’s destructive potential, only the mass x velocity squared. Which is why the idiots at NASA got the Columbia video of a 10 lb block of foam hitting the carbon-carbon wing root of the space shuttle wrong. They assumed a foam block could not cause much damage because of it’s density – unhhh wrongo bubba, it’s the mass times velocity squared.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suniiico7z4 (Shuttle Debris Impact Testing)
Furthermore plane parts were found on the ground near the towers:
https://exhibitions.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/recovery/aircraft.html
I guess Ron White was correct:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQv7Tr8HbGE (Ron White: You Can’t Fix Stupid)
Reply
Howdy
| #
D.Boss, if a propeller came adrift from a commercial airliner in flight and embedded into the fuselage, could it ‘decapitate’ the aircraft? Do the maths on that please.
Reply
Howdy
| #
i thought I would look deeper into this aluminium tube thing, which makes little sense to me, and I feel doesn’t take into account that when the travel of the body is suddenly retarded, the inertia of itself, including all structures within it, including seats, people, the tailplane, wings etc, are transferred through it to the nose, so substantially more than just a tube.
The nose must be as transparent to radio waves as possible, so is constructed of plastic, fibreglass etc, so It seems reasonable this section at least would be damaged by a frontal collision. Ive heard of a plane that dented the nose by bumping another aircraft on the ground, and there is this:
“aircraft’s nose COLLAPSED after bird flew into Turkish Airlines plane”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3070051/Incredible-photos-reveal-aircraft-s-nose-COLLAPSED-bird-flew-Turkish-Airlines-plane-carrying-125-passengers.html
Hail destroys nose cone:
https://news.sky.com/story/probe-launched-after-paraguay-planes-nose-shattered-during-violent-storm-forcing-emergency-landing-12731490
Reply