2nd point first: wing vs. distant building. Here is a public issuance of the video by Michael Hezarkhani (see below), as #10 in the vignettes, appearing at about 5:24 in the timeline. It is devilishly difficult to start and stop this to glimpse the same frames, but it becomes clear that the image of the aircraft is split between frames, and the port (left) wing has very low darkness as it passes before the building. Hard to discern from the darkness level of the building. I suspect the video posted by Purkiss80 is a fake---but one that has been "cleaned up" to present a depiction of a CGI falsehood. It would be a peculiar falsehood if it only replicated a building that indeed was there.
1st point second: airplane vs. twin tower. Of course it is possible for an airplane to smash through the hanging wall of the tower, which was not its primary structure. This is basically the same thing that happened with a B-25 bomber when it crashed between the 78th and 80th floors of the Empire State Building on July 28th, 1945. Complete penetration into the building. Lots of damage internally. The narrator is clearly not an aeronautical or civil engineer to make such an assured denial that this could happen. What was the airplane supposed to do? Flatten out like a cartoon character? No, there was a lot of mass and momentum and it would not be stopped without the airplane driving into the building and getting minced (and then it was stopped).
This is a world in which people invested in a fixed point of view are not above tampering with evidence to make a point. This includes 9/11 "truthers."
Man, are you glowing! Or you really have no clue. But you found your way to this site. So I'm going with glowie. Everyone knows 9/11 was an inside job. Ask DJT!
"Inside job" covers a lot of territory. There could be some bad associations from the organization of the attack. But that the attack did what it did is unmistakable, and trying to invent occult reasons for the physical events is stretching bias into wish-fulfillment.
Your ineptitude also shows in that your failure to understand the physics of the collapse impels you to call me a "glowie," when all I am is an aeronautical engineer who knows better. What "everybody knows" is mostly nonsense.
What occult reasons? Huh? You are an aeronautical engineer that thinks a plane wouldn't crash into a steel building and fall to the ground leaving the majority of the building unharmed? An engineer that thinks a plane can bring down a steel skyscraper? It was a controlled demolition and the planes were made up, just like the no plane at the Pentagon. Aeronautical engineer. LOL!
What is so wonderful about your reply is that it confirms without doubt that you are not an aeronautical engineer. Nor a historian.
It may interest you to know that in 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber flew into the Empire State Building, penetrated into the building, and caused a fire. So, the reason I think that this could happen again is because it happened a first time. (And easier this time because of the way modern buildings are constructed, with non-load-bearing curtain walls.)
As for bringing down a skyscraper, all that takes is for the column strength of a given floor to drop below a critical point. Then it is a rapid chain reaction (at the speed of sound in hot steel) when all the columns buckle. The overburden (upper floors) then collapse onto the next floor, and the process repeats, except faster, all the way to the bottom.
No controlled demolition necessary, or even provable. The planes were real (engines were found, etc.). There was a plane at the Pentagon; fuselage fragments and engine components were found, etc.
Anon? LOL!!! You are great at massaging your own preconceptions, but terrible at finding out anything true.
This is a world in which people invested in a fixed point of view are not above tampering with evidence to make a point.
Again, what are you trying to insinuate?? I have never and never will 'tamper' with evidence...the Truth always speaks for itself and doesn't give a shit about your feelings...this includes 9/11 "deniers"
No, I am saying it is a fake. I have no idea where you got it. But it is "cleaned up" compared to the identical original video. In my viewing of the original video, I could just barely see the left wing because it had a darkness very close to that of the building beyond. This is the kind of circumstance that could lead to a spurious "correction" of the building being in front of the wing. How do you explain the double image of the plane in the original footage? That somehow got cleaned up.
What would be the point? There is plenty of corroborating footage that the airplane crashed into the building. And there is no question that it could have done so in that way, since a past occurrence did the same thing.
Actually, this guy says so. It turns out that building is actually located between the camera and the airplane, so the wing did pass behind it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdMKimP0S8 If anons would spend more time doing background confirmatory research instead of bias confirmation exercises, they might earn their name.
This is the guy that shot this video is Michael Hezarkhani. The only information I found relevant is that he refuses to talk about the video. Kinda Odd huh? If this footage was legit, why wouldn't he want to talk about it. It's suspicious, no?
Consider for a moment that this video was purposely edited in this way so it would cause confusion, and disagreement. As you see that's exactly what it's doing. I conclude this video is a red herring, purposely made conspicuous to run interference, to get investigators, and researchers looking in the wrong place.
I've spoken to people that had first hand accounts of seeing the airplane fly into the buidling. I strongly believe they flew something into the building, but I definitely don't believe it was some inexperienced hijackers. I conclude they were military drone aircraft flown remotely, or robotically
Hey DeathRayDesigner, the YTube link you included with the Michael Hezarkhani video clip is the same video as OP posted. Turn the speed down to .25 and open it up to full screen (I have a 27-inch 4k monitor) and it indeed shows the same situation where the wing disappears behind the far building, confirming that it is a hologram or CGI.
Better yet, it turns out that the building is actually between the camera and the plane, so the wing was actually behind the building. As debunked by an otherwise sympathetic observer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdMKimP0S8
Not a hologram or a CGI. (It could never have been a hologram.)
Did you view the debunk video? The building was between the camera and the plane, so the wing actually did pass behind the building. You have to realize that when you are viewing things photographed at a far distance, there will be no perceptible distance dimensionality (telephoto lens effect). It will seem like everything is all at the same distance. I used to marvel at this effect when I was a little kid watching football games on television.
I don't buy this argument.
2nd point first: wing vs. distant building. Here is a public issuance of the video by Michael Hezarkhani (see below), as #10 in the vignettes, appearing at about 5:24 in the timeline. It is devilishly difficult to start and stop this to glimpse the same frames, but it becomes clear that the image of the aircraft is split between frames, and the port (left) wing has very low darkness as it passes before the building. Hard to discern from the darkness level of the building. I suspect the video posted by Purkiss80 is a fake---but one that has been "cleaned up" to present a depiction of a CGI falsehood. It would be a peculiar falsehood if it only replicated a building that indeed was there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
1st point second: airplane vs. twin tower. Of course it is possible for an airplane to smash through the hanging wall of the tower, which was not its primary structure. This is basically the same thing that happened with a B-25 bomber when it crashed between the 78th and 80th floors of the Empire State Building on July 28th, 1945. Complete penetration into the building. Lots of damage internally. The narrator is clearly not an aeronautical or civil engineer to make such an assured denial that this could happen. What was the airplane supposed to do? Flatten out like a cartoon character? No, there was a lot of mass and momentum and it would not be stopped without the airplane driving into the building and getting minced (and then it was stopped).
This is a world in which people invested in a fixed point of view are not above tampering with evidence to make a point. This includes 9/11 "truthers."
Man, are you glowing! Or you really have no clue. But you found your way to this site. So I'm going with glowie. Everyone knows 9/11 was an inside job. Ask DJT!
"Inside job" covers a lot of territory. There could be some bad associations from the organization of the attack. But that the attack did what it did is unmistakable, and trying to invent occult reasons for the physical events is stretching bias into wish-fulfillment.
Your ineptitude also shows in that your failure to understand the physics of the collapse impels you to call me a "glowie," when all I am is an aeronautical engineer who knows better. What "everybody knows" is mostly nonsense.
What occult reasons? Huh? You are an aeronautical engineer that thinks a plane wouldn't crash into a steel building and fall to the ground leaving the majority of the building unharmed? An engineer that thinks a plane can bring down a steel skyscraper? It was a controlled demolition and the planes were made up, just like the no plane at the Pentagon. Aeronautical engineer. LOL!
What is so wonderful about your reply is that it confirms without doubt that you are not an aeronautical engineer. Nor a historian.
It may interest you to know that in 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber flew into the Empire State Building, penetrated into the building, and caused a fire. So, the reason I think that this could happen again is because it happened a first time. (And easier this time because of the way modern buildings are constructed, with non-load-bearing curtain walls.)
As for bringing down a skyscraper, all that takes is for the column strength of a given floor to drop below a critical point. Then it is a rapid chain reaction (at the speed of sound in hot steel) when all the columns buckle. The overburden (upper floors) then collapse onto the next floor, and the process repeats, except faster, all the way to the bottom.
No controlled demolition necessary, or even provable. The planes were real (engines were found, etc.). There was a plane at the Pentagon; fuselage fragments and engine components were found, etc.
Anon? LOL!!! You are great at massaging your own preconceptions, but terrible at finding out anything true.
You don't have to...
Are you insinuating that I faked this video??
Again, what are you trying to insinuate?? I have never and never will 'tamper' with evidence...the Truth always speaks for itself and doesn't give a shit about your feelings...this includes 9/11 "deniers"
No, I am saying it is a fake. I have no idea where you got it. But it is "cleaned up" compared to the identical original video. In my viewing of the original video, I could just barely see the left wing because it had a darkness very close to that of the building beyond. This is the kind of circumstance that could lead to a spurious "correction" of the building being in front of the wing. How do you explain the double image of the plane in the original footage? That somehow got cleaned up.
What would be the point? There is plenty of corroborating footage that the airplane crashed into the building. And there is no question that it could have done so in that way, since a past occurrence did the same thing.
Ok, if you say so...
Actually, this guy says so. It turns out that building is actually located between the camera and the airplane, so the wing did pass behind it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdMKimP0S8 If anons would spend more time doing background confirmatory research instead of bias confirmation exercises, they might earn their name.
This is the guy that shot this video is Michael Hezarkhani. The only information I found relevant is that he refuses to talk about the video. Kinda Odd huh? If this footage was legit, why wouldn't he want to talk about it. It's suspicious, no?
This is my only source saying he doesn't want to talk about it. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/pumpitout/michael-hezarkhani-9-11-videographer-t1883.html
Consider for a moment that this video was purposely edited in this way so it would cause confusion, and disagreement. As you see that's exactly what it's doing. I conclude this video is a red herring, purposely made conspicuous to run interference, to get investigators, and researchers looking in the wrong place.
I've spoken to people that had first hand accounts of seeing the airplane fly into the buidling. I strongly believe they flew something into the building, but I definitely don't believe it was some inexperienced hijackers. I conclude they were military drone aircraft flown remotely, or robotically
Hey DeathRayDesigner, the YTube link you included with the Michael Hezarkhani video clip is the same video as OP posted. Turn the speed down to .25 and open it up to full screen (I have a 27-inch 4k monitor) and it indeed shows the same situation where the wing disappears behind the far building, confirming that it is a hologram or CGI.
Better yet, it turns out that the building is actually between the camera and the plane, so the wing was actually behind the building. As debunked by an otherwise sympathetic observer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdMKimP0S8 Not a hologram or a CGI. (It could never have been a hologram.)
You aren't serious are you??
Did you view the debunk video? The building was between the camera and the plane, so the wing actually did pass behind the building. You have to realize that when you are viewing things photographed at a far distance, there will be no perceptible distance dimensionality (telephoto lens effect). It will seem like everything is all at the same distance. I used to marvel at this effect when I was a little kid watching football games on television.