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.
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.