Support 911Blogger

Animations of Planes Hitting the Twin Towers

Two animations purport to model flights 11 and 175 crashing into the North and South Towers:

Here's the animation for WTC 1

Here's the animation for WTC 2

These animations were posted at the website of Engineering News-Record, a subsidiary of McGraw-Hill, back in 2003 (I just saw them yesterday for the first time).

And NIST has made 2 animations of its own:

Here's the WTC 1 animation

Here's the WTC 2 animation

NIST's animations are linked from this page.

Are these animations accurate, in the sense that they show what Boeings crashing into the Twin Towers would have looked like? If so, does that refute the argument that there should have been more aircraft debris outside of the Twin Towers?

If the animations are not accurate, would discrediting them also help to discredit animations of the purported Pentagon plane crash?

Ok, I'm confused. Why is

Ok, I'm confused. Why is World Net Daily entrenched in "conspiracy theory world" articles and do cumentaries , and even has some great 9/11 truth exposes(Pakistani ISI and 9/11, guns banned in cockpit before 9/11, WTC 1993 an inside job)
and now they are so focused on attacki ng the truth movement.
I was reading their latest hit piece, and there was a big ol ad for "America's Secret Destiny", a documentary about the Illuminati controlling America and the government...and I was thinking "WND is schizophrenic".

No commercial airliners struck their target on 9/11

I don't know what those grid lines are supposed to depict, but I do not believe that any normal commercial flights struck targets on 9/11.

Prepare for flames

Sure, the easiest debunk is shanksville (small hole and it allegedly vaporized? please). The pentagon is fought on, but I think it's safe to say no-757.

Then we get to the WTCs... and all hell breaks loose emotionally. :)

No source ?

Who made these? What experience does the maker have? Why the hell should I care about some no-source cartoons?

I'm not actually sure of the

I'm not actually sure of the original source, perhaps someone else is.. These animations aren't new, I've seen them a long time ago..

i don't think that's what

i don't think that's what would actually happen if a 767 hit the wtc. it certainly doesn't accurately depict what DID happen either. it seems like a lame attempt at passing off what we saw on tv as actually being within the realm of possibility.

I can't be trusted!

In both of the SIX frame two inch square High Definition (cough) images.... suggests that three of the four engines (the starboard eng in WTC 2 never possessed a trajectory heading toward the core) where able to make it to the far side of the massive and proportionally "tight" core construction (not depicted), as if odds would allow the engs. to pass without substantial deflection, nor loss of kinetic energy. All three eng. are depicted as passing through multiple vertical box columns, OR MISSING THEM. Which is it going to be?

Lets consider the odds of missing, and thus not damaging, the core box columns. Debate falls back on fire and its ability to fail the structure. Whatever.

Or, the more likely odds of striking numerous columns. There in remains the odds of severing enough box columns, to make it to the far side of the building's core, as depicted for all three engines with core bound trajectories.

The animation suggests, as logic would concur, that most of the outer by-pass turbo fans and shroud would be stripped away when passing through the outer walls, leaving the dense jet core to continue on. This eng. core may be calculated as still retaining five tons of mass. Lets make it ten, times two engines for WTC 1, makes twenty tons of dense engine core to pass through the building core.

At that building elevation, the box columns had reduced internal dimensions, thinning down the steel walls to say 1.5 inches. A trajectory allowing the worst case of passing through the most number of box columns, makes 5 to 8 columns to be severed, in worst case. 24 inches of vertical hight, 3888 cubic inches of steel per column, by 5 = 20k and by 8 = 31k cubic inches of structural steel (go with the pot metal value of 30KPSI) makes 933 million lbs of resistance for ONE ten ton core to remove....... I'm looking at a 1 to 46,000 ratio.

This is dumb already. In the worst case, both engines making it all the way through the building core... their are still 31 box columns that need to be weakened by fire.... in a perfectly symmetrical fashion.

This was a waist of time.... besides... I'm admittedly biased against the Bush Fucker Gang to be trusted calculating the chances that they would tell the truth.

What can I say.


"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Impact orientation to the cores

George, I looked around at for an article in which these animations appeared to no avail. Do you have any more info on the source?

The 9/11 Commission report described the cores of the twin towers as a hollow steel shaft. Only the completely cluless would still believe this.

What is interesting and simple about the animations, though, is the relative orientation of impact to the core of each tower and how each was distinctly different. While I knew that the "hollow steel shaft" was fabrication of the 9/11 Commission, embarassingly, I only realized the significant difference in impact orientation just a few months ago.

The animations show that WTC1 may have taken a more compromising hit to it's core than did WTC 2. Yet, WTC2 fell first and both collapses were symmetrical about their respective axis. Therefore, these animations may be useful for demonstrating to OTC believers the uniqueness of the impacts and possible resulting interior damage, fire spread, etc. which belie the fact that both collapses were symmetrical.

Simple, small file size, perhaps useful on a web page for illustration. Lift 'em while you can.

Waiting for more info

I haven't found any more info about these animations. I've written to McGraw-Hill asking for more info, but haven't yet received a response.

That dog don't hunt!

Many videos clearly show the nose of the second plane exiting the other side of the building.

These "animations" are a figment of someones imagination. They certainly are not based on clearly observable phenomena.


Nose out

Chris Rose is correct.

Which you can see here in a screenshot:

This isn't the only mistake the CGI did.

Here is another CGI nose out, then blankouted by FOX5, to hide the mistake:

more here:

that nose that pokes out the

that nose that pokes out the back of the tower seems to be casting a shadow but if you look at the side where it poked out it didn't leave any hole!

click my name to see more strange 9/11 images.



the shadow doesn't come from the CGI
but from the cloud of the explosion IMO.

Just stop and go slowly forward the video and you will see how the shadow grows, after the CGI nose is not there anymore (possibly already cloaked or halted by upload software)

Here another screenshot a few milliseconds after 'CGI nose out':

Therefore this footage also couldn't have filmed a "missile"

that is SO just a weird shape the smoke/debris/hot gas had

at that particular instant in time... plus the rest of the tape has some weird flying blob that seems, um, de trop. this is just not convincing. i do try to keep an open mind but this is just not worth the effort from what I can see. certainly not worth all the hoopla being made and aspersions being cast about. got anything else?

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

Yeah, right

I gave you and your ridiculous meanderings the benefit of the doubt for a long time, Nico. But I don't believe that you actually think that looks like the nose of an airplane. You're not that stupid, are you? Why are you lying?

I didn't say that's the nose

I didn't say that's the nose of an airplane.
I said that's the 'nose' of the CGI.


And you're lying.

prove, what else it was...

prove, what else it was...


Prove that you believe that it looks like a CGI'd nose plane. Because it doesn't and I don't believe you are actually that stupid.

"Nose exiting the other side of the Tower"

absurd and impossible.

The nose would have been crushed instantly upon impact.
Only a hardened missile could possibly have made it all the way through the Tower.

The plane would have been smashed into pieces immediately.

Never mind.

Never mind.

crushed instantly?

I agree, but neither the vids nor this animation seem to show this.

I think it was more of an artists rendition. What is needed is a few more frames in the mid range, and a few after the end (to see if the animation shows pieces eject) to see if this truly holds any sort of basis in reality.

wow that camera man did a

wow that camera man did a great job of zooming out at the exact right moment didn't he? how did he know to do that just then? for that matter all the videos shot from about that distance seemed to have great zoom-outs at the exact right moments - how did they all know to do that just then?

um, the sound of an approaching jet growing louder by the second

um, the sound of an approaching jet growing louder by the second

if you've done much videotaping, you know that the cameran is always very conscious of the level of zoom. zoom in, zoom out, it's just what you do while taping. any alert cameraman would hear the sound of an approaching jet and yes, if he knew he was zoomed in would instinctively zoom out to get the "big picture". again, you guys are really reading so much into so little here. I'm totally open to the possibility that things are not as they seem--of course I am--I'm a 9/11 truther and that should go without sayiing. this just is not evidence for what you are claiming.

i'm reminded of the devil's face that happens to appear in the expanding pyroclastic cloud--chances that a complex morphing shape like a cloud is going to at some instant look like something are pretty high. this is why people see shapes in the clouds all the time. we don't usually see things paused so we don't realize that a dynamic object/shape like an expanding explosion really does go through some odd looking shapes. it normally all happens so fast we just get the general idea of expansion. if you walked around taping everything and pausing, you'd see a LOT of stuff that looked weird. period!

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

oh i don't think the zooms

oh i don't think the zooms in and of themselves are indicative of anything - until they are put in the context of zooming in on a supposed plane that turns out to be a badly done video insert. for example, the plane in that little video above seems to be an amputee:
i guess that could maybe be explained away as some kind of flaw in the video - but you'd also have to take into account that the sunlight would be just glaring off a real plane flying at that angle at that exact moment. instead we see yet another badly done silhouette of a plane.

ugh--a "truth" site with pop-ups!

I'd put a tiny bit more stock in those doctored photos (maybe) if the site wasn't making someone some dough by popping up some crap ad. Sorry but that's just crass...

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

oh i agree that pop-ups are

oh i agree that pop-ups are lame - there's a pop-up at every turn on that site - but excellent pictures though:
and you see the same amputee effect in the actual vid:

NIST appears to disagree

Their "super impressive" computer models show a different phenomenon

The plane appears to have trouble attacking through the core, then it just shoots through. No large pieces remain for any length of time.

Not that I trust NIST and their ability to model! :)


thanks for finding this! I'm going to add to the story.

And Rick, I always appreciate your reasoned tone in discussing this issue.

Iso perspective.

Has anyone seen an isometric indicating vertical box columns? These animations are offered in plane views only and do not include core columns. Perspective maybe to much to ask?

If these object ratios are

Like another poster said the gifs are the product of somebody's imagination.

If the NIST object ratios are correct then it most certainly was not a Boeing 767 hitting WTC1. Assuming they are, compare to

WTC1. The airplane is destroyed in an instant? How did it bring the Tower down?

WTC2 Oh, hahaha. I love how the airplane vaporises in the first second then re-constitutes itself only to come out the other side.

Here is a slo-mo vid of the Hairy Black Fake Airplane with one wing which enters on it's side at the other side of the building, the intact nose cone then emerges on this side of building.

Wondering why???

I've been a welder fabricator for thirty years,and i have also been an iron worker.Although the exterior steel was'nt as massive as the core columns these beams were'nt sheet metal either.
It still blows my mind that the impact did'nt knock a wing or tail section off,having it fall to the street below.
Acording to the BSNIST report the claim falling deris caused the seismic spikes of 2.1 & 2.3

Didn't you know these 767's wing/tails where made of this?

Dan Rather: "See the plane actually pierce the building"

Dan Rather:  "...and this is the reverse side of the building.  See the plane actually pierce the building and virtually came out the other side."

 (@ :21)


Now see the "exit hole" here


I can't believe people still think real planes struck the South Tower.


You shouldn't have to say you hate to say it

We are friends on the same team. We all shouldn't expect to agree 100% with everything.

But I'm glad you were honest at observing the "exit hole". I doubt the wheel/axle and 4 windowed fuselage piece could have exited that too!

Cheers mate!

Killtown, That was the best


That was the best evidence I've seen from no-planers.

Why thank you Micahyah!

I hope no one thinks I'd risk my reputation on such a controversial subject if I didn't think it had merit!


Killtown, what was it that pierced the South Tower opposite wall

It looks like a missile. And that would explain the small hole in the Reuters photo.

Based on the lack of hole in the exit photos

I'd have to say a CGI pierced through it!





I assumed the hole @ 237, 80/81?

a missile could've fired, and the explosions afterwards widened the hole a bit.

My reasoning is that the CGI must have masked the missile after that point.

Wouldn't a CGI exit have had the same nose as the CGI that entered the building?

Missing wreckage

There is clear (negative) evidence that no hijacked airplanes were involved in 911:

1. There should be considerable amount of airplane wreckage found atthe crash sites but there was very little.

2. No damaged parts of the alleged four airplanes involved in 911 have been found anywhere at or in vicinity of the crashe sites. The authorities have not presented any such identified parts as evidence of an
airplane crash at the various sites.

3. Some alleged airplane parts were actually found in vicinity of crash sites but apparently do not belong to the airplanes suggested to have
been involved in the events.

4. The proposal by the authorities that most wreckage parts were destroyed due to fire and explosion is incorrect as there was not enough energy (J) involved in alleged crashes to 'evaporate' complete airplanes and
wreckage parts. No airplane in history has ever 'evaporated' at a crash.

5. There have been 10 000's of airplane crashes in the world since aviation took off around 1910 and at every crash there was plenty of wreckage. 911 is the first and only time when four airplanes have crashed on the same day without leaving any wreckage ... at all! What a coincidence!

Conclusions (based on negative evidence):

A. The alleged hijacked planes did not crash at the various sites.

B. Whatever caused damage at the various crash sites was not a hijacked airplane.


The conclusions seem evident for crashes at Pentagon and in Pennsylvania as much other evidence on these locations support evidences 1-5.

The conclusion also seems valid for the first WTC crash, as evidence to the contrary (a video film) is very weak. No reliable evidence actually exists that a real airplane would have flown low over Manhattan and caused the
first WTC crash, the smoke and fireball, more fire (and later collapse of building). No wreckage was observed after crash and before/after tower collapse.

The second WTC crash is interesting. An airplane is alleged to have suddenly appeared from nowhere and disappeared (crashed) into the building 'live', as later shown on various videos, causing a fireball, etc., but without leaving any wreckage anywhere after crash and before/after tower collapse. You would evidently have expected that some airplane parts would either bounce off the wall or fly through the building and out of windows on the other side, but no such wreckage has been found for that or the other WTC tower or is recorded on any videos. All wreckage parts disappeared inside the building, we are told to believe!

Few videos record the second crash at WTC and they are very strange - a plane slices into the WTC building at high velocity and disappears - and no wreckage parts come out on the other side. It is suggested that all parts of
the plane are stopped inside the building itself (within less than 80-90 meters). There are no solid walls inside the building, only weak partitions as decorations. We are told that there were 48 inner, very solid steel support pillars, which should first have stopped all wreckage and then would have collapsed due to heat after 30-80 minutes. A big fireball develops and it is suggested, without any evidence, that all airplane wreckage parts were
arrested, consumed by fire and explosion inside the building.

The fireballs evidently disappeared after a few seconds and the fire also appears to have diminished fairly rapidly. Human beings are soon seen in the
damage openings of the building walls and in windows and there is no visible external damage to the buildings caused by fire - only some damage to the walls. There is no sight of any airplane wreckage parts in the wall openings
caused by the alleged planes or in damaged windows on the other side. Or anywhere else. And suddenly the buildings collapse.

The lack of any real damaged parts of the alleged hijacked airplanes at any four incident locations is clear evidence that hijacked planes were not involved in the incidents.


And then there were no accident investigations by FBI, FEMA or NTSB. Not even a manipulated one! Just a big report describing various events leading up to the incidents - planes crash. A similar incident (a ship sinking) took place 9/28/1994 in the Baltic - 852 dead at least or perhaps a little less. The authorities immediately invented the background and the cause of the incident supported by the media. Later a final report was produced - not describing why the ship actually foundered. All essential information was falsified. And so far they have got away with it. But the case rolls on and .

What can we learn from above? That it is very difficult to reveal the true cause of terrible incidents covered up by immoral authorities. One way is to insist on proven facts and evidence, e.g. wreckage parts that prove the one
and only proximate cause.

So how was WTC done?

As there were no planes hitting the WTCs at any time (no airplane wreckage anywhere before or after building collapses), any evidence to the contrary is false ... and quite simple to reveal (apart from asking FBI, FEMA, NIST
or NTSB for any proven wreckage parts).

i. No plane - thus not AA11 - hit the North Tower from the north side. Nobody saw a plane flying over Manhattan direction south to hit the North Tower. The video taken 'by mistake' by somebody on the ground of that crash is a planted fake - to mislead the public to believe otherwise. Quite easy to make. The fireball and damage of the North tower were thus arranged from inside. Most people escaping from inside the North Tower can only have experienced a big explosion not knowing what happened at all. But soon the
rumour spread that a plane had hit the North tower. Any witness in the South Tower could have seen nothing as they could not see the north side of the North tower and were apparently told to remain calm - no risk that another
plane would hit the South Tower.

ii. Thus media started to film the North Tower - mainly from the North side I assume. Very few was filming the North Tower from the south side as the South Tower was in the way. People on the ground were looking at the North
Tower. And why would anybody at this instance film the South Tower?

iii. Suddenly there was a big fireball/explosion in the South Tower and it was later suggested that another plane - UA 175 - had hit it from south.
I doubt very much that there are any eye witnesses seeing this plane sneaking up from behind ... but amazingly (or just very conveniently and not so amazingly) there is a number of videos filming a plane hitting (or slicing
into) the South Tower (without any wreckage being produced). I would conclude all these latter videos are fakes ... for the simple reason that there was no plane wreckage. So also the South Tower damage/fireball was
arranged from inside. Probably most witnesses inside the South Tower thought it was an internal explosion.

iv. What you see on any video of the latter event taken from outside is thus just trick filming. Apparently quite easy is to do with modern technology.

v. I assume that the faked films were generally done beforehand with a possibility to adjust for weather, etc. and were then distributed to media (as if shot by the media, etc). It seems also that most other films of the
'incidents' were conveniently confiscated by the FBI to secure evidence (for the invented scenario - because the whole 911 is a written play by Hollywood).

vi. The probability/risk that anybody was filming the south side of the South Tower at the time of the 'incident' and recording no plane at all was slim.

vii. What happened then was that the public was bombarded with the message that two planes had hit the WTCs, conveniently backed up with faked videos that
nobody bothered to check, and then the Finale! - the collapses of the towers 30-60 minutes later - evidently done from inside using some very effective demolition technology. But officially initiated and caused by the planes ... that never existed ... and some very hot fires ... that also didn't exist.

viii. So no air plane wreckage was produced. What you see on the ground (of alleged air plane parts) is just more fakes.

ix. So the case is very easy - if FBI, FEMA, NIST, NTSB or anybody can produce just one piece of air plane wreckage of AA11 or UA175 collected at WTC it is possible that these planes hit WTC (the real parts could of course
be planted). But ... if any air plane wreckage part found at WTC does not belong to AA11 or UA175 (and apparently has been planted), then the official story collapses. KISS. No need to explain why WTC1/2 collapsed.

x; I doubt very much that all these four flights ever existed. So you wonder where the unfortunate passengers ended up? Most of them seem to have been relatives of people in DC that maybe collected nice insurance from
their deaths? In shipping many 'incidents' are plain insurance fraud.

Anders Björkman, Heiwa Co, European Agency for Safety at Sea -

PS. As a shipbuilder since 40 years I am quite familiar with steel structures, e.g. Very Large Crude Carriers, VLCC. Many VLCCs have caught fire ... but none has evaporated. And no steel has ever melted in a VLCC. OK,
deformation due to heat has occured - but no collapse. Local collapse may occur due to brittle fracture at room temperature and/or buckling, but with inbuilt redundancy global collapse is rare. But WTCs did not collapse due
brittle fractures.

There was more energy (J) involved when the US VLCC 'Exxon Valdez' ran aground 1989 than when a plane allegedly hit a WTC tower. The result was that the bottom of the tanker was ripped open (and oil flowed out causing pollution) and all kinetic energy was transformed into buckled and ripped
apart structure (no fire). Why the oil tanker was 10 miles off course for 40 minutes heading up on land has never been explained.

9/11/01 I was at Freiberg, Saxony, Germany. My daughter called and asked me to watch TV news. But we had no TV in our old house built 1590 ca. Only later I had the opportunity to watch the 911 crash sites on video. And it
was quite evident to me that due to lack of any airplane wreckage anywhere that no airplanes ever caused the incidents. Furthermore - the structural damages at
WTC and Pentagon and the hole in the ground at Pennsylvania cannot have been caused by airplanes for more reasons thab that there are no airplane wreckage parts anywhere.

Keep it simple re 911. Just ask for one wreckage part that belonged to the missing planes so it can be properly analyzed. The authorities cannot present any. The official reason is 'national security' - the real reason by
negative reasoning must be that the authorities did it and now protect themselves. It seems to happen all the time.

Interesting Feedback.

Interesting Feedback.
You also might wanna respond here:

9/11 planes must of had Pentanium wings & tails!

Here is a REAL Airplane Crash @ 500MPH (Video Link)

Video Fakery in Evidence

Hey guys - What do most

Question: What do most truthers think about this photo:

It appears it couldn't be, as some claim, the exiting nose cone of the plane or even a missle, as there is no impact hole.
The only other possiblities, as I see it are:

1. It's the expulsion of smoke/dust from the impact.

2. It's retouched.

Any other thoughts?

it's a CGI nose.

If the tower were transparent, we'd see the "plane" travel through the building and stick its nose out

alex, here's a much better

alex, here's a much better photos of that 'nose out' action:

you're right - when it nosed-out it didn't leave a hole behind:

to me it seems too well defined like an actual nose cone to be gas/debris clouds.
it must be a cgi because we can see it yet it doesn't leave a hole behind. you can see it in both of these vids here if you start/pause:

these vids were shot from 2 different yet near to each other locations yet both vids show the same stupid black amputee plane (missing right wing).

Thanks, James, but...

...unfortunately, the picture is so blurry, it's very difficult to ascertain if it's an expulsion or, as some might believe, a retouched nosecone. It's certainly interesting, though.

are you saying

"That is exactly what the Dan Rather clip does show."

are you saying the nose of the airplane traveled through a building-length of structural steel at 500MPH, poked a hole in the back, and showed no sign of being crushed?

watch the nose of the plane in the video carefully

before it hits the building. Then compare it to that object sticking out the back of the tower. Kinda looks the same.

Anyone have a HQ AVI of this nosecose footage? I'm eager to see this more closely

Why would you think it was a deliberate fake?

It's fake. But it was a mistake. There was no motive.

The motive for the fakery:
Why they didn't use planes

If it's a "coincidence," that it looks like the nose of the "plane" that comes in from the other side, we can add it to all the other "coincidences." x3. Since it happened on 3 known videos

But it's not smoke. And if it was, why would there be a black screen shot two out of three times right after the mistake?

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle