Notice that there is no compression of the planes' structure. the nose should have compressed the rest of the airplane's structure as it hit. Yet here we see the plane go into the building as if the structure is immune to the laws of physics. A 60 ton airplane Goes Into 4 floors of Concrete and Steel Like They Are Butter? A Volkwagen does not go through a stopped tractor-trailer truck no matter how fast it is moving!

What happened to the wing below? Has to be a computer graphic!

Morgan Reynolds Agrees.

Top 30 Evidence facts supporting the fakery.

Eyewitness Contradictions

Morgan Reynolds on Eyewitnesses

"A Critical Look at 'iquified' or
'Vaporized' 9/11 Plane Theories"
By Rick Rajter — Graduate Student, MIT, Department of Materials Science and Engineering

Gerald Holgram's Analysis

Morgan Reynolds New Paper On Perhaps How the Planes were seen. Has many more articles.

Why no reaction to thunderous 757 noise?

Watch this video of a truck hitting a concrete wall. Notice that the heavy engine of the truck is deformed from just a glancing blow. Yet the faked videos show the light, thin aluminum skinned nose of the alleged 767 going into the steel and concrete floors like the floors were butter and it is indestructible!


Proof That Computer* Technology Was Used to Fake the 2nd Plane

A special thanks to Rosalee Grable of thewebfairy and Nico Haupt of and for exposing this fakery.

Eyewitness Section

Plane Hit Section

Please note that we are not saying that a large plane, perhaps even an airliner did not fly by the WTC. We are saying that these and all of the released videos and stills of the 2nd hit are faked.

Please watch the CNN clip and this slide show and see the angle of the plane as it approaches and hits the building. The plane is banked at a significant angle. When a plane is banked to the left, the plane is rising to the left - the whole plane. When the nose hits a stationary object, it stops rising. The tail and wings continue to rise. When the wings hit, they stop and the tail continues to rise. The outline of the plane in the building should have been something between a head on and an outline of the top of the plane. Since the outline is straight on, this is a proof that an airplane did not hit the building. Blue screen technology was used to fake this footage. Here is another comparison.

Notice also that the plane goes into four floors of over 3000 tons of concrete and steel like they are butter. Some have claimed that the outer beams were thin at this level so they were merely like "mosquito netting". The laws of physics are based on relative motion. A grain of sand moving at high speed in space will punch right through a space craft as it is vaporized. The point is that both objects are subject to the same force. When a truck hits a motorcycle at high speed, the truck's front end is greatly damaged (see side panel below). Moreover, if you look at the hole that was made, the planes hit 4 or more floors. Each floor was a giant, thick, concrete, steel rimed pan having significant mass. The floor systems were approximately 31,000 square feet and had a composite construction with steel beams of 50 ksi yield strength supporting concrete slabs on metal deck, with a floor thickness of 5.5 in. (NIST executive summary, page 4). There was approximately 900 tons of concrete per floor (Morgan Reynolds gave me the concrete numbers. He is working on the total per floor, which is far greater, and he will be presenting his case soon). The aircraft weighed approximately 140 tons. This means that 140 tons hit over 3,600 tons of concrete plus all the steel in the pans and exterior columns! Furthermore, the majority of the airplanes mass is in the wing struts, the engines, the main landing gear (in the wings), and the engine mounts. The nose of the 767 aircraft is thin. The leading edge of the wings are thin. When they hit the concrete pans on the 4 or more floors, they should have been severely deformed, possibly bounced off, not gone in as if the building was made of butter.


Watch this comparison of the 2nd plane hitting with a flight simulator. They look the same since neither has to obey the laws of physics.

Compare to real crashes.

Look at this clip where the wing disappears and reappears.

From Gerard Holmgren

What really happened to American Airlines flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11

Media published fake passenger lists for American Airlines flight 11

What really happens when a plane wing hits a light steel structure:

American Airlines Flight 1420. June 1 1999

The plane landed hurriedly, trying to avoid a thunderstorm, overshot the runway and collided with a light steel structure. You can see what happened to the structure and what happened to the plane.

Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5

Shortly after takeoff, this aircraft developed engine problems, and crashed into a densely populated residential area near Gwammaja district, approximately 1½ miles from Kano's airport. At least 73 people on the ground were killed.

May 4 2002.  Flight EXW4226.   BAC 111


Eyewitness Section

What about all the witnesses? We have never found any reliable witnesses to these alleged big passenger jets. We find people who saw "something", who were home in bed with the drapes drawn and still "saw the plane" they think, because they heard the explosion.

Watch this clip of the second hit and notice that you cannot hear the jet engines before the explosion that was supposed to be the second plane hitting.

This page shows how a Secret Service man does not hear the plane approach and only reacts after the explosion. Also note that the plane goes in as if it has no structure - the wings should have swung forward as the nose hit since they had not hit anything yet. The 5 ton engines momentum and under power should have swung forward.

No plane sounds are picked up on the mike of the reporter on the ground who saw explosions, not a plane. The studio showed the crash cartoon hippity-hopping across the screen, so the anchors, ABC's Gibson and Sawyer, who "saw the plane" told the confused reporter, Dan Dahler, that it was a plane crash.

Actually, there was just one witness, Sean Murtagh - who just happens to be a vice -president of CNN. All of the other witnesses said small plane, missile, black projectile, mid size executive jet, or explosion only. As with all witness evidence its highly contradictory and doesn't give us a lot of idea of what it was , but it does say something about what it wasn't. To add to the Murtagh problem, he could not have seen what he claimed from where he says he was. Moreover, the first eyewitness in the street contradicts him. The CNN reporter in the street asks her if the explosion was from the inside or outside and she replies very firmly, "From the inside!"

In the final analysis, witness evidence is too sparse and contradictory to use as evidence for what it was, but does give strong indications that it was something other than a large jet. You can read more on this debate here.

We caution everyone that false-memories are easily planted about what people think they should have seen. Also, the mind is a computer that interprets signals from the eyes. Read this article on visualization.

Taking all these facts together, the best conclusion possible is that there was no second commercial sized plane. We believe, cannot prove, that there were pre-placed explosives and/or missile(s) shot from somewhere that caused the damage.


* Previously called Bluescreen, further research proves it was a computer graphic interface - that bluescreen was not used in many, if any shots.