worst simulation of a plane crashing to a building
it's ok to speculate that 9/11 was a "inside job" (even if i didn't think so), but creating and i have to say creating artificially such things doesn't help a ****. it is rather counterproductive because you can't take such serious and it will trash any else argument, even when it's pointed out right.
not even the windows get a scratch of it, cool no? i really wonder why the annulus (outer shelf, last layer of containment) of a NPP is made spherical and of 90cm thick concrete if this will last a airplane crash to... (no, not because of radiation, radiation is low inside the annulus, you can work without any danger close to the reactor itself, at least i have taken no disease from that. contamination and incorporating -> to swallow the dust, is the real danger).
i've made also a little clip to refute the idea that a plane could never make such a damage (they say because it's made from aluminium and other light weighted material it couldn't be that a skyscraper will be destroyed). it's a simple experiment with the static properties of thin cardboard. all this has really moved me because most arguments are rubbish, but many people are blind enough to believe rather in a YT clip then anything else comprehensible. ok it's up to each one what he likes to believe (the world is flat, creationism is true because a banana fits into a human hand <img src=' http://spacesimcentral.com/forum/public/style_emoticons//haha.gi f' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':haha:' /> and so on... i was freakin' out on many clips actually...) the world is really coming to a end not because of a maya calendar (best comment to this, the world will end 31/12/2099, because windows calendar ends then) it's ending because of stupidity imho.