Technology

Is the Viral Vid of Man Flying Like a Bird a Hoax?

Computer Generated Imagery Experts Say Man Flying Like a Bird Video Is a Fake

Was Jarno Smeets' video showing him flying with these man-made wings a hoax? (Photo: Human Birdwings)

Yesterday, we brought you the video of a dream turned reality for one man who built his very own set of wings and soared in the sky like a bird. Now, computer graphics experts and others looking into Jarno Smeets’ resume are saying it could be a hoax. If it is a fake though, they’re all pretty excited about how well-done it is.

(Updated: Man who flew like a bird in viral video admits farce was part of an online experiment)

Smeets, supposedly a mechanical engineer from the Netherlands, began extensivly chronicling the construction of his DIY wings in August 2011 on his blog Human Birdwings. Since then, Smeets was featured on sites like Wired, TechCrunch, the Discovery Channel, and the Financial Times in Germany, among others. While news about his flight efforts began picking up interest on the Web late last year, the success of his second test flight helped his story take off this week.

Computer Generated Imagery Experts Say Man Flying Like a Bird Video Is a Fake

Jarno Smeets -- or is it? (Photo: Human Birdwings)

Now, Wired reports, some facts are not checking out and elements of the video seem fishy. Wired hosts a slew of computer-generated imagery experts who share why they think the video might be a fake:

Ron Fedkiw, a computer scientist at Stanford University who has worked on computer-generated graphics in films such as “Terminator 3″ and “Star Wars: Episode III,” told Wired in an email that a continuous video shot might have made Smeets’ latest video “a much more convincing fake.”

“[C]utting the camera angle is an obvious trick,” Fedkiw wrote to Wired in an email. “Note how there is no continuous video from take-off to landing, instead they cut away the main ground camera right as he takes off and cut back right before he lands.”

“They don’t really even need much CGI work or any fake footage here with the camera cuts,” he wrote. “The head cam footage could all be shot from a glider video — any glider, not necessarily those wings … The only real image work would have to be in the very beginning when they get a small bit off the ground, which could just be running up an edited hill or ramp.”

Watch the footage of the second test flight, which has earned more than 1 million hits on YouTube since its March 19 posting:

Gizmodo brings in Ryan Martin, technical director at Industrial Light & Magic, and his colleagues who are currently working on the film “The Avengers.” Here are some of their thoughts (Note: Check out Gizmodo’s full post to see all 11 of experts quoted):

Okay, so I don’t see any glaring visual problems, but that’s expected when the quality is as sh**** as this. But that’s the first thing that makes me question its authenticity. They’re able to afford to build this thing, but can’t invest in proper video equipment, or… a tripod. If I were to make a fake video with the intention of going viral, I would make certain that the quality was as poor as possible to disguise any flaws in poor cg work. Another big visual issue I have with this video is the stability of his head during flight. Try and keep your head that still while waving your arms up and down when they aren’t attached to a giant wing contraption. Still, it seems almost too crazy to be fake and I was unable to find other glaring flaws with the video. So, I’ve queried our entire facility because we have some pretty amazingly smart people here. Here’s what some of them had to say:

Employee 1: ”without a doubt, fake”

Employee 2 (also a pilot) “the camera seems very strange. I know that when I am flying in an airplane, I don’t look straight ahead all of the time. Also, the only way people have been able to propel themselves above the ground have been by bicycle arrangements to power a fixed-wing aircraft. A human powered helicopter managed 10 seconds of flight about 5 inches above the ground. The legs are much more powerful than the arms.

I have serious doubts about it just on the physics and physiology points alone. ”

Employee 3: ”I agree, I saw that earlier today. I can’t spot any glaring visual problems, but the physics just don’t add up.”

Employee 4: ”Bad physics, shaky cam with bad focus (always a giveaway) and the most steady head I’ve ever seen on a guy flapping his arms in order to not break every bone in his body. FAKE.”

Computer Generated Imagery Experts Say Man Flying Like a Bird Video Is a Fake

Inconsistency in the fabric seen around 1:45? (Image: Gizmodo)

What’s more, Gizmodo reports Martin saying he thinks he has proof it’s a fake. When you watch the video, you can see a little black square on the left side of the fabric at 1:45. Here’s the kicker:

Now, without cutting, the camera pans down and then back up again. When the camera pans up, the wing is cg. You can tell because the model they used didn’t have perfect textures

Martin also found an issue with the shadows at 0:18:

At 0:18 — the cast shadows of the three fellas on the wings are another giveaway. The shadow on screen right, for example, was created using an articulate of the man himself, then hand-animated and warped to look like a cast shadow on the wing. Watch how the cast shadow does a moon-walk/shuffle, incongruous with the man himself.

All that said, it’s still very well done. Good stuff. And I truly believe this is a healthy exercise for folks who do this stuff for a living.

Gizmodo has another expert who is convinced it’s a fake but shares excitement over how well-done the video is:

This is 100% without a doubt a digital composite, which is great! When I saw this video I was happy to see that somebody really took the time to integrate good CG into a viral video. So many hackneyed attempts are passed around, and this one really stands out.

Still a hopefull believer or have your flight dreams come crashing down? If you’re still hanging on, Wired also reported some issues confirming facts about Smeets himself. Wired contacted Coventry University, where Smeets supposedly attended from 2001 to 2005, and found they had no record of his attendance. It also contacted some employers listed on Smeets’ LinkedIn profile: one responded in time for publication stating they also had no record of an employee by that name.

Smeets also said in one of his blog posts that he ran his ideas by neuromechanics scientist Bert Otten at University of Groningen, which Wired confirmed with Otten did in fact happen. But here’s what Otten had to say:

“I haven’t seen the contraption they have built with my own eyes, so I cannot tell you from the inside whether this is fake or not,” Otten told Wired. “I haven’t looked at the video very carefully, but others have, and I must share their suspicions there.”

Wired states that it contacted Smeets who responded via email but denied them a phone interview because he was already bogged down with media requests.

Comments (54)

1 2
  • GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 9:00am

    @ cat and any1 claiming “I seen it on TV” your understanding of aerodynamics is on a grade school level. Turn on a sports game, see the 1st down line or the running shot clock image beside the key on the floor. These are computer graphics images (CGI), the players can not see them on the field of play in real time, they are “FAKE”. It takes about 10yrs for tech to become part of our daily lives. Aluminum avg mid 20ksi tensile strength, A36 structural steel just under 100ksi tensile strength. Airframes are sheet aluminum forms riveted together, making the structure as a whole lighter than water (<0.5 specific gravity). Look at the airliner landing in the Hudson river, IT FLOATS! Bullets that shear steel plate travel 2-3000 fps and have a density 4x greater than alum (2.7sg vs 11.4sg). A 737 can not exceed 500 fps due to the drag that creates lift, the engines don't produce enough power at sea level. That puts the potential energy around 1/30th that of a bullet. 4mm of sheet aluminum can not shear 20mm of structural steel box column. You believe it's not logically possible due to so many cameras, but the FACT is IT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Brian Williams stated all network cameras feeds were being redirected to a single location and rebroadcast so all networks could "share" the footage. This was nothing more than a means to insert the CGI need to "make the statue of liberty disappear". Take another look at the footage IT WAS A HOAX not unlike the one he

    Report Post »  
    • Cat
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 4:40pm

      Zero >

      Haven’t had a TV in this compound for over 8 years, and NO plans to install any, ever again.
      Do have a considerable book library … along with (8) 24/7 computers

      Never mentioned the aircraft as the fire contributor, however did mentioned it as traveling container of fuel (a Molotov cocktail if you will) heading for an array of live electrical cables as if it were in its final approach to a landing strip.

      Here’s some additional reading regarding the structure, the fire and the collapse.
      You need to take peek at it.

      http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

      Report Post » Cat  
    • GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 9:04pm

      That is so funny cat, it just goes to show the “official” story changes more than the wind direction. “The fire suppression wasn’t working”, then “the fire suppression wasn’t working”: http://www.newser.com/story/comments/129173/chemical-reaction-brought-down-twin-towers-scientist.html
      Never even heard this line of crap until I went searching on a CIA sponsored search engine, yahoo. Evidently they have been promoting this line since the 10yr anv. Had the alum caught fire the light given off would have been seen reflected by the dark smoke, which would have been pitch black had it been jet fuel.
      FACT IS, NO FIREFIGHTER EVER CONFIRMED AN AIRLINER IN EITHER TOWER (PERIOD)
      The ONLY conformation was “small pockets of fire”. The com systems were intentionally downed to prevent reality from being seen. NYFD admin allowed those men to be covertly assassinated by caving in to NDA created in the cover up. Research why the bellows were invented by blacksmiths, there is a reason forced induction is NEEDED to work iron (steel takes even more energy).
      The body count as of last July, according to NY daily news was 1785. Yet the MSM still promotes 3K, a far cry from REALITY!
      “You can deny reality, but you can not deny the consequences of denying reality”- Ayn Rand
      This country has been in a tail spin of corruption the last ten years b/c they realize how easy the US public is to dupe.
      How many Americans does it take to screw in a light bulb? None, Americans can’t f

      Report Post »  
    • Cat
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 11:54pm

      Zero >

      KISS

      Grab an aluminum can filled with kerosene.
      Then embrace a live 220v/60amp open end cable.
      Get back to us after you’ve analyzed the results …

      Report Post » Cat  
  • Seede
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 8:36am

    Mr. UNALIENABLE
    Yes Sheriff Joe was and is good at knowing that the BC of Barry Soetoro is fake. Was known long before Joe even entered the picture. Has nothing to do with this situation whatsoever. Try to focus on one thing at a time even though it may be difficult.

    Report Post »  
  • Ken
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 7:33am

    Why do we quickly dismiss this video as a fake so easily yet many still deny that the Obama birth certificate and selective service registrations are forgeries and poor ones at that.

    Report Post »  
  • uskakodker
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 5:14am

    I am lost trying to figure out why everyone tries to analyse the video and the videographer, as if it is all a forensic science case study. what for are these inquiries about his employers and past schools and LikedIn contacts?
    Has he murdered anybody?
    The simple test of science is reproducibility.
    Ask him to repeat his adventure before a knowledgeable jury, and that’s it. Has he given a public demonstration of his machine and his abilities?

    Report Post »  
  • quickstudy
    Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:35am

    I just don’t see the things people say they are seeing to prove its a fake. The special effects people who said it had to be fake because human arms aren‘t strong enough obviously didn’t read that the man isn’t powering the wings, he’s just signaling with the hand held accelerometers to the actuator motors. Seeing the function of the wings I really think they could fly. Pun intended.

    Report Post »  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:18am

      How in the hell did anyone with a functioning brain think that was real? It doesn’t look even remotely real, it looks obnoxiously fake like ridiculously over the top CG from avatar or something. And that’s not even taking into account the impossible physics of flapping your arms fast enough to actually achieve lift. Anyone that has even a rudamentary understanding of the physics of flight and the physiology of animals that can actually fly would have to be labatomized to buy that video.

      Report Post »  
    • SgtB
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 11:36am

      The guy is facing a head wind and he is not flapping his arms to power the wings. The wings are claimed to be powered by motors and a battery pack that they say will only get them about 200 feet of flying time. Also, have you seen the video of the ornithopter built by a college that flew by “flapping” the wings? This may be a fake, but not because it is physical impossibility.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 1:26pm

      He would still have to flap his arms at a rate of speed capable of achieving flight. Not possible. And yes I‘ve seen the other video you’re talking about. That is also a sham. It’s nothing more than a glider that was pulled by a vehicle to achieve lift and glided back to the ground. The wing flapping was just a dog and pony show.

      Report Post »  
  • tgo0116
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 11:25pm

    I’ll point out some obvious problems with the video
    1. How did they get the second angle (the side shot) at :35 when there is no one there to capture that angle.
    2. When the helmet cam shows the landing at :58 you can easily see the tire ruts in the grass from what I believe to be from the wheels of a hang glider (or something similar) where they had done several runs in order to get the best shot.
    3. Finally, around :20 the guy running toward the camera mysteriously continues to run in a straight line while the camera shifts from side to side. (this was the biggest give away to me).

    Still it is a fun video and I’m sure they are getting plenty of hits on their webpage because of it.

    Report Post »  
    • larryj1978
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 2:16am

      At :23 seconds there is a guy in a white shirt that can be seen on the right side of the screen. That’s where the second take off camera angle comes from.

      Report Post »  
    • tgo0116
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:24pm

      Me, being a camera guy, know that he is too far away to get the angle that he does, and it is not a “he’s zoomed in” deal either. The “guy” that shot that side shot would have to be in the grass almost underneath the guy flying to get the angle that he does.

      Report Post »  
  • ImMadAsHell
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 11:03pm

    hahahaha If it a hoax well Thats funny, the yoke is on the suckers and nay sayers. Good 4 him either way. Nothing like a good flying dream I say. Hooah!

    Report Post »  
  • HTuttle
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 10:59pm

    Thought it looked faked or I would have shared it.

    Report Post »  
  • robx
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 9:52pm

    Wow the more you watch the worse it gets. Watch the speed of the middle shadow, compared to the shadow on the left. Dont focus on the shadows, focus on the overall and watch how fast the middle shadow is moving. It must have been Steve Austins shadow.

    Report Post » robx  
  • THXll38
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 9:49pm

    Pretty cool. Who gives a rats ass if it is fake. If it is, he is only making a fool out of himself and hurting his career.

    Report Post » THXll38  
  • GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 9:48pm

    @RJJinGadsden That comment was for kicknback, but the vid is very informative. The real damaging evidence is the craters left under each building. Silverstein tried to explain it as “glacial wear”, as if they built the towers over top a 100‘ hole in the ground and didn’t notice. The walls of the craters are grey due to the Al3O2 evaporating from the top layer left behind. These vapors can be seen rising in the days after demo. Here is a thermal image taken by NASA on 9/16: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/lg-map-therm1.jpg
    The blast radius can clearly be made out under each structure. Seven Jones disproves a “hydrogen bomb”, which is quit easy as this uses U-235. View modern pictures of Hiroshima where an atomic bomb was used, P-238 two different devices. Half life is much shorter, but they require much more resources and are much heavier, which is why they are optimal civil engineering devices. The MIC like the “terror” factor of U-235 radiation fall out they are cheaper and a lighter payload, reducing delivery cost as well.
    Should you doubt any claims, I am will to help you understand how they conform to the laws of physics.

    Report Post »  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 11:14pm

      Thanks for even more information. By now we have both agreed that I am no expert in this field. But, I do have training as a traffic accident investigator. The State of NC, U.S. Army’s course in Germany, and the State of NY. No they do not really associate completely, but it still causes me to be inquisitive. I‘m having some trouble believing some of Khalezov’s statements. Especially the nuke missile he claims was used on the Pentagon. Russia just did not sell these to just anybody and most likely not to Muslim nations who could turn around and use it on them. Had he been able to track the missile by eliminating the limited number of serial numbered remaining missiles that part of his story would be more believable. Not saying that it could not have happened that way, but my previous training and investigations leave me feeling that their are some holes in the story. Also, any fireman and those in big cities especially can explain how combustible the contents of such a building are and their expected burn temps. The two jets containing JP8 or possibly JP10, not sure at that time, but very little difference for this topic. I would think that Cat’s explanation below well explains how the fuel would combust, and I see it as a starter fluid for the remaining fuel items inside the building. Together with exterior wind at those heights does add more oxygen. Am not discounting anything you have said, or even Khalezov. Thanks to you and Cat for your expert input.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
  • robx
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 9:31pm

    To me the give away is the wildly varying luminosity of the wings. But for the DEAD give away watch the shadow on the left, it keeps moving even though the guy stopped running. Doh, ILM NOT.

    Report Post » robx  
  • tfmkeller
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 9:29pm

    Nice edit job…..but the wings don’t seem to have air pressure under them…..the edges seem to flap
    instead of being pulled tight……

    Report Post »  
  • Naram-Sin
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 9:26pm

    Could be fake, but I don‘t buy the argument about the man’s shadow on the wings. The wing exists. You can see them on other web sites, including news sites. So, since they have a mock up (assuming they don’t work), why would you need to fake a shadow? You don‘t and wouldn’t. The only part that would need to be faked is the take off and flight.

    The pictures with the missing black box is a different video (note that the gear like design in the blaze video is white, but in the still shots it is black). You can see that video at http://www.humo.be/humo-archief/87891/jarno-smeets-bouwt-zijn-eigen-vleugels. I think this vedio (supposedly of a trial run) is fake, which mean the Blaze video is probably as well. Hope it isn’t though.

    Report Post »  
  • Unalienable Rights
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 9:15pm

    Put Sheriff Joe Arpaio on it. He’s good at proving things are fake.

    Report Post » Unalienable Rights  
  • Shasta
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 8:57pm

    Martin was right. If you watch the video frame by frame, the shadows (moon walk) are totally out of whack with these people’s previous shadows, as well as the rest of the shadows. It was a good job. I guess it is fun to see who can debunk this stuff. I guess.

    Report Post » Shasta  
  • mcmeador
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 8:56pm

    Dang, I guess seeing it on The Blaze doesn‘t speak much for a story’s validity.

    Report Post »  
  • mrawfull
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 8:34pm

    Where is part 15? Obviously it is fake.

    Report Post »  
  • US-First
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 8:21pm

    One thing none of the experts mention is: where the heck is the person with the video camera as soon as he leaves the ground. That person has to be on the right side and not to far from the lift off point but in the previous frames where the video is shot from behind there is no one standing in that area and there is a body of water preventing that person from being out of the frame if they were in fact in position for that shot at that moment.

    Report Post »  
  • Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 8:18pm

    Wait, wait, wait……I seen a Toyota Truck get hit by a meteor and snowboard down a mountain. Of course it’s real, and babies really do talk and make stock trades. It’s video, it couldn’t be faked.

    By the way, its amazing how fast New York rebuilt after that horrible monster attack. I can’t even see where they repaired the Statue of Liberty.

    Report Post » Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra  
    • bikerr
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 9:48pm

      If you look on the ground below the Empire state building you can still see the gorilla crap!….Oh wait …that’s probably OWS remains.

      Report Post »  
  • nappy
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 8:15pm

    I do VFX for a living.. 30 years so far. I actually have trouble believing someone would build that contraption only to create a CGI fake of this supposed flight.

    I don’t see any _glaring_ errors and in fact, this highly compressed video should not be used for that determination.

    He has a GoPro on his helmet.. the color of the GoPro shots works is appropriate.
    In the opening you can see a glimpse of the person shooting the video on the right side of the field.
    The GoPro shot moves up and down as it should due to his wing flapping.
    The gliding portion looks pretty genuine. As does the landing.

    Funny that some ILM guy would whine about the quality of their equipment.

    The only thing I am having a problem with is the height of the flight.

    Report Post »  
  • lukerw
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 8:14pm

    Science is the 100% Reproducable… Test It Again!

    Report Post » lukerw  
    • Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 8:22pm

      Now you are just being racist. Why do you hate Obama soooooo much. Just can’t stand to see someone soar without trying to shoot them down. Man……wait, what did you say….oh sorry dude. I think I was trying to respond to something Tim said, or keeps saying and repeating and repeating.

      Carry on Luke.

      Report Post » Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra  
  • GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 7:53pm

    Having seen this several months ago: youtube.com/watch?v=ixXg_tFJjSs

    I never even clicked on the original post, as I already knew what it takes to get inches off the ground.

    Know what else is fake, modern skyscrapers in global collapse due to fire.
    How naive do you have to be in continuing to believe a HOAX for ten years?.!.

    Report Post »  
    • KickinBack
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 8:10pm

      Ever watch how a building is demolished? I could see the engineers rigging the building…”Excuse me sir, could you move your feet please? I have to run these wires to the demolitions pack under your cubicle…shouldn’t take but a minute…”

      Report Post » KickinBack  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 8:28pm

      Then, why do you suppose it’s required for that the red iron beams in the structures are required to be coated with heat resistant and temporary flame retardant material? It’s put in place to slow the heat from damaging the beams enough for a collapse in hopes of getting the occupants out in time. Previously the best insulation was asbestos and although it was used in the first few floors during the construction of the World Trade Center, it was outlawed and code called for a replacement insulation. The remainder of the construction was done with a chemically treated material that was considered safer than asbestos but was known to be less than second rate should there have been a building engulfing fire. Heat will cause steel beams to weaken, bend, and eventually collapse. Particularly when the steel skeleton carries the weight of the remainder of the structure.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 8:34pm

      Geez, made enough typos in that post. The wife’s dog was bugging me to walk her. Should have stopped and taken her out before posting.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 8:44pm

      The most complicated thing the port authority had to do was punch in the arming code. All skyscrapers have to submit a demo plan prior to the beginning of construction. The core columns were too thick for conventional demo. Your understanding of physics is very weak, not to mention a belief humans will never make anymore advancements beyond your personal comprehension.
      Listen to what really happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNuKAdGlxFo
      This info was repressed for over five years, so the thermite theory could be promoted on the MSM networks. Steven Jones dust data even backs it up showing alumina silicates which come from the Si2O2 and Al3O2 that make up the bulk of GRANITE being exposed to fusion temps. Zeolite (alumina silicates) were used at Chernobyl and Fukashima to absorb radiation.

      Report Post »  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 9:03pm

      GROUNDZERO IS NUCLEAR DEMOLITION X3, You are correct, I am in no way an expert in that field. I retired from law enforcement and shortly after was running a construction crew. We had a small part of a mere four floor medical building back in the late ’90s. Usually doing smaller commercial construction jobs this was the first time that I observed another crew applying insulation to the red iron skeleton. Having become rather friendly with the site’s superintendent I asked him about this. The architect happened to have been standing next to him. Both explained in detail why it was done. And, both, mind you this was 1998, mentioned that the superior material, asbestos had been outlawed during the early days of the WTC and the most of the two towers had a much poorer material, and they specifically stated that should there be a major fire, either or both buildings would likely collapse. Oddly, having spoken with other architects afterwards regarding this insulation they all referred to the WTC in the same manner. I was relying upon their expertise in the manner.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 9:21pm

      Can’t blame the dog this time. That last word “manner” should be matter.
      Also, GROUNDZERO IS NUCLEAR DEMOLITION X3, thanks for that link. Am watching the video now between other things that are happening around me. Will definitely take this into consideration.
      Back on the morning of 9-11 we were in the process of putting 2 additions on a small out of town library when we heard on the radio of the first plane hitting the tower. We stepped inside and turned on a TV and watched in horror until they both had collapsed. During the collapse of the first building all of those conversations flashed through my mind and certainly gave me chills. I had already witnessed much in the military and too much while I spent a number of years as a traffic accident investigator. But, that day left me numb, as I am sure it did with many. Thanks for your additional input.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • Cat
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 9:33pm

      Zero>

      Let’s try this, again, only in slow motion whilst using verbiage for the novice;

      PART I

      An aircraft containing an ignitable liquid, traveling forward at a high rate of speed relative to the stationary object in its path, enters an exo-skeletal structure.
      The fuel carrier penetrates the vertical steel mainframe & glass fenestration entering the structure.
      Live electrical cables are severed and arch.
      The remainder of the fuselage follows into the structure, carrying the fuel while additional electrical cables are severed and arch forward of it.
      Vaporized fuel ignited by more arching electrical cables is pushed forward by kinetic energy carrying ignited fuel, and other burning material, through the structure and penetrates the glass and exterior steel mainframe on the opposite side of the structure.
      Ignitable materials within the structure burn and remain burning, including humans.
      The steel begins to feel the heat and its tensile strength is severely weakened, including the steel at the bearing points and vertical support members of the exterior mainframe.

      Report Post » Cat  
    • Cat
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 9:36pm

      PART II

      The structure’s exterior vertical steel frame begins to be pulled inward by the collapsing horizontal framing, severing the bearing points.
      Dead and live load designs are suddenly exceeded by the release of material as gravity takes over and pulls the burning mass downward.
      The collective collapsing horizontal elements slam against lower assemblies exceeding the design loads of horizontal and vertical framing members and their connection points.
      The lower floors’ bearing points are snapped by the sudden load increase.
      The scenario is repeated many times until the upper floors of the structure collapse downward in a sequence controlled by the principles of gravity.
      The fire is eventually extinguished by the suction of oxygen out of the air, like blowing out a candle, as the mass of humans, metal, glass and other building and decorative materials (including granite) collect in a pile of waste at grade.

      “Laissez-nous faire” … In its basic definition

      Report Post » Cat  
    • KickinBack
      Posted on March 21, 2012 at 11:18pm

      Couldn’t have said it better Cat ;)

      Report Post » KickinBack  
    • Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 12:15am

      Come on CATB:
      If you look really close, Dick Cheney was using those flying wings that guy has, and you can see him fly off the World Trade center after he lit the fuse. Boom, we are in two wars, and we took all that middle east oil. (sarcasm off).

      Report Post » Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on March 22, 2012 at 3:23am

      @GROUNDZERO

      You tell us since you’re the one believing it.

      Report Post »  
  • corp-mule
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 7:53pm

    Of course it’s fake.

    1. The wing doesn’t have any aerodynamic shape to it at all. Every wing has an aerodynic shape to it. A Sailplane, Airplane, Hang Glider, Para Glider and the best one, a bird.

    2. The distance from take off to landing is too short to gain that much altitude and then glide to a landing.

    3. The the distance covered in the air just doesn’t seem to fit in with the distance covered on the ground.

    Report Post »  
  • MrButcher
    Posted on March 21, 2012 at 7:43pm

    If this was real it would have been demonstrated in front of people. Not shown as a “viral video.”

    Humans have been trying to build a contraption like this for hundreds of years. If someone actually figured out how to do it, he would be showing it off.

    Report Post » MrButcher  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love