And the following rescue..

Planes and Copters crash in various ways. Mangled metal. Lots of it.

It looks slightly less majestic when you do these tricks on the ground.

This guy claimed the brakes failed and turns out that he landed 2/3rds of the way down a runway that wasn't even designed for jets in the first place.

http://www.TheCarCrash.comAirplane going at a very slow speed in 1995 crashes into rear or a helicopter.--- Craziest Car Videos at: http://www.TheCarCrash.com ---

http://www.TheCarCrash.comTo avoid pilot deaths manufacturers have designed a fully automated plane flown by a computer. Watch what happens when one is put to a test!--- Craziest Car Videos at: http://www.TheCarCrash.com   more...---  less

Lightning Crashes Cover

Apparently six were killed in this horrific accident.

I hate when plants, windows, and curbs get in my way when I try to go through a drive-thru.

What could be better then a nice big crash? Maybe two...

\Cleanup in aisle one\. How did this bitch ever get her license

CBS News Prez Warned in 2000 About Fake Plane Crashes

Bikerider Crashes Into Sign

...

Truck Crashes Car

http://www.quality-vehicles.com Insane Car Crashes

Collection of crazy race car and bike crashes.http://mark-reid.com/index.php

helicopter crashes

NEW SEPTEMBER CLUES website:
www.septemberclues.info

The analysis of the Naudet brother's 1st strike footage.
If someone asks you to see a video of the WTC exploding with no plane in it, here's your   more...best choice.
The Naudet footage is maybe the most diffused of all the 9/11 images so there is no possible question in regard to its "authenticity" - so to speak....as it is forged.
My analysis here has consisted - as usual - in slowing down the video, check it frame by frame and occasionally crop (enlarge) some shots to view the fine details. (As ever, I have of course NOT altered one single pixel of the material ). I wasn't able to perform this analysis earlier as the 4 versions I had of this famous footage were not as good resolution as this 5th version I recently found.
The graphic object diving into the tower appears to be transparent : I call it 'THE GLASS PLANE'. It really is a crass graphic insertion. No video compression will make a block of pixels change color entirely depending on the background it is cast against. But more, much more importantly :
MAIN EVIDENCE OF MISSING AIRPLANE :
We may observe that the visible (i.e. not covered by 1st explosion dust) right side of the tower remains intact until 6 seconds after impact . Indeed, we may see 30% of the (righthand) wall still INTACT for as long as 5SECONDS after impact. At the 6sec mark we see the ignition of the charges which eventually rip open the wide plane-shaped hole we all remember. As the explosive charges only manage to open a 130ft-wide gash, a problem arises for the perpetrators : a Boeing 767's wingspan is 156 feet. So, to fix this problem, the far right tip of the gash (representing 'plane's wingtip') gets penciled in digitally on the video to reach the approx160gash-width required to 'sell' the idea of a Boeing767 melting entirely into WTC 1.
The inescapable conclusion is that NO LARGE PASSENGER JET (if anything at all - yet a missile's still likely) crashed into the WTC1 or - for that matter - WTC2 (see SEPTEMBER CLUES). On a final note, if this most publicized and widespread 9/11 video has been THIS sloppily forged, it appears there were whistleblowers within the forgery crew - or else that crew was quite simply an incompetent bunch.
In my honest opinion, the plane/no plane debate is now over. Let's move on and see how this evidence can be brought to a court of law.  less

More reasons I hate to fly.

plane crash

car crashes