"You would see no damage to the aircraft outside of the building at that speed " at the speed alleged, the airliner would have 70 milliseconds to travel from first contact of the nose to a point where the wings could make contact with the wall, and what do you think would happen in 70 milliseconds with the airliner already stressed by >100 g force?
So you understand that an airliner stressed by >100 g deceleration, and given at least 65 milliseconds to act on said stress, what excuse is there for the airliner showing no signs of deformation as it penetrated the wall?
speed relates to the amount of time available for actions to happen, and in the case of the alleged FLT175, there would have been plenty of time. also ... do you understand that in the case of an automobile collision stuff in the back seat of said vehicle will be shifted about and violently because of the collision? In the case of an airliner, there would be all sorts of material for things crashing about, and given the >100 g force there would be guaranteed structural failure of the aircraft. So no, the damage could not possibly be confined to the front of the airliner.
The wings and tail wouldn't be effected until they hit. See this video of an F4 at 500 mph hitting an immovable concrete wall. The wings and tail don't get effected for a while. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTrpARSE77M https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/127922.html - - - Updated - - - see this: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/127922.html - - - Updated - - - Actually yes https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/127922.html
You are assuming no deformation at the impact point. A steel vehicle traveling much slower is going to react differently.
so you allege that objects inside an airliner will not act according to their inertia in the case of an airliner crash? what? .... the fact is that with a given of >100 g deceleration force, the internal bits of the airliner, luggage & cargo, passengers and carry-on bags would ALL be subject to the forces imposed by the deceleration. those 5 ton jet engines would impose 500 tons of stress against the engine mounts and therefore break off, and in so doing rotate/tumble and would not strike the WTC tower wall square on, therefore having only minuscule probability of penetration. the whole story, that is the alleged hijacked airliners used as weapons, is such a transparent farce as would be funny if not for the fact that the consequences of this whole fraud, that is politically are a disaster not only for AMERICA but humanity as a whole.
You are not considering the minute amount of time involved. How fast can a suitcase accelerate when the surrounding structure is not accelerating? Those engines did break off and disintegrate but they are not going to break off from the wing with that kind of speed and ms time until they reach the building. Just because you don't understand any of this does not mean your incredulity is valid evidence of anything.
First of all, the opposition brings up the famous ( or possibly infamous ) F4 destruction test, this is an apples and oranges comparison in that the F4 is very much a smaller aircraft than a commercial airliner and some events simply do not scale ( see mythbusters doing a giant newtons cradle ) so with that said, there is precident in that for other crash videos, that is automobiles crashed at 120 mph ( etc... ) things happen in a matter of milliseconds, so there is no excuse for the physical bits in question to not have reacted to the forces applied.
The destruction of the alleged FLT175 was not visible on the video, where is the visible deformation of the airliner? Also, the crash was alleged to have happened with a 12.5 degree off perpendicular hit, so the forces would be asymmetrical, so how is it that the airliner allegedly penetrated as if it had a lubricated condom? ..... whats up with that.?
Two things. First most video capture 30 frames per second so that leaves about two frames to capture the crash. Second, if you were there and blinked, you would have missed the entire crash.
Many physical actions happen much faster than you can blink, that in no way negates the validity of the action. also, as for the 30 frames/sec video, even if the video had been 10 frame/sec, the damming evidence would still be the alleged wing shaped cut-out and the allegation that the airliner penetrated completely leaving no significant bits outside the skyscraper on the entry hole side.
You still deny the physics that have been presented and wish to believe your own incredulity instead. Can't help anyone that wittingly wishes to stay ignorant of the physics.
Given the conditions allegedly in place for this crash, that is the alleged FLT175 having to displace tons of mass in order to make that entry hole, there would have to be a massive jolt to the aircraft, no getting around this the best estimations so far indicate >100 g for the forces to have acted upon the airliner ( that is the alleged airliner ) and so having the airliner thus stressed + the fact that the forces would be asymmetrical ( that is the alleged FLT175 striking the wall 12.5 degrees off perpendicular ) it is only in the wildest imaginings that the aircraft could remain whole and penetrate the wall as was alleged.
Er, that mountain of evidence you keep ignoring. I can't believe I'm actually arguing reality with a no-planer. No planes = no brains. - - - Updated - - - Ninja'd.
Already put to you. Are you actually comprehending my posts, or are you just reading to respond? Again; The passenger manifests; the manufacturer's maintenance records; the airlines' records; the insurance claims; the passengers' DNA, recovered baggage, the ATC records, and on and on and on. No planes = no braynz
all of these things would be so easy to fake, and in the absence of actual physical proof that any of the allegedly hijacked airliners ever existed at all ... well its kinda a moot point. Have fun with that fantasy about hijacked airliners .....