This is where you show your true colors and that you have an IMMENSE bias towards anything government. You are ready to cry "foul" at anything that supports the "official story" based on nothing more than your own hatred/distrust of the government. This is evident in what you supply as evidence to refute my post. You have no idea what an FEA analysis is nor do you understand styructural engineering. All you have to go on are unfounded claims made by other truthers. Why do you not call out any of these other truthers likew you do the "official story" supporters? Nobody has provided ANY analysis from the truther side of things to show that the perimeter columns should have resisted and the plane should have crushed up against the facade. Yet you buy into this line of thinking hook, line, and sinker. The fact that the FEA analysis details aren't available mean nothing. Why haven't any truther engineers provided a detailed analysis sowing the perimeter columns SHOULD HAVE resisted the impacts? Basically you just want to support anything that is against the government and official story whether it has evidence or not. That's pathetic.
As I said above, not one truther engineer or group has come forth to present their own analysis that shows the planes should NOT have penetrated the perimeter columns. Why not? Why do truthers continually attack the evidence supporting the "official story" with weak rebuttals such as yours above? Your claims have NO substantial evidence whatsoever. Why don't you ask Richard Gage, who continues to suck the money out of truthers and pay himself over $80,000 a year, to use THAT money to provide his OWN FEA and settle this once and for all. He supposedly has over 1,200 (I don't keep track) engineers supporting his "cause". You mean to tell me they can;t do their own FEA? Especially to give proof that there was a conspiracy?! These are the types of people you support. I think you should take the path that your alter ego "genericBob" took and just go away. You provide nothing of substance to support your claims.
Where's your "source data" that supports the fact that you think the planes should NOT have penetrated?
Out of curiosity ... Have any "truther" financed a mundane structural experiment? I mean: while the projection of a skyscraper is in progress, engineers build a model in scale of the building to test it against wind, fire ... It doesn't cost that much, actually. The amount of money which has been mentioned above could be enough for a good experiment. You need some stainless still section bars, some aluminum and some glass for the windows. Then you need a laboratory where to build a model in scale of a Twin Tower. I would suggest a 1/100 model [a construction around 4 meter high]. Then you need a banal mechanism, similar to the one that NASA is using to test landing procedures of the incoming new Orion system [in case you can call NASA to have an idea about], to make a model in scale of a plane [and in this case a metal realistic model in 1/100 scale is very easy to find]. So, even without putting fuel in the plane in scale, you can simulate the effect of the crash [physical laws are always the same, also in scale. Make the little plane reach the correct speed and make it crash against the facade of the little skyscraper]. Pay attention: for the facade of the little skyscraper you have to use 0.09" aluminum sheets, so identical to the ones on the real facades at WTC. Try and see if the model plane is able to break-through the facade ....
you really do not understand what constitutes source data the paper presented is a discussion of the methods but does not constitute a documenting of the source data. The video is as much as a cartoon without proper source data, and even at that, does the source data actually mimic the real world or has it been adjusted in order to show the result that was desired.?
Where is your data to refute the math and calculations presented? Where is your FEA showing the planes should NOT have penetrated? Please present these calculations performed by engineers showing that what you believe is possible. You have NOTHING and your beliefs are built upon assumptions and lack of actual understanding. You have no concrete data ANYWHERE that you can provide.
Again, please present your "data" or "proof" that the planes should NOT have penetrated the perimeter columns. We have given you MORE than enough mathematics to support our side, how about you? Or is claiming that they are just "cartoons" and ignoring the calculations all you have?
at least we can agree that there were no hijackings there are other bits of the story that are still up for grabs and I am willing to look at any evidence that may be available on this subject. Nothing personal to any of the people debating the issues here, this doesn't need to be an exercised in telling others what you think they are full of..... if the F00 defecates, .... whatever .....
Video of the hijacker going through airport security Calls from the plane Hijackers cockpit recording Hijackers ID found Families of hijackers confirm there not around any longer
and hard evidence of there ever having been a "FLT11" "FLT175" "FLT77" "FLT93" ? BTW: pictures of anybody at an airport check-point does not constitute proof of anything except that the person in question just happened to be at that airport at that time.
You are referring to documents from the airline companies that can easily be faked, where is the hard evidence in the form if inventoried aircraft bits?
How hijackers were handled was a huge security hole. Another hole is that the military did not look inward but outward beyond our borders for a threat. Of course these holes did not become apparent until after 9/11 and many processes have changed since then.
At near 500 miles per hour you think a wing full of tons of fuel is just going to snap off and flutter to the ground? LOL
