The planes struck the towers and your maths are obviously specious owing to this annoying little detail. Prove me wrong.
exactly what "annoying little detail"? you say "planes struck the towers" however what is the foundation for that allegation?
Are you actually serious? Video footage, passenger DNA and artefacts, aircraft debris, insurance claims, eyewitness testimony, manufacturer maintenance reports, coroner's reports, and on and on and on. The 'annoying little detail' to your story is the fact that the planes struck the towers.
You never answered my previous question. What makes you think that approximately 70,000 tons of force wouldn't to damage to a 3 ton wall? Use your 'basic logic' to answer.
You think that an airliner could slam into a 3 ton obstacle and suffer no consequences? what do you think happens when a little 1 kg bird is struck by an airliner going only half of the alleged speed of FLT175? The math doesn't lie, the impulse would be huge, and given the equal and opposite re-action, the airliner would take damage, huge damage from having to displace the 3 tons of mass, this also doesn't even take into account the friction, and energy required to break connections + break the concrete deck in the process of squeezing into a 3.6 meter space between decks a 5 meter dia, airliner body.
they won't even acknowledge the internal collapse theory when the penthouse fail clearly demonstrates an internal initiated collapse as the curtain wall (facade for the uninformed) did not fail until the underpinnings (trusses and columns) failed ... it clearly demonstrates NIST's simulation ... but of course, I'm still waiting for a vid showing the CD sequence ...
Which is wrong, the empirical evidence, or your maths? Hmmm.....that's a no-brainer. - - - Updated - - - I know, but ignoring the inconvenient is how 9/11 truth maintains the debate.
I never said that it wouldn't damage the wall, I said that the airliner would most certainly take huge damage upon contact with the wall. did you actually read my post?
at no time did I ever mention "bounce" what would happen should an airliner actually encounter a wall under the conditions alleged for "FLT175" is that the airliner would experience >100 g deceleration force and I have already gone over that, did you read any of my previous posts?
I fully acknowledge NIST's internal collapse THEORY, that's all it is, if it makes you feel better. But reality is how do you account for the fact that the West Penthouse, a much wider object than the East Penthouse, remained on the roof and dropped along with the roof line and at least 3 of 4 visible walls only at the moment the roof line began its descent? NIST's alleged simulation shows nothing that matches the actual videos of the collapse of WTC7. There is nothing available that proves NIST's claim that there was a complete (or mostly complete) internal collapse prior to the descent of the roof line and the lack of any wall deformation in addition to the West Penthouse contradicts such a claim. The videos of the actual collapse, coupled with the fact that it matches very closely with known CDs and adding to the fact that no fire, experiment, computer simulation or real world event (despite 40+ known infernos) has ever shown or can be shown to globally collapse a steel frame high rise in the manner of WTC7 (or any manner), and adding to the fact that it has been proven that CD has the full capability of producing a WTC7 type collapse .... well if looks like a duck, smells like a duck ... etc.
I emailed two people at Purdue. They referred me to Prof. Sozen, but of course I had already emailed him. No Response! The Purdue simulation is only of the top 20 stories and exhibits no horizontal movement due to the aircraft impact, while empirical data from the NIST indicates the south tower moved about 15 inches horizontally and oscillated for 4 minutes. psik
Thank U .... and I notice that the very same crew of regulars frequent the forum(s) as has been for YEARS including "soupnazi" .... What AMERICA needs right now is a class action lawsuit by all the people who can actually see the truth and that is the MSM has lied about 9/11/2001, it was most definitely a false flag attack. who is in? I know I'd sign on to a class action in a heartbeat!
I don't believe any US court would conduct a fair trial. We have already been witness to how 9/11 lawsuits are handled by the courts, there have been several. The current lawsuit by the 9/11 families vs the Saudis has been dismissed on the invented grounds of sovereign immunity. Only the current JASTA bill would return the lawsuit to the court but a veto has already been threatened by Obama. Allegedly there are enough votes to overturn such a veto but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Even if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed, I'm confident there will be some judicial trickery (e.g. suppression of evidence) that would make a mockery of justice. A legitimate court would cause the proverbial can of worms to open during the discovery phase and the US government (which of course includes the judiciary branch) will do everything in its power to maintain the 9/11 myth. There are literally $trillions at stake as well as the maintenance of power by those running the scam. 9/11 was the gift that keeps on giving. Of course I hope I'm dead wrong.
So in the photographic record, where is this shredding going on? why no visible effect upon the wings & tail?
Because they still strike the building at around 500 mph and are governed by the same physics. The wings had tons of fuel in them which at that speed is like being hit with concrete.
In the sequence of events from the first contact of the nose ... the first 0.005 sec would see a reduction in speed sufficient to cause >100 g deceleration, in the following 65 milliseconds, the aircraft would be disintegrating under the stress of that >100 g deceleration. so how is it that a disorganized collection of aircraft wreckage could produce that nice neat gash?
again totally misquoting me, at what point did I ever specify that there would be "no damage" we are discussing the characteristics of said damage.
You would see no damage to the aircraft outside of the building at that speed and the damage left on the outside of the building by the aircraft was aircraft shaped. Basic logic. Only parts of the aircraft were actually in contact with any resistance so it would mostly extrude through to the other side where girders actually held up.
