The holes in the towers are completely irreconcilable. The south tower hole is at least three times smaller. Did something smaller hit it, or did no plane impact either tower?
Where's your documentation? Where's your math? A small gif cartoon of a plane is not documented proof of anything. Prove those wing tips should still be suspended in mid air over Manhattan.
Angle of impact. Believe that's called angle of attack in aviation parlance but don't take my word for that. One plane seems to have hit roughly close to 90 degrees. The other didn't. If more kids grew up shooting firearms they would intuitively know simple things like this. Instead we have people who go through life with one dimensional flat thinking. That's gotta bite.
Considering the fact that my original bit was in response to Margot2 relating to the steel box column construction of the WTC tower wall. This is not rocket science, if you need additional clarification, please ask a specific question about my original post.
Exactly when did I say the wing tips should be suspended in mid air over Manhattan? and this does not require math to see what is going on here. One of the possible outcomes from a crash event such as was alleged for 9/11/2001, would be for the wing tips to break off and fall down. and this out come is much more likely than the wing tip penetrating the wall.
How about KEYHOLE, the effect when a bullet flips sideways to the target. Ya, I get it, but it does not excuse the fact that the total wingspan of the airline is allegedly represented in the gash in both towers and because of the design of the wings, its extremely unlikely that the wing tips could cut into the wall of the WTC tower(s) not once but a total of four times, two wings for two airliners.
Where is it alleged that the hole in either tower is the "total wingspan"? Cite your source for this alleged claim.
Of course math is required for proof of anything. Don't blame you tho, not into math myself. Tips breaking off and falling down is probably quite unlikely. If one wishes to argue they could not penetrate the structure that's fine by me, don't really care. The most likely unproven scenario would be the wings folding at the point of weakness and following the wreckage through the hole. Personally I'm not surprised the tips could penetrate the facade. Even the lightest weight, lightest construction bullets made of copper cladding over a powder core will penetrate steel with enough velocity. If the plane is traveling fast enough to penetrate the structure the wings are traveling at the same speed. While mass is part of the equation without offering mathematical proof it's my opinion velocity is the largest contributor to penetration. Keyhole is not correct. I've seen no claims the planes were flipping through the air. Yes the observance on the flat plane surface may be similar but the causation is different. Simple angle of impact is all that's needed to understand. Shoot a target at 90 degrees and you'll get a round hole. Turn the face of the target at an angle to the approaching bullet and you'll get an oblong hole.
ANYTHING?!?!?!?! REALLY ?!?!?!?! Do you not see the fact that so much of the wing would be structurally compromised before the wing tips even touch the wall, that the wing tips would then be completely disconnected from the aircraft at the time they were expected to penetrate the wall, so a wing tip, disconnected from the rest of the aircraft, and free to rotate, would still make a nice neat gash in the wall, is that so?
OK, now we're getting somewhere...personal incredulity. "Extremely unlikely" might be correct if there were physics to support your contention. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't believe the physics would support your claim.
Anything in conjunction with any of the claims made in the OP yes, math is required. Want another consideration beyond the flat plane of one dimensional thought? Seeing as the wing would contact the building closer to the body of the aircraft in your scenario what's to stop the conjecture the rest of the wing was forced ahead on that fulcrum point like a whip? I could easily imagine doubling the velocity in such a case. Enjoy.
Not to mention, the speed at which the plane was traveling might have prevented such a reaction to take place.
The reaction of the wings pushed backward to not allow the wing tips from impacting the side of the building.
The wings were a swept back design, therefore its basic to the way the plane was made, and also the Exactly where would the energy come from to accelerate the wing tip?
Perhaps the speed of the plane as it crashed into the building negated whatever movement might have taken place, if any. Also, you lack the physics calcs to support the assertion....not to mention, the facade of the building was giving way to the impacting jetliner so, resistance would have been much less.
So what you are doing, is presenting YOUR beliefs as being more valid than my beliefs, and based on exactly what? You say "if there were physics to support..." however, I have presented the physical argument and people are attempting to hand wave it away because it hits too close to home, that is actually proving that there could not possibly have been a "FLT175" penetrating the south wall of the south tower as was alleged by the official story.
No, what you have presented is an assertion based on something you believe. That argument sans the physics to back it up is nothing more than assertion. You're attempting to make an argument based on physics without the physics. Until you can prove the wing tips were unable to impact the side of the WTC due to physics, you're just making an unsupported claim.
So you don't get it that once the wing tip was set free of any connection to the rest of the aircraft it would not only be of insufficient mass to cause penetration of the wall, but would also be free to rotate such that it would not be aligned perpendicular to the wall so as to cause penetration. It gets deeper than that, KE is a function of Mass & Velocity, therefore as the aircraft penetrated the wall, the part of the aircraft having been shredded upon entry, can no longer be part of the calculation of the mass and therefore the KE would become progressively less as the aircraft penetrated deeper into the wall. In short, an appeal to common sense, really, you don't need reams of figures for this. The part of this that is not an "assertion" is the fact and it is a fact, that given the design of the wing, and the fact that upon entry into the building, the airliner would have become shredded, therefore at a point along the progress of shredding the wing, the wing tips would become free of any connection to the rest of the aircraft and given that in both cases FLT11 & FLT175 the aircraft did not present itself perfectly perpendicular to the wall + the fact that the wingtips would have less KE to work with because of their separation from the rest of the aircraft, is it not logical to make the statement the wing tips were least likely to penetrate the WTC wall.
Assertion. No facts or evidence proves this. To the contrary, the video clearly shows this did not happen Fist point makes your second point, moot.
So you base ALL of your position upon the video? how about considering some facts about what is being presented in this video that alleges "FLT175" could have penetrated the WTC wall in the manner shown in the video. As a consequence of the penetration, the official story includes having the aircraft shredded by the act of penetration, so under those conditions, the shredded part of the aircraft could not be considered part of the whole for purposes of KE calculation, therefore the KE of the "aircraft" would become progressively less as the aircraft penetrated. There are people who have taken up the position that the video could not possibly be fake, nobody would produce a lie that big, look up "THE BIG LIE" I'm sorry that this may be difficult for some people to get their heads around it, but do give it some thought.
Yes, why wouldn't I? Name one reason why the video(s) would be questioned? and yet, they have no proof and havent been able to prove any of their nutter claims in the last 13 years. Why is that? Im sorry YOU believe you are employing your critical thinking skills appropriately
