9/11 Truth for Dummies: Why Near-Free Fall Speed Was Impossible Without Explosives

If it is speculation to so much as question the controlability of an airliner at speeds far in excess of its max operating speed, then what PROOF
is there that the aircraft would perform in a controllable and predictable manner? Nobody has tried to fly an aircraft so fast & so low before, and so there is NO data, it is as probable for the aircraft to have landed in the river, as to have struck the tower.

 

Your source for these claims?

 

The source for my claim lies in the fact that NOBODY
has any proof that an airliner can fly at 590 mph <1000ft altitude
and be controllable. What proof, that is possibly a Boeing wind tunnel test .... or? that would prove that the airliner would be controllable at such speed and low altitude? Like I said, its a gamble, and the consequences of loosing that gamble being that the mission would have been compromised in that the hit to the WTC tower would not have happened.
In the planning of the event, be that planning happening in a cave, or in some cushy office, the cold & calculating planners would have thought of every possible screw-up that could be a show-stopper to the mission and attempted to guard against major issues that could jeopardize the mission. The whole hijacked airliners fiasco for that reason, is a total non-starter.

 

You haven't provided proof that they can't. Proof has been provided that they can (the Chinese airline I linked for you a few days ago well exceeded that speed with one engine turned off and still fully recovered)

 

So as you have stated above, there is no data available that proves EITHER claim. So what data are you basing your claim on that it could NOT have happened?

 

I'm saying that because its a gamble, that is its an unknown if the aircraft would be controllable and indeed, if it was tried and found that the aircraft was not controllable, then it would be too late to correct for, therefore the consequences of the gamble going wrong would be the failure of the mission in that the airliner would NOT have hit the WTC tower, but would have crashed in some other manner including dropping into the river near the towers and being a total loss as far as the mission was counted.

There is risk taking and then there is outrageous risk taking.
Why expose the mission to such risks when there were other
options, such as dropping the aircraft on one of the nuke power plants reachable from the flight pattern of the hijacked airliner?

The whole WTC strike doesn't make any sense
except when you consider that the towers were ripe for needing to be removed anyhow and a permit to CD the towers was out-of-the-question for the city to accept the potential liability issues with that.

Likewise with the PENTAGON hit, the hijackers could have taken an approach over water and hit the Pentagon in the front door, would have
done lots of damage and probably taken more lives, but the hijackers decided to hit the side of the Pentagon with the least number of people working there.... but it just happened to be the accountants working on finding that missing 2.3 Trillion $$$$!

can you see the obvious?

 

I see lots of speculation, indignity and incredulity. What I don't see is evidence to back up these claims.

 

It's "obvious" because that's what you WANT to be true. The bottom line, that keeps being repeated, is that you have no supporting evidence to back any of your claims.

 

Thanks to Munkle for starting this off in the right direction,
unfortunately it has drifted off topic, the discussion of other
matters can be taken up in the threads that address those bits.

 

And here is your problem.

You keep saying it's obvious, yet you have stated that there are a multitude of unknowns in addition to you not backing your assertions with any sort of evidence.

How does hat make something "obvious"?

 

Certain sorts of things, when seen are simply obvious,
this may be a case similar to the person with perfect pitch
at a concert who knows the bass guitar is a bit out of tune,
and can not explain exactly how they know, it just is.....

to see the "collapse" of two skyscrapers in a manner that
was shown on 9/11/2001 and not say " there is something
VERY wrong with this picture " and indeed the explanation for it
the alleged gravity driven collapse bit is so WRONG!
and on so many different levels.

 

And yet you can't tell us WHY it's 'wrong on so many different levels'

 

and you attribute to "common sense" the concept that its possible for a mass to accelerate downward, strictly under the influence of gravity, through a skyscraper, and indeed the part of said skyscraper that was as yet undamaged.

 

Yes. F=MA

 

Are they basing that knowledge on hearing a perfect pitch before and know when it something sounds different? Don't comparisons need two "items" to make that comparison?

 

True, F=MA
but does that guarantee focus for the energy?
because if its not focused, then its a crap-shoot
as to what gets done as a consequence of said energy.

 

Focus gravity??

Maybe in a singularity...

 

The energy, in order to have the effect that was observed
would need to be focused, there is otherwise no guarantee of any bit of rubble actually striking a critical location so as to break a connection in either the core or outer wall. and in the case of breaking the decks, what prevented the rubble from punching holes in the decks and having rubble redistribute throughout several floors ( possibly as many as a dozen ) so as to redistribute the load and reach equilibrium therefore stopping the action before total destruction of the tower.

 

News for ya kid,gravity pulls the same ALL over an object.....even the WTC towers.

 

still no indication of FOCUS, therefore the action of the rubble in the falling stuff that allegedly destroyed the tower(s) would be random, so random forces completely destroyed two skyscrapers, that is a good 1!

 

Gravity isn't random. It pulls right to the core.

 

gravity doesn't 'focus' bob

 

So, in terms of gravity pulling straight down, the point of the tipped upper part of the south tower, could not have happened then if it was only gravity at work, right?

- - - Updated - - -

and so, unfocused gravity, caused the rubble from above, to fall in exactly the manner required to break up the structure below in a uniform manner so as to keep the action level, and not tip and spill the mass over the side of the tower thus stopping the action.

 

The point tipped because the support didn't fail uniformly.

 

and so it is, NO part of tower can be expected to fail uniformly.
Therefore the "collapse" event can not be expected to proceed uniformly.