There would be NOTHING to seperate the wing tips BEFORE they struck the surface of the building. Smaller mass is not as relevant as velocity. A BB from an air gun will only sting you unless it hits you in the eye. Accelerate it to 100 miles an hour and it will kill you in dramatic fashion. 300 MPH the damage is even more dramatic etc. This is why we see things like playing cards and plastic straws driven into and even through trees or telephone poles by tornadoes. This is also why satellites and spacecraft face a very real threat from small objects of lesser mass such as debris from other spacecraft. A small piece of fragile aluminum foil can cause CATOSTROPHIC damage when it or the other object is strikes is traveling at great speeds which orbiting objects move at. The Planes were not traveling at those speeds but their velocity was very high negating the idiotic explanation you give. Yes you have dodged and used the term erroneously because your conclusion is empty of logic.
How about: the leading edge of the wing encountering two 4" thick steel reinforced concrete decks edge on. Would that not structurally compromise the wing and make it prone to breaking? Note the pix in the OP of RE: No Planes and click on the image to get the enlarged version, the wings are a swept back design so the wing tips would be the last bit of the whole wing structure to strike the tower wall, after much of the wing structure had already been destroyed. and on the subject of super high speeds, there still is no proof that any airliner can be operated ( "power dive" mode or what ) at such high speeds so near sea level. and speed alone is no guarantee of penetration, "FLT175" was shown striking the south tower with an obvious angular displacement from true perpendicular to the wall.
All of the above questions involve WHO & WHY when in fact we really do not have a handle on WHAT happened, some people will insist that an airliner struck the Pentagon, and others understand physics & logic all too well to be taken in by the side-show & cheep tricks played by the perpetrators. Lets face it people the whole attack by radical Arabs story is a lie. Before people attack me for "trying to shift the blame away from the guilty party" Please think about this, the vast majority of Muslims do NOT want war, they do not want the destruction & conflict. I oppose the minority of Muslims who do embrace violence as a way of making their point ( whatever that point may be ) There is something I'd like to point out by way of a bit of evidence, note that in many of these pretty picture book sorts of collections of pictures from Ground Zero, there are box columns seen in these pictures and the ends are visible, and it is as if somebody had simply gone in and removed the bolts, because the ends show the 4 bolt-holes where it had been connected to another box column. Nice neat round holes, with nice neat flat ends to the box columns.Now give this a bit of thought, if there had been a catastrophic failure of the structure, there would be the bolts holding box columns together still holding on when the structure was failing and thus one could rightly expect gross deformation of the box column in the area where it was bolted to the next box column. Why are there so many box columns that do not have any deformation of the ends where they were bolted together, but instead are simply disconnected as if the bolts were made to disappear? once the WHAT is nailed down, then we can ask "WHO & WHY"
Well, considering there is not evidence of any explosive material...you would need to provide that first.
The FBI documented their work in the PENTTBOM investigation. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/9-11-investigation
The link you provided makes no statement at all about the FBI having tested for explosives. Where is the INFORMATION?
Wonderful, and in all of this, does the NIST at any time state "we tested a sample from Ground Zero in the following manner and the test result was negative for explosive or explosive residue" ?
Wonderful, first you post a bit from the NIST that BTW did NOT test for explosives, and after I answer, you post a bit from the FBI that allegedly did test for explosives at the "FLT77" crash site, but are there any details of this testing? maybe ... maybe not .... My original statement about the box columns stands and given the fact that NIST did NOT test for explosives at the WTC site, its a given that corruption is in action here.
The short version is that there IS NONE (otherwise they'd post it). First, they say they didn't test for it because they had no need to look for it, and then they say they did but somehow it's buried in some supposed link that ultimately verifies it but, they can't highlight it for us. I guess we're back to the first version?
Does anyone have any link to any *.gov site that documents the testing for explosives or explosive residue at either ground zero or the Pentagon on 9/11/2001?
I can only assume that this indicates pictures taken by FBI or possibly photographers who were on contract to the FBI. and as a citizen & taxpayer in this land, I would like to have access to these pix, where are they and if they are being kept secret, WHY are they being kept secret? Check this out - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNNzwe4OF8s good stuff!
