MOD WARNING ISSUED HERE Here is a logical explanation as to why the wing shaped gashes in WTC1, 2 are totally impossible. In the history of commercial aviation, there have been mid-air collisions between relatively small aircraft and the much larger commercial aircraft. These collisions always resulted in catastrophic damage to both aircraft. The fact is that if the large commercial airliner were so super sturdy, it would have simply pushed out of the way the smaller ( in some cases only 2% of the mass of the larger aircraft ) and that would be that, however, the fact of the fundamental physics of the collision show clearly that there would have to be a huge amount of energy expended in said collision. with this said, what super-duper special conditions prevailed on 9/11/2001 to allow an airliner to displace tons of mass, and incur no catastrophic damage to itself in the process? and to those who insist that the damage was confined to the point of contact with the wall, do you understand the stress that is imposed upon an airliner under very serious deceleration? a decrease of speed from 240 m/s to 235 m/s in 0.005 sec = >100 g for deceleration force, that is for each and every ton of anything contained in the airliner there would be >100 tons of force against whatever was supposed to be holding it in place.
But yet they are there. What or how do you suppose they got there? Note I'm just asking for your opinion if you care to give it, I know you don't know the answer if you don't believe airplanes caused the gashes.
Part of the LOGIC, is to know that it is possible to understand that any given bit was a trick without having to be able to explain how it was done. Have you ever been to a stage magic show? so the evidence is in, that is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the events of 9/11/2001 were not as reported in the media, so now the task is to fully investigate and figure out what really happened.
I understand all that but the gashes appear in many videos and photos so I don't believe the gashes themselves are tricks or photoshopped. [video=youtube;WVeRdi5koCI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVeRdi5koCI&list=PLAgBBIaZA-I8e9fyhSsGbvFm2GDhuuPiK[/video] If you believe the gash itself is an illusion/optical trick, that's a different story but if you don't, can you suggest what may have caused it?
Speculation is dangerous, however, there is the distinct possibility that said gashes were produced by explosives, or alternatively somekinda "death-ray" weapon that is still held highly secret by our military establishment. or? whatever, the fact is that the gashes made by commercial airliners argument is null and void, this could not possibly have been as described by the mainstream media. Please note that there are people who insist on demanding all details of an alternate hypothesis to even attempt to challenge the official story. However in the official story, not all of the alleged facts are supported with solid evidence, most of the bits are founded on emotional appeals and what any court in this world would define as INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
Ok thanks. I agree that those who spent their time defending the OCT in various forums are always asking those who don't believe it to post alternate theories in order to confuse, ridicule and especially to divert the discussion from the OCT. The OCT either stands on its own merit or it doesn't. No alternate theory changes that. Only evidence, facts and reality can challenge the OCT, not theories.
The North Tower blew up from the inside. All four sides of the building burst out simultaneously. The South Tower had a "directional" or "momentum based" explosion given the momentum of the 767 Cargo Drone the CIA flew into it. Hence, the "wing shaped hole" on the North Tower was almost certainly done by experts in pyrotechnics and explosives to make it look like a plane. However, closer look reveals the inside metal bending out, not in, as the momentum "went out" not it... Nothing hit the North Tower. It was blown up from inside.
Events take time to play out, there was 70 milliseconds between the nose of the alleged airliner contacting the wall, and the time when the wings could have touched the wall. and in that time, there was no display of visible damage to the alleged airliner? whats up with that?
A discussion of logic that cites a death ray as a possibility?....and that's all folks! The planes struck the towers and the gashes were the result-that is true logic.
and exactly what sort of foundation supports your notion that airliners made those gashes in the skyscrapers?
um..maybe people seeing the actual planes fly into the towers...and what made them collapse?..weight of the floors crushing the structure supports of the floors below...i gave you idiots the formulas to figure out the weight of each floor but they said it was to hard to due the calculations..but my 2nd grade granddaughter did it..
Well no.. before the point of contact there wouldn't be any display of visible damage.... because it wouldn't damage until it made contact with the building and from that point onwards no camera would be able to see it.. [video=youtube;CZ8uvQk1H9I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ8uvQk1H9I[/video]
no jolt noted and the wings were still intact when the strike occurred ... and this is solid concrete ... the wings did not shear off but were intact after the nose of the aircraft hit proving that wing gashes did occur ... why am I even trying to prove simple (*)(*)(*)(*) to cranks? ...
Most the time I don't. No-planers have always displayed the least amount of basic logic out of any conspiracy group I've ever seen. Even worse that flat-earthers and chemtrailers...
"For Over 100 points of evidence to show American 77 hit the Pentagon; Search for the "9/11 Pentagon Attack Review - American 77"" How many years have you been at this? Damage control for BIG BROTHER Right? .... do you feel good about yourself covering up criminal activity?
I have attempted to access your page and my anti-virus software won't let me go there, bring up any one of your points and I'll be happy to address it right here, are u up for that?
