First of all, in this video, there is no line of sight view of the south wall of the south tower, therefore any alleged evidence value of this is very minimal at best. The fact is that the eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable and the video "evidence" constitutes a violation of the laws of physics. so what are we left with, the MSM LIES! and our glorious Congress and Prez are at the very least accessories to the crime because they contribute to the psychological warfare against anyone who has the fortitude to question the events as reported.
Ya, there are on record instances of suicide attacks of various sorts, OK, however are you open minded enough to even examine the evidence that clearly indicates the whole airliners story is fake?
I am certain that is the North tower. Ergo your argument is flawed at best, not of use at worst. - - - Updated - - - I would have to deny what I saw with my own eyes. Would you go against what you saw?
The view of the North tower obscures the view of the south tower so its a guess at best what is actually going on. and as for your eye witness testimony, I would have to ask, did you have a good line of sight view of the south wall of the South tower and if so, how far away were you? There are all sorts of things that can impose upon what is perceived to be perfectly recalled memory of events, and it certainly doesn't help to have said events be of a traumatic nature. "Would you go against what you saw?" really it depends on other evidence, if there was video of the sort that refutes the "FLT175" hoax Yes ... absolutely!
and allegedly the video that shows "FLT175" penetrating the south wall of the South tower like a hot knife through butter, is to be enshrined as an example of physics?
The allegation that all the damage was confined to the point of entry into the wall, is just plane mad, the actual analysis of what should happen if any aircraft at 540 mph were to encounter a stationary object such as a skyscraper, there would be a huge jolt upon impact and said jolt would be sufficient to cause structural failure in the airliner not just confined to the front of the aircraft but the whole aircraft. The hollywood style huge fireball explosion ( note that all three recorded crashes had the very same sort of robust fireball explosion to be seen ) This whole scene was planned to happen exactly as was played out. and it didn't involved radicals hijacking airliners.
This is what took place. First airliner flew from the North and headed into the North Tower, hitting it on the north side.The injury to the building is almost all the way through.You see smoke from both sides, but the view is from the South. And does not include the south Tower. That second flight circled the two and went South. Then turned back and hit the South tower from the South side. What I saw was as it took place on TV. My son called me to alert me what was happening. I recorded as the News kept repeating both towers hit. I think there is perhaps only one video (could be wrong) catching the first plane headed into that north tower. I shall investigate further. The plane that hit the South tower fortunately was very well documented. Yuip, found the plane hitting the north Tower from the North [video=youtube;Ys41jnL2Elk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk[/video] [video=youtube;FvL9xm-_s2k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvL9xm-_s2k[/video] Stay with the video since it also shows the South Tower getting hit
You have not conducted an analysis of the impact. If you had you could provide me with the data I asked for.
so, energy sufficient to cause the 110 story skyscraper to sway aprox 10 ft, and given the equal and opposite re-action principle just exactly what do you think was happening to the airliner at that time?
Why didn't you also study how the North and South Tower were built? In general, the core was like many skyscrapers but the exterior was fairly flimsy. They used a cantilever construction for the exterior outside walls.
I have ( and anyone who really cares to think about it can follow the path of logic ) analysed the event sufficiently to KNOW that airliners were not used as weapons. If you want to maintain the fairy tale about the hijacked airliners in your own mind, so be it ... have fun, but its not real also this is NOT rocket science, its understandable by anyone who cares to actually think about it.
Airplanes are built a lot like an egg is. Thin outside shell with much of the weight inside the supporting part of wings plus the sort of rib cage made of heavier aluminum. When the airliner encountered the buildings, though you can't see it happening, the airliner broke apart. Fire was all over rapidly burning the airliner. The building took more fire to make it collapse. So the fuel did not have to melt steel, just get to a temperature so the weight was not able to be supported. The lower floors collapsed as hit by the giant weight of the upper floors as if hit by a massive hammer.
There was no logic in your hypothesis, and no evidence. Moreover, your specious maths were just word salad of no merit. I'd say your dog is dead.
Thank U ever so much 4 your opinion, are you assuming that this would be a killer of an idea? are U suggesting that I stop KNOWING that airliners were not used as weapons that day? I'd say that YOUR grasp of logic is seriously flawed and the reason is obvious, that is the need to support the Official story.
Please show your calculation for the amount of impact energy that can be transmitted through the entire aircraft while simultaneously causing failure of the structure transmitting that energy. You can't have it both ways. Either the aircraft structure remains intact and transmits energy rearward or it fails to transmit energy by failing How fast do you think this energy moves through the entire plane ?
Obviously doesn't get Equal and Opposite Re-Action ....... Did you ever take "physical science" in school?
Right. That's why P.E. certification requires just a grade school diploma. It's because all you need to know about the behaviour of the universe can be passed on to 12 year olds by a guy who also teaches shop third period. Your inability to science is not logical argument. We can continue this discussion after you learn the math and discover it does not support your claims
Good description. Watch the South Tower take the blow of the airliner,. [video=youtube;zov3msmY6MA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zov3msmY6MA[/video] Watch tilt of wings as it hits tower. I have seen just the opposite tilt from sites supporting some conspiracy theory. This shows the right wing high as the airplane slams into Tower 2. And it hits from the south side towards the north. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3iKLz4oatY
does anybody here actually get it, that is the fact that the huge jolt upon first contact with the tower, would cause the airliner to loose some of its speed, even if it lost only a small fraction of its speed say 10% in the first 25 milliseconds that would result in aprox 100 g deceleration force, and as such, this would impose upon the entire aircraft, if the KE value for the entire aircraft is to be considered in that 10 ft sway of the building then the entire aircraft is involved and there can be no getting around the fact that there would have to be that 100 g stressing all parts of the aircraft, those 4 ton jet engines would pull at their mounts by 400 tons, like the aircraft is going to stay together under those conditions..
You don't appear to understand that the whole aircraft won't feel that deceleration. The nose acts like a crumple zone and continues to absorb the impact thus reducing what the rest of the aircraft feels until it reaches the building. Much of the weight is in the fuel filled wings. At that speed you will never see what you imagine to try and explain.
Answer my lever though experiment for insight into your misconception. The far end of the lever cannot move at the same time as the end you're pushing on. It takes time for the energy wave to get there. Energy moves at a specific speed through a material and materials have a threshold amount of energy they can transmit before breaking.
