In the case of the alleged "FLT77" crash, the scientific evidence is in the form of ALL other documented airliner crashes where the aircraft very clearly breaks up in response to asymmetrical forces, and in the case of "FLT77" because of the angle involved, there would be HUGE asymmetrical forces. Therefore massive breakage of the aircraft and in a manner that would make impossible the total disappearance of the aircraft inside the Pentagon.
Failing to see the data that is present in the record of all other airliner crashes, is indeed a failure. All it takes is looking at the evidence as it is, the alleged airliner crashes of 9/11/2001 do NOT fit the pattern of any precedent airliner crashes prior to 9/11/2001. Airliners are NOT armor piercing projectiles! The crash scenes of all 4 alleged hijacked airliners are anomalous to all other airliner crashes. and the physical evidence was NOT handled in accordance with standard procedure for collecting and preserving evidence.
the 9/11 events were NOT simply 'airliner crashes,and the side of the WTC towers was NOT 'armor plate'
in what way where the events not "simply airliner crashes" ( that is relating to the data precisely about the airliner crashes )? and in response to the "not armor plate" exterior of the WTC towers, the debate rages on, and so far it has NOT been defined properly as to exactly how much energy it would take to breach the wall of the tower(s). given the void of information, the fact remains the wall of the WTC would offer up considerable resistance.
Very few plane crashes happen with the pilot ramping the engines up to top speed and purposfully crashing them into buildings. Show us your precedent.
AH, but from the faction that demands justification in the form of mass quantities of numbers, there are no numbers that specify the Mega-Joules needed to breach the WTC wall(s) ..... The serious problem here is that the KE of the alleged airliner allegedly traveling at 590 mph ( ya, right ..... ) was sufficient to breach the wall, but with NO figure what so ever specifying the energy require to actually do the job, its a null set right now, NOBODY has any real answers, I have an educated guess, as to what would probably happen and rather than bring fourth actual figures on the subject, the opposition is most happy to simply call me wrong and that is that, but who has the NUMBERS? Something that would be doable ( Myth Busters style ) would be to locate a decommissioned commercial airliner and put it on a rocket sled to slam into a replica of the WTC wall and see if the nose actually penetrates cleanly or behaves like a hollow point bullet. ( my money is on the hollow point behavior ) actually for simplicity of the experiment, the replica of the WTC wall could be the bit on the rocket sled and the airliner held stationary at the end of the track. works either way ....
A bit arbitrary. I've seen plenty of other video's that are far more productive for debate. I've heard of many speeches also. Noam chomsky, alone, could flatten anyone with mere criticism of the criticism of 9/11. Hell, you can apply the same thing to the Oklahome City Bombing. That was some shady business as well, but you don't even need them. You have the governments own rocky, constantly shifting testimny as to what happened and why? Ironically, even the families of the victims of 9/11 even tried to get their voices heard on television that they did not believe the official narrative and they did not want the deaths of their loved ones to be used to wage war, but they were typically ignored.
Noam Chomsky is very good at being a professional intellectual, however he really doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to 9/11/2001. A guy who is very good with words and is smart in the area of intellectual debate, but is really dumb when it comes to applied physics. The lord high professor, behaves as if he slept through science 101.
Excellent! Please provide these samples of collisions containing complex objects and we can talk. All it took was this one example to prove your "expected jolt" claim being wrong. You seem to think that when any object in motion strikes another stationary object, there is going to be a visible "jolt" or "slowing down" of the object in motion upon impact. I provided you a video that proves your above assumption wrong and instead of answering WHY your assumption was proven wrong, now you want to say that one example is not good enough. Funny how that works. Can you use Newton's LAw to accurately predict the outcome of two complex objects colliding? As stated above, yes. I proved your claim wrong with one video and you refuse to discuss it. Why was there no visible jolt on the jet upon impact genericBob? You keep avoiding this question.
