If they're just cartoons, then it should be easy to prove them wrong right n0spam? All the engineers that support the truthers should have no problem in producing their own analysis showing that it's NOT possible right n0spam? 12+ years and nobody has done ANYTHING like this from the truter side. Why not? Where's is you proof that the plane should NOT have penetrated like it did? This coming from someone who can't produce math and calculations to support their beliefs. How funny!
Well n0spam? Do you see the tail slow down in this collision? Or are you just ignoring this question because it goes against what you think?
The entire hologram/space beam/no planes weirdness seems to be invented by racist political trolls trying to see just how far they could bilk people. I refer to my two posts here based on some Internet research: Post I Post 2 I can start a separate thread. But its interesting how the very same people will swallow all sorts of snake oil on the flimsiest of pretexts want to hand wave this documented connection between truther theories and the fringe racist politics. The short version is there is no "evidence" for so called "no planes".
The holes in the towers are completely irreconcilable. The south tower hole is at least three times smaller. Did something smaller hit it, or did no plane impact either tower?
7 says the holes are to small to be real. Bob says the holes are to big to be real. Neither can provide any evidence for their stance.
Both gashes show a full length impression of the wings that is wing tip to wing tip the wings had penetrated, or at least according to the official story.
So if I were to look at it from the POV of say somebody who believes that a virgin gave birth to a deity in human form, and anybody who doesn't believe this is considered mentally deficient.... oh well. What I would like to see in debates of this nature is a totally color-blind & focused attention to the topic at hand and NOT bring up peripheral subjects when we are debating the validity of the claim that hijacked airliners struck the WTC towers. Focus Pinky..... FOCUS ..
Can't come up with evidence, eh Boss? I see you're going to start mindlessly parroting me, now. You gotta keep earning that paycheck somehow, huh?
Smaller?...how about this. Count the number of columns damaged, across the bottom on each photo...and you tell me, how the damaged area is "smaller". Why is it you don't bother to check the validity of your nutter posts? - - - Updated - - - which is what happened that day. Shocker?...no, reality.
Note the swept back design of the wings and note that at the point in time when the wing has penetrated the wall to the trailing edge of the wing at the wing root next to the fuselage, there is still the wing tip hanging out totally unsupported at that point, and this is expected to penetrate the wall because it was going oh so fast. oh my..... and to make maters worse, the aircraft is alleged to have contacted the wall at an angle such that the port side wing struck the wall significantly ahead of the starboard side wing, so a huge portion of the starboard side wing would be totally unsupported at the previously described point of penetration. This alone is a show stopper. there were no commercial airliners uses as weapons that day. if there was any sort of physical object in use, it would have to be something that was purpose-built for the job of penetrating a wall.
Each wing weighed tons since they were full of fuel. In fact had more density than the fuselage because of that. Go figure. When you know nothing of aircraft you are liable come to your erroneous conclusions.
So you present the theory that since the wing tip was full of fuel, it had so much mass that it was to be considered unstoppable, is that it? What prevented the wing from rotating and slapping flat against the building accomplishing no penetration at all? The possibilities are huge, why limit the possibilities to just penetration? the two aircraft having penetrated ( allegedly ) and in all cases, 4 out of 4 wing tips having penetrated the wall, what are the odds?
So an aircraft penetrating a wall as was alleged in the case of "FLT11" and "FLT175" violates no laws of physics? is that what you think?
LOL, why would it violate any laws of physics? Do you think a bolted together construction is impenetrable? Do you understand sheer? Do you understand what aluminum does when in contact with a small cross section object? You really don't understand much of anything which makes it look more like magic to you.
Your descriptions speak volumes, "small cross section object" note that the wall was composed of 14" steel box columns with at least a 0.25" wall thickness and there were many of them, the aircraft nose would have to break 5 or 6 of these columns to penetrate, and then the wings would have to cut at least another dozen each. what are the odds of a wingtip to wingtip gash in not one but two skyscrapers having been hit by ( allegedly ) Boeing 757/767 airliners. Major problem here is that the aircraft ( flown by hijackers ) could not possibly be expected to hit the wall perfectly perpendicular and therefore would have all sorts of massive stress forces that would be asymmetrically distributed throughout the aircraft, in short the aircraft should have broken up upon impact and done very little damage to the tower. The other show stopper here is the fact that it has never been proven that any commercial airliner can operate at >500 mph @ less than a thousand ft altitude. and this is critical to the argument that the aircraft did what it was alleged to have done. Note that KE=1/2M*V^2 at lower speeds the aircraft has significantly smaller KE. but it can not be proven that it is even possible to do what was said to have been done, where is BOEING on this subject? they could clear the air right now, but will they?
The Egypt air crash of a 767 many years ago seemed to indicate that the airframe stayed intact in the dive until after the plane passed mach 1 in a dive. So 500+ mph is not that unfeasible. Shallow dive, full power, no care from the pilot. Just because an aircraft passes VNE does not mean it disintegrates immediately. VNE is design for longer life and safer operation.
is the speed attainable in a controlled manner, the Egypt air incident was with the aircraft out-of-control how does one not only attain the speed in level flight near sea level, but maintain control? both "FLT11" and "FLT175" made precision hits to the WTC towers in that the airliners struck their targets with a + - 25 ft margin. great flying for a hijacker.... don't you think?
Evidently so. BTW, it was not level flight but a descent. You maintain control by flying the plane. 25 foot margin would be approx 2 story margin and they did not hit the same floors. Flying is easy, it is the landings that can be a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). In this case they 'landed' in buildings.
