so is it not how its described, that is the total structural failure would have not happened except for the airliner crashes & fires? therefore the root cause of the "collapse" event was the crash(?) no?
Just a little note for this thread, I'm rather sick of seeing the IS SO IS NOT IS SO ..... etc ... ad infinitum, ad nausum arguments there are bits of fundamental physics that point to there having been NO hijacked airliners at all, maybe the things that struck the towers ( etc.... ) were modified military aircraft, missiles, (or? ) but most certainly NOT airliners. and the fall of the towers & 7 ..... give me a break! controlled demolition. Several things are very much smoking guns here, the manner of the "collapse" events for the towers & 7, the fact that the aircraft bits were never accounted for ( a few snap-shots of alleged aircraft bits does NOT constitute an accounting ) the logistics of the whole bit with hijacked airliners being flow far outside not only their "normal" operating parameters but far exceeding the physical limitations of the airframes. + the improbable PENTAGON hit, if the hijackers didn't know about the composition of the PENTAGON wall, why would they strike an unknown when it would be just as feasible to fly the airliner in the front door of the PENTAGON or even drop the airliner on top of the building. So many things are just plain WRONG about the official explanation. it is really the BIG LIE.
Well, some of us are a little sick of people making claims, implying they'll back them up, then running away from the conversation. So consider it even.
The rest is just another argument from incredulity. Same regurgitation of incorrect assumptions with no evidence to back it up.
you allege, "incorrect assumptions" however what do YOU know about flying an aircraft far beyond its design limits + controlling it well enough to have made the hit to the WTC tower(s) Not to mention the hit to the PENTAGON, If the "FLT77" aircraft was alleged to have been out of control, the odds are that the flight path would not have been what it was, the radar operators commented that the flight path looked like a military plane because no civilian airliner would do what was observed, also what are the odds of the aircraft, with a hijacker pilot at the controls, & fighting for control, crashing before getting to the Pentagon? So we are left with, it was a lucky shot that the hijackers could hit anything at all.... make that 3X ....
You still haven't shown that the rate of speed was 'far beyond its design limits'. You are arguing facts not in evidence.
Major problem here is that some people do not want to recognize the difference between flying at 35,000 ft and flying at <1,000 ft there is a VERY serious difference with limitations upon max speed and also because of the factor of drag increasing by the cube of the velocity the aircraft would be subject to huge drag on even attempting the speed alleged for "FLT175" .....
How about Science 101 and also some common sense give me a break! do you intend to negate the fact that air resistance increases by the cube of the velocity? do you not see that the air is denser at low altitude than at 35,000 ft ? how do you intend to support the argument that an airliner can fly as fast at low altitude as at 35,000 ft?
so do you view it strictly as my opinion that the air at 35,000 ft is much less dense than at <1,000 ft? do you consider that its only my opinion that resistance in air increases by the cube of the velocity? What?
Prove that the planes could have reached the velocity they did just before crashing. Show your math. Not opinion or speculation, show the evidence.
