Holes shaped like planes?

Because it's very possible that it was some kind of 3D animation effect, some secret technology that can produce molecular sculptures of some sort or whatever.
Keep in mind that your lecturers who taught you stuff at university as scientists are decades behind the ones that work for the US army secret projects... that's why their work is teaching you and not the US govt.

 

Of course not, the fuel will not ignite in liquid form but only once it is atomized which would not happen outside of the building. You also don't know much about aircraft or the fuel they use.

 

Only in fantasy movies.

 

Why do you point to the strength of a single steel column just after you said that the very same columns could have bounced off the plane and stayed intact had the surface been 30,000 in area and not 26,000? Caught you. You state that surface area (all columns on that side) and individual columns count at the same time. Your next post proves that:

But the surface was uneven, yet you still state that around 30,000 square meters would have counted towards the building's surface resilience. You calculated as if the building had no windows? It's twisted and hard to get. And you select subjectively what to calculate and what not. Making a correct calculation for something in particular doesn't mean you haven't left a lot of important stuff out. WTC was a complex network of metal structures and joints and parts combined with many materials that presented many possible effects. Same can be said about the plane. Yet you look at it as if it was just a huge steel plate.

But a fist can't go through a wall.

 

Countless drunks will disagree with you.

 

​

Do you have a good education system in America?
Yes.

Do you have a good military in America?
...................................................... .

 

LOL, look how well those geniuses did with a website.

 

'Some secret tecnology'..<Guffaw>....might as well have been processed unicorn crap,as well...

And your concept of the Army's knowledge being decades ahead of the civilian sector is quite a load in of itself

 

Why would they have?

 

first its called depth of field not depth of focus and second you are not doing microfilm or macro. after 50 feet there is no more focus, everything was greater than 50 ft away, so why would you even attempt to sell us this incorrect information?

Lefty most tourists leave their lenses on the camera

 

You just can't stop digging the hole,can you?

 

I think most people can grasp that planes do not fly through buildings any more than cars do.

- - - Updated - - -

digging a hole is when you are wrong, a mountain of evidence is when you are correct, and he is correct

 

again that is not true and I have shown proved and shoved it up everyone behinds countless times.

go to the no planer thread and bail fang and logical out. they need your help!



quite a bit of what detail LMAO

 

says who?



looks like it ignites to me







of course it doesnt in cartoons

 

Your comment is a strawman. The plane, did not in fact, fly thru the building. It crashed into the building and then began to break apart as it went thru the building....This perfectly inline with the debris we see exiting the far side of the building.

Which is exactly what you are doing. Glad you recognized that fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Really?...how about you start with the compressed image from the TV...not a 24bit photo...you're just the king of apples to oranges comparisons, aren't you.

 

Good lord, molotov cocktails use gasoline, not diesel fuel. No one threw a plane against a wall at less than 10 mph. Can you get any more absurd?

 

yeah....not even close to being the same thing as what happened on 9/11.

 

yes the fuel is only traveling about 10 miles per hour and does not atomize very well when simply thrown against a wall at such a slow speed. the alleged plane was traveling 586 mph which would have instantly misted all fuel.

a molotov cocktail at the speed of a bullet!

 

At approximately the speed of a 45ACP bullet, the fuel traveling as a mass will have to travel quite a way before it will atomize enough and that is why you see it burning first outside of the building once mixed with greater quantities of oxygen.

 

24bit photos are not video what you said makes no sense.

well thanks for recognizing I too am correct.

but we have 3d video that proves it did go through. LOL

see the nose come through ( I know you like to call the nose debris )

 

how far do you think it has to go when hitting a solid object?

 

Until it is atomized enough and with enough oxygen to use which is why you see it coming out the other side, THEN igniting.

 

At a certian velocity liquids can act as solids,hydroblasting is an example of that...

 

how far is atomized enough?

 

Look, I am not responsible for your ignorance of how these things work. Even atomized, it has to have enough oxygen to ignite and that is why you see it igniting first after it comes out of the other side of the building. The planes dumped tons of fuel in a few floors at the speed of a 45.