and the official story is not supported by sufficient recovery and analysis of alleged airliner wreckage. Can anybody cite how much of any given airliner was recovered and what procedure was followed to verify the wreckage was from either FLT11, FLT175, FLT77 or FLT93?
I believe the total for all 4 planes could fit in the back of a pickup truck. The closest thing to a "procedure" was that Donald Rumsfeld and a couple of suits picked up a few pieces, probably as souvenirs, at least for the one at the Pentagon.
Have you investigated it for yourself? Try Boeing, try Pratt & Whitney, try the Airlines and the insurance companies. No one is obligated to do it for you.
and in the process, what becomes of the bullet? note that airliners have hollow nose ( can you relate to hollow point ammo? ) what should have happened if a real airliner had crashed into a real skyscraper, is very much different from the B movie special effects on the Evan Fairbanks video.
What should have happened is exactly what did happen. If you don't believe what happened, happened, then you have my sympathies. How can you dismiss the empirical evidence to hang onto such a moronic contention? It defies reason, but is explained by confirmation bias.
The "empirical evidence" includes a video that is more like B movie special effects than a documentary of an airliner crash. There is sufficient evidence that airliner wings are not strong enough to slice through a skyscraper as was alleged, plus the fact that upon contact with the skyscraper wall, the airliner would have experienced >100 g deceleration force. this would destroy the airliner and make it totally impossible for there to be that wing shaped gash in the tower(s).
Fallacious crap. You ignore all the witness testimony, and all the footage. Your incredulity is immaterial. Funny that, but when it is convenient for 9/11 truth, the witness testimony is beyond reproach, but when it contradicts their specious hypotheses, suddenly it's ignored. There's those famous double standards of evidence from 9/11 truth again. LOLOL
Do tell ..... and please explain your take on why the airliner should not have experienced >100 g deceleration upon contact with the wall?
Why? You don't answer questions for me. It's a two way street fellow and you've ignored every question put to you. You're ignoring the witness testimony and all the footage in order to push your false maths. To ignore the empirical evidence in order to push a specious theory is nuts.
Fine, thank U very much! The bottom line here is that I have explained in detail why the >100 g deceleration force is valid and would have destroyed the airliner before there was any chance at making the wing shaped gash. If you personally don't want to get it .... not my problem.
Oh, I get it only too well. You ignore the evidence to support your own belief system. It's not new and all truthers do it. You can ignore the empirical evidence to push your personal brand of pseudo-science. I'm not interested in discussing the subject with someone who ignores the evidence deliberately in order to push a false claim. The no-planes subject is like nukes, there is no point going there as it is too stupid. You can chrome plate this turd of yours, but it is still a turd. Do I need to list the empirical evidence you've repeatedly failed to address yet again?
I address the "empirical" evidence in that the video of the alleged "FLT175" striking the south tower is a fraud, the alleged performance of an airliner is totally out-of-line with reality! given that the mass of the stuff that would have to be displaced in order to make that initial entry hole in the wall, would be at least 2% of the mass of the airliner, and at 540 mph what are the consequences of striking and having to displace such a mass? hypothetical thought here, if you are traveling in your car at say 90mph and you suddenly encounter an animal that is just 2% of the mass of your car, would you feel a jolt from this, or not? and really the math is not that complicated, you can figure it out and apply numbers to the deceleration and the time involved. and so it is with a collision that would be happening at 6 times that speed and the consequences of said collision are easily calculated and very revealing as to what could be expected if an airliner were to strike a skyscraper.
A lie. The empirical evidence is much more than a video, and that is deliberately misrepresenting the reality. The rest is nonsense owing to this dishonesty.
There are keystone bits of evidence, and the video is one such bit, proving the video to be fraudulent, discredits all of the other alleged evidence, that is why the opposition must fight so hard to prevent public perception from detecting the fraud.
Solid lead projectiles deform upon impact, and Hollow points do so even more, note that the nose of an airliner is hollow, Question: how is it that the airliner was able to displace mass, without having to suffer the consequences of said action?
If you had a bullet made of ice it would leave no trace In this case, imo the plane was shredded on impact And the residual shreds suffered the same fate as the contents of the wtc At the end, as i recall, there was little more than indistinguishable rubble No identifiable remnants of file cabinets, desks, chairs, etc
and this is a problem, when ever in all the history of building disasters in recorded history, has there been such complete destruction? also the bit about the projectile made of ice is a bit of a tangent in that an airliner is made of aluminum and as such can be expected to perform in predictable ways, that is if said aircraft were subjected to >100 g there would be structural failure observed. no doubt about it. In the matter of the observed result of the alleged airliner hitting the south tower, it penetrates as if it had a lubricated condom, and this is supposed to reflect reality? This is why Physical Science 101 matters, its not just loading up the brats with stuff they will never use, its instilling a practical sense of what happens in physical events so that the BIG LIE can not be promoted. however in AMERICA right now, we have the BIG LIE in full flower right here & now, and we need to push back!
Well the resulting complete destruction seems beyond doubt So how ever that result came to be.... The absence of airliner residue is as unsurprising as the absence of office equipment There are numerous eye witnesses, as well as video of the event... So it seems indisputable that two planes did crash into the wtc
Since you don't understand physics, aircraft construction, and building construction, you should quit while you are behind.
"Since you don't understand physics, aircraft construction, and building construction, you should quit while you are behind." other than complaints, what do you have that is actually addresses the issue?
Your incredulity has been addressed. That appears to be the issue here. You ignore the physics because you don't understand it but rely on ridiculous comparisons (lubricated condom) that have no bearing. Tell me, did it pull out and repeat if necessary?
