Where is it DOCUMENTED that "thousands" of people actually saw "FLT175" and properly identified it as an airliner?
There is a published max speed at <1000 ft for Boeing 757/767 type airliners that specifies 360 knots or aprox 415 mph, so flying at 590 mph is way more than 100 mph over max speed, how do you account for that?
Post the link to this data that shows a Boeing 757/767 cannot physically attain speeds over 360 knots.
I have posted the specs before. I cannot be responsible for you not reading them or not being able to understanding what you read.
So let me get this straight. You think that the "perps" who planned this missed this detail for some reason? That they faked videos showing a plane traveling faster than physically possible? How did they miss the important point genericBob?
The perpetrators did a LOT of really stupid stuff like doing a really obvious CD job on WTC 1,2 & 7 the whole fiasco is dependent on AMERICA not thinking because as soon as you start examining the bits, you see all sorts of crap that is just plane WRONG with the official story.
Yet you have provided no tone shred of evidence proving what you believe. You keep saying that the planes could not have penetrated the perimeter walls. If that's the truth, then why haven't any your professional engineers show it with their own calculations and models? It should be easy to do right? Almost 13 years and nobody has been able to show it wasn't possible? Are they all incompetent? Or do they KNOW it's possible and don't want to say anything because they want to continue to collect their "donations" from truthers for their vacatio... errr... truth presentations?
You have yet to show anything wrong with the official story. You can't even grasp some of the simpler stuff.
First you complain that I've mixed up Knots & MPH and then when I called you on it ( and you had no real explanation ) you had to tell me that I've been told before, and you refuse to repeat yourself. OK, I get it, the goal here is to label me as yet another "crazy Truther" and have done with it...... oh well ..... I encourage the random lurker to do their own search and see what the INFORMATION really is, max speed at near sea level 360 knots, or? go fourth and seek INFORMATION.
OK, what standard, what bit of data sets the condition of the WTC as in how much energy it would take to breach the wall? not only that, but NOBODY has given any sort of REAL REBUTTAL to my HOLLOW POINT argument. the fact is, the aircraft has a perfect hollow point configuration. the cockpit & the compartment behind the cockpit consists mostly of open space and so upon striking anything that presents resistance, the fuselage would grossly deform just as would a hollow point projectile. Why would it not?
Translation: "I don't understand it so, I don't belive it." Your "hollow point" claim is completely bogus...just as the pumpkin through the boat video demonstrates.
LOL, You called me on it? You still didn't look at the specifications I posted or if you did, you still don't understand what you are looking at. I gave you the numbers and everything else and now you are off on a nonsense rant again. Methinks there is no hope for you. - - - Updated - - - Yeah, I would like to hear that one expanded upon. I need a good laugh.
So where is that documentation? did "thousands" of people issue statements or talk to reporters, or? How many people have gone on record stating that they did indeed see "FLT175" on its way to crashing into the south tower?
The original link was NOT pumpkin through a boat, but a pumpkin shot through a car door, and as such, it proved NOTHING because the whole 150 ft long airliner would be nothing like a pumpkin shot through a car door, we are talking about a structure that is long and that because the KE of the entire aircraft is considered in the crash dynamic, the entire aircraft must be considered in the consequences of the crash, the fact is that the alleged aircraft would sustain at least a 28 g loading upon striking the wall, even with minimal resistance, and that 28 g is plenty of stress to cause the aircraft to break-up before it could penetrate. The alleged "FLT175" was said to have hit the wall 11 deg off perpendicular, and so the stress would be asymmetrical, so why did the alleged "FLT11" & "FLT175" actually penetrate the wall(s)?
Oh, brother!...they physic are the same...are you really that daft? Stop cutting and pasting a claim that you don't understand.
I rebutted your hollow point theory long ago when it first cropped up. Perhaps you forgot? You are correct in the theory the plane is similar to a hollow point bullet. It is not one contiguous solid mass. You seem to forget that when you speak of the wingtips not being heavy enough to penetrate the building yet they are constructed just like the rest of the craft. Only through detailed math could one conclude one hollow structure is capable of penetrating and the other not. You scoffed at any math required long ago remember? Once you decided nothing but theory rooted in your own thought processes was enough to solve any riddle the end result was already a given and could not be argued logically. It's the sole reason you question the events because in the logic of your mind you cannot compute. Others know different. Yet you refuse the logic of others. The fuselage did grossly deform. No one on the planet has ever claimed otherwise to my knowledge. If they did they would be in Kindergarten and not readily published.
several including reporters on the scene who are trained to report events as they unfold live and get it right. .
