WTC1/WTC2 perimeter columns vs. plane impact, math discussion...

So you believe there were not steel box columns supporting the
outer wall? is that it? Please show a reference to a document
stating that the floors were cantilevered off of the central core.

 

Lets see......



What else would have caused this specific damage? column sliced and bent inward, sharp angle of damage?

It's simple, a jetliner...just like we on the ground saw...just like the ones in the video and photos. No need for any nutter hypothesis.

 

You can even see the dihedral of the wings...

 

Exactly, how do "explosives" cause that? how do "explosives" get the columns to bend inward?...

 

what you are speculating about is the gash in the side of the building and
with the assumption that explosives can not produce the result observed
you say that then it must have been an airliner causing the gash,
however, why is it that the only video record of the event shows an
impossible penetration of the WTC wall?
and in fact, where are the aircraft bits that would indicate that an airliner
had crashed there, where is the inventory of bits?

 

The penetration was very possible.

 

And why would they do and 'inventory' on scrap metal?,they knew what plane it was

 

only because you said so?

The physics disagrees in that an aircraft striking a wall would undergo
at least 15g deceleration and no airliner yet built can withstand that
magnitude of forces, the aircraft would have broken up before it had a
chance to disappear inside the building.

 

No, the math says so.

You make a claim again without math to back it up.

 

Gee,You think bob understands the airliner DIDN'T withstand those forces

 

The speed reduction possible to be indistinguishable on 30 fps video
is 125 mph, at 125 mph reduction in speed over the length of the airliner
that is 28 g of force on the airframe, therefore, given the angle that the
aircraft was alleged to have penetrated, the vector forces would have
broken up the aircraft before it had a chance to enter the building.

 

But the mass keeps moving forward. Newton. Law one.

 

keeps moving forward until something stops it, and there in lies the problem,
The wall gives resistance to forward motion and also given the angle of the
alleged strike, why should the aircraft keep its shape, rather than breaking up?

 

You're fighting a losing battle here Bob (you must have realized that by now). There is but one goal, which is to promote the 'official' boloney (regardless of the facts) and dilute, ridicule, or otherwise attempt to discredit anyone who doesn't play along (That ignore feature comes in handy).

 

No, the "one goal" is to hold the twoofer's feet to the fire to back your absurd claims. Something you are unable to do.

 

The ridicule there must have been by accident. I stand corrected.

 

Because of the force in which it hit.
No one is saying the aircraft didn't break up.

Stndown wants you to give up. Wonder why that is?

 

It did break up in a rather spectacular fashion or did you miss that.

 

What was the elapsed time from the moment the left wing hit the building to the moment the right wing hit the building?

 

There is a definitions problem here, the fact is that people insist on
defining things on their terms, I had an email dialog with another user
here and was given this

Thank you ever so much......

 

May I point out the Margot2
made an assertion that there were no perimeter columns,
and failed to back it up. There were perimeter columns and
the columns would have offered up significant resistance to
penetration.

- - - Updated - - -

the ones that have been clearly documented in all of the material describing
WTC tower construction.

 

Yep, no way the plane survived that crash.

 

Forgive me for borrowing a bit of text from another poster:

 

That's about the size of it Bob, no doubt.

 

Yes, of course. Only the government is telling the whole truth here.