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

Tell you what n0spam. Let's play your game. Let's say for the sake of argument, that there was no plane and that it was explosives that were used to create those holes.

1. What caused some of the perimeter columns to bend INWARD?
2. If it was explosives, then explain why we do not see explosions in any videos until the wings are shown to impact the perimeter columns?
3. Why were there witness reports of a "kerosene" smell throughout the lower levels of the towers?
4. Why did William Rodriguez report the a man walked out of the elevator with skin hanging off his body and BURNS? Explosives do not cause these kinds of injuries, but being dowsed in jetfuel and then being ignited does.

Let's see what you've got.

 

First of all, the video of the crash of "FLT175" is FAKE
and people refuse to see that fact because of incredulity & denial.

Note that in the case of every other airline disaster, the NTSB, FAA, (etc...)
have worked together to gather up and inventory all of the aircraft bits found.
what was done in the case of the 4 "airliner" crashes on 9/11/2001?

Why should it be considered as much as guaranteed
that is the total collapse of the WTC towers after being hit with "airliners"?
Some other out-come other than total destruction of the tower?
as an odds maker, I would bet on any other out-come before I would
put money on total destruction.

 

WRONG!

People refuse to see that "fact" because you and every other truther has not produced one iota of evidence that there was an alternative theory nor have you provided any evidence that disproves a plane impact.

1. You have been shown calculations that show there was plenty of KE to shear the perimeter columns
2. People smelled "kerosene" (jet fuel) on floors below the impact points
3. William Rodriguez witnessed a man come out of an elevator on the lower level with injuries that coincide with being burned by an ignited chemical
4. There is no video of explosions UNTIL the wings impact the perimeter columns which coincides with an actual plane hitting
5. The damage pattern in the perimeter columns matches a plane impact, even down to the point were the damage to the perimeter columns LESSENS the further out from the fuselage you go, from where the wings attach to the fuselage to the wingtips.
6. The building was said to have "swayed" upon impact

You have NOTHING provided nothing from an explosives point of view that would explain anything. Not even close.

 

not the no planes bull(*)(*)(*)(*) again...
where did all the alleged passengers go?
or were they holograms too?

 

No. We're supposed to believe that VERTICAL steel core columns that the columns didn't interfere with the collapses while simultaneously believing that those steel columns couldn't have interfered with the aluminum planes many would have us believe that they sliced through, like butter (or so the story goes).

 

No, I fail to believe the explanations.

 

This made no sense. What do the core columns have to do with the perimeter columns?

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly! Because you don't understand them!

 

You're confusing the issue. Keep it simple. My statement stands on its own, and I refuse to 'understand' that two plus two equals seven.

 

odd... but those are the fact's the planes did just that with no help from space beams thermite or pre sawed columns....and no credible source say they went through the columns like butter.
that's the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you guys pile high and deep...
your lack of even the basics of engineering education slip is showing....

- - - Updated - - -

ever heard of octomom?

 

Yes, aluminum slices right through steel like butter as a matter of routine. That's why they use steel in support structures, and aluminum in planes instead of steel.
Octomom? Would that be some form of ridicule?

 

almost any material can penetrate and sheer /break any other material if enough force is applied..

 

Anything? Even puffed rice? Blanket statements like that have many pitfalls.

 

the turbine shafts in the engines as well as the landing gear were traveling at enough velocity to do the damage

 

even puffed rice...One time years ago I was a sandblaster for a while,company got some crushed coal and had us use it..

 

The feature of this that makes it so impossible,
is the idea that two aircraft could make identical
gashes in the sides of skyscrapers & have no
visible remnant of the aircraft showing in the holes.
+ the idea that the crash & fire events were a sure thing
to completely destroy both towers. ODDS anyone,
roll snake-eyes 1000 times in a row?

 

two identically shaped planes making holes that looked similar?..unheard of!

And given the speed no remnants would be showing
The remnants on the marriot roof aren't enough for you?

 

The scrap metal on the Marriott roof is bogus!
May I point out that in the case of 4 airliner crashes
or more rightly 4 alleged airliner crashes, there has been
NO inventory of bits. WHY?

 

You can't prove it's 'bogus' therefore it's genuine,ans till 4 airliners crashed 0n 9/11 none were 'alleged',that's just a fantasy of yours


And exactly WHAT 'inventory' would you like done?

 

Considering the fact that in the case of any other airline disaster,
there would be an inventory of aircraft bits to analyze what failure modes
may have happened ( & at this point the debunker faction chimes in with
" we KNOW what happened, why bother with standard procedure?" )
However, wouldn't it be useful data to the aircraft industry in general to analyze
the crashes of aircraft that had been used as weapons?

The fact that there had been no inventory of aircraft bits speaks volumes!

"You can't prove it's 'bogus' therefore it's genuine" That is for YOU its a default condition
that the TV "news" is right unless there is somekinda really HUGE bit of information that
can overturn what was presented?

 

They knew what happened to them

And until you can prove the plane parts are bogus,they remain real.

 

you are also supposed to ignore the fact there was no backsplash despite the fact even the prestigious sandia labs did a write up saying there would be LOL



even hollywood gets it right!

0




splash back!

everybody gets it but debunkers! LOL

 

Try that same experiment with a 10 ft x 10 ft sheet of aluminum foil instead of a person's head. Where's the splash back and why didn't we get one?

 

Seems we got some,I see, by looking at the 2nd plane strike..

 

So you think strength of materials is what matters in an impact right?

So explain how a bird (flesh and bone) penetrates the aluminum of an aircraft? Are you saying that flesh and bone are stronger that aircraft aluminum? Maybe that should construct planes out of bones and meat.

 

There is a rather complex dynamic at work here and the fact that
two separate aircraft crashes produced the same gash, including
a cut out for the wings and the entire aircraft disappears inside the
skyscraper. what sort of woo is at work here?
its a fact that in the case of the alleged "FLT11" the "aircraft"
struck the wall much more nearly perpendicular to the wall than
did the alleged "FLT175" also the North tower was hit higher up
and so the steel in the wall structure would have been thinner higher up the tower.
so with the alleged "FLT175" the port side wing struck the wall before the starboard side wing.
therefore why did the aircraft stay whole while penetrating the wall?