The whole event the airliner going completely inside the building ( allegedly )
was said to have taken between 210 milliseconds and 250 milliseconds
there would have been a minimum of 50 milliseconds between the first contact of the nose and the point where the wings had any chance of touching the wall, there would have been plenty of time for physical objects to react to the forces applied.
Wrong. The wings don’t immediately explode when the nose touches the side of the building. They continue moving, largely intact, until they make contact with the side of the building themselves. This is footage of a jet crashing into a reinforced concrete wall filmed with a high speed camera.. Note that the wings remain intact until they come into contact with the wall theselves. They don’t fly into pieces as soon as the nose touches the wall.
I’m thinking this thread title is inaccurate. It should be “Who cares to debate 9/11/2001 based on my poor understanding of the laws of physics, airplane engineering and structural engineering?”
so YOU personally have heard it all, seen it all and you are not impressed
so WHY are you on this forum at all, just to sit here and complain?
there are people who, at whatever level they are engaging in discussion
and some things are being brought to light, such as the fact that the tower wall
was not all glass, and for some people that is new information, so let the people who will engage, do so and if YOU are tired of all of this, by all means exit this thread.
You’ve mentioned you got the 60% steel idea from the blueprints. Link to the specific page. I’m not wading through a 123 Mb download.
In post 158, I linked to a photo of the Towers with the sun behind. You can clearly see how much glass covers the buildings’ exterior and how small the core is.
Please be specific, what part of what I have said is inaccurate or incomplete
don’t just wave it all off, tell me details as to what you believe is wrong with what I present.
Who made this claim that the tower wall was all glass? Why do you continue to “disprove” claims that are never made? You are not bringing “new information”, only strawmen.
The allegation is that the wall of the WTC towers presented “negligible” resistance to penetration because if the wall had presented significant resistance the airliner would have to slow down in the process of punching that hole and in slowing down the airliner would be stressed and that stress would cause the aircraft to break up and therefore not disappear inside the building but have tons of wreckage fall down the side of the tower to land in the street. however, in the case of the allegedly hijacked airliners used as weapons, the airliners were all made to disappear, that is a good trick FLT11, FLT175, FLT77 all punched holes in walls, and totally disappeared inside the building ( what are the odds? )
Note that to get a >150 ft long airliner into a building such as the WTC tower,
the airliner would have had to have been compressed into a 3.6 meter space
and the body of the airliner was 5 meters, so this would be a good trick if it could be done, the act of cramming the airliner into that space would require energy and the ONLY source of energy would be the KE of the airliner ( that would be FINITE ) and so the question is was there sufficient energy to cause the airliner to completely penetrate?
some estimates from some experts, will say no, and some will say yes,
now… what do YOU think?
I’d like to know which ‘experts’ say there was not sufficient Kinetic Energy,where they show their work, and what their credentials are. I’d also like them to explain where the plane went if it didn’t penetrate the building and why plane parts where found in multiple locations around the WTC.
The implication of your post implies that somehow there is an even split between experts who think there was enough Kinetic Energy and those that think otherwise. This is far from the truth. The vast, vast majority think there was enough KE and even a large number of ‘truthers’ don;t displute it. Any ‘expert’ who thinks that there was not enough KE is putting on some serious clownshoes.
