No visible deceleration? No loss of parts? It didn’t come out the other side still flying. It decelerated and broke up due to the resistance of the building.
There is a fallacy being presented here, and it is pretty much the same fallacy that drives Kennedy conspirators: Because something spectacularly horrendous happened, only something equally spectacular could possibly have caused it.
Since Jay_Jay doesn’t seem to have the ability or inclination to debate actual physics despite the thread title, I’ll provide what I believe to be the correct answer:
[spoiler]
10,000 ft/min is roughly 50 m/s.
Kinetic energy released by 100 ton (100,000 kg) mass falling by 50 m is 100,000 kg * 9.8 m/s/s * 50m = 49,000,000 J.
So when the airplane is descending at that speed, it is powered by 49 million Joules per second of gravitational potential energy. That’s 49 million watt, or 66,000 horsepower. Which is roughly equivalent to adding 3 engines to the 767. [/spoiler]
"Are you saying the thousands of witnesses are all lying? "
witness statements please (?)
and exactly what special magic stabilized the wings so as to remain with the wing cord perpendicular to the wall, because if it deviated, the wing would break without penetrating.
It’s called inertia.
A promise that you won’t label them as “fake”, please (?)
Once you define exactly what “negating the CONSTITUTION at the airport” means!
CMC fnord!
BTW I’m not going to participate in a high-jacking (hehe) of this thread so don’t hold your breath!
Smileys showing the stages of breath holding: :o :mad: :rolleyes: 
:eek:
The airliner spent aprox a quarter second entering the building, there
was plenty of time for the jet engines to break off and as independent bits
not powered by being attached to the airliner there wasn’t enough mass
for the engines alone to penetrate the wall, there could have been as much as an engine stuck in the wall, partial penetration but most certainly not enough KE to
penetrate and keep going so as to disappear inside.
the whole official story is predicated upon there allegedly having been “negligible” resistance offered up by the wall, however that is really not the case. and I have shown in several examples. The idea of moving the mass needed to be cleared out in order to make even the initial nose punch hole, would mean expending energy and lots of it, shifting >3 tons @ 540 mph is a non-trivial event.
Eyewitness accounts from inside the WTC towers on 9/11 posted online
11-September
9/11: Witness recalls 11 September attacks on New York
9/11: The 73 minutes that changed my life
ETA:
‘We saw the jumpers … choosing to die’
‘We got down to the outside and it was like an apocalypse’
You see footage of the plane hitting the building and you don’t see massive amounts of energy being expended?
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Travelers at an airport are considered guilty until proven innocent and the
“security” guards can and will take anything they feel is necessary to remove from ones carry-on luggage and there is NO recourse!
maybe you haven’t been ripped off at the airport ( but then again maybe you don’t travel all that much ) there are LOTS of people who have been robbed and also parents who are forced to stand by while TSA agents molest their kids.
its a sick sad world!
do you see EQUAL & OPPOSITE REACTION?
do you see the expenditure of energy in the form of the “aircraft” slowing down?
Really?
who said “I saw an airliner” …
who said " I saw an airliner penetrate the wall of the WTC tower" ?
if we do not have actual positive statements that clearly indicate the person who was a witness actually saw an airliner penetrate the wall of the WTC tower, then there isn’t anything. so its back to the video, and the video is clearly fraudulent.
No. It’s inside out of view.
The force applied by the aircraft was absorbed by the building. Because the mass is so much greater than the airplane, there’s no visible movement of the building.
I expected you to reject anything I found. You didn’t disappoint me.
You mean like your claims throughout this entire thread?
I am not understanding this cartoon physics. In the first place, the engines and wings are about midpoint on the airplane, which means barely over a tenth of a second for them to reach the building. In the second place, wings loaded with many thousands of pounds of fuel, and engines weighing several tons are the densest parts of the plane, so they will have the most stable momentum: the fuselage crumpling up would be a fairly minor effect relative to the inertia of the heavy, dense wings and engines. Thirdly, the high-bypass turbo jets are very finely balanced and have tremendous angular momentum, so they will continue to produce negligibly-diminishing thrust in the tenth of a second that it takes them to arrive at the wall.
Notice that the gash is an arc: the entry of the rudder is not evident because the rudder is very light compared to the wings and engines.
In short, your debunking of those incidents is based on flawed logic that has, in this thread as well as others, been thoroughly debunked.
please note that inertia isn’t the only thing acting here
there would have to be a lot of competing forces at work.
physical materials will respond to the forces applied, so
given that in the case of an alleged airliner penetrating a wall
and having the body of said airliner crushed into a 3.6 meter space,
there would be forces acting upon the whole aircraft, and these would be
asymmetrical, given the nature of what was at least allegedly going on.
say if the wing were to cut in a matter of maybe a foot or so, and the structure of
the wing fractures and creates a disconnected part, not being connected to the
whole mass, means that this disconnected part would not progress into the building
with the rest of the aircraft, in fact given that the aircraft would experience such
force as to fracture more than just the wing the whole aircraft would be subject to
loosing parts to fall away on the entry side of the hole.
it is unreasonable to assume that the airliner would remain totally whole for the
entire time of penetration, however that is an assumption that must go along with
acceptance of the official story.
so in YOUR interpretation, there is absolutely nothing even suspicious about the whole official story of the events of 9/11/2001? is that it?