“There were other effects seen - it blasted a hole into the building and caused the whole structure to collapse.”
That is what you actually believe?
this is really a bit of a stretch to say the least.
“When someone is in a head-on car crash, and isn’t wearing a seat belt, where do they hit first - the floor of the car, or the dashboard?”
and does the body penetrate said dashboard?
But you’re here to tell us, right? Bust the whole conspiracy wide open!
Now, who do we need to contact to join the resistance?
You keep repeating this like it means anything.
It is irrelevant to the impact of the planes on the towers.
Because the building skin wasn’t able to resist the force being applied to it. Why does a bullet not bounce off of you instead of penetrating inside? This is the same thing. Again, the plane weighed over 300k lbs and was going over 500 miles per hour. Something with that much mass and going that fast isn’t going to be resisted by the outside facade of a building unless the building was a solid block of reinforced concrete, which it wasn’t. On impact the plane isn’t going to just stop, it’s going to transfer its energy into the structure, breaking apart but continuing to move forward even as it disintegrates. Like I said earlier, it’s going to be a lot like the physics of a shaped charge rocket-propelled grenade. A small piece of copper can penetrate inches of armored steel even though copper is a lot softer than the hardened steel.
Why is it a stretch?
Only if the wall is invulnerable. You’ll notice that the mass that came from the airplane kept moving forwards. I think you are severely overestimating the resistance exerted by the wall when hit by hundreds of tons of mass traveling at 500 mph.
If there isn’t, I’m going to nominate that we name it ‘jay_jay’.
Bolding mine.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Oh man, that’s funny. Thanks for the laugh, except sadly I know you’re serious.
So we can basically call it quits then right? You’re saying that any evidence contrary to what you believe is automatically wrong by fiat.
Exactly. Now, which way does it move - forward, or straight down?
Regards,
Shodan
Proving once again that the psychological warfare is working ever so well.
if you really have no respect at all for the concepts presented here,
why are you posting?
Not going fast enough. There’s a huge difference between 50 mph and 540mph.
Also, a human body in a seated position is too spread out to focus force on any one spot.
ETA: they hit the dashboard. Which disproves your theory.
Ignore them, Jay_Jay. I think they’re all part of the cover-up.
Because that’s the bit where the aircraft met the wall.
Because 100 ton * 540 mph is a huge amount of momentum. Try calculating how much force it takes to decelerate all that.
What sciences DID you major in?
That’s enough to discredit the video. Also, the clown on the video is an idiot.
The steel didn’t melt, it softened. How strong do you think putty is?
Because conspiracy theores are a cancer spread by deluded and self-rightous fanatics. They not only spread gross misunderstandings of how the physical world works but they also openly discourage realistic social and political activism by providing a shapeless bogeyman that the conspiracy theories can waste their time ‘fighting’ and patting themselves on the back for being part of a ‘revolution’ that does nothing and goes nowhere.
I already did several pages ago. He is assuming no other flammables. Which is ludicrous.
the ping pong ball experiment is not a valid excuse for saying that a suitcase would penetrate a wall made of steel box columns.
Also on the subject of that often brought up phantom jet experiment,
please note that upon contact with the obstacle, the nose of the jet as much as exploded, as if there had been a bomb therein. HOWEVER, in the case of the alleged “FLT175” the transition was really very smooth and without any scattering of bits,
ONLY after the time-delayed hollyweird special effects style fire ball, ( that BTW: was a feature of 3 of the famous crashes ) was there bits scattered.
The first 2 seconds are a strawman. I don’t have to watch more than that. No one is saying that ‘the jet fuel melted the steel’. That’s a strawman argument that whoever this was who did the video then used to attack the strawman, ignoring the actual assertion, which is that steel softens at higher temperatures, and at the temperatures estimated by thermal views of the building it would have lost up to 50% of its structural integrity, maybe more since a lot of the fire retardants on the main building frames would have been missing or blown off by the crash. Couple that with the frames lost directly to the plane (which you don’t seem to get) and it’s not that much of a mystery as to why it fell.
Oh, also, buildings have lots of stuff in them that burn. That’s why we have building fires. Why is this important? Because jet fuel wasn’t the only accelerant for the fire. Another strawman from your video.