about my writing style ( or possibly lack thereof … )
is there any comment on the content of my post?
The deceleration **was **significant and destructive - the airliner did not go all the way thru the WTC tower, and it destroyed the floors and was destroyed itself.
I would call being smashed to pieces a “significant jolt” - wouldn’t you?
Regards,
Shodan
This is the difficult part of the whole effort,
you see its possible to KNOW what didn’t happen
that is alleged airliner crash into the South wall of the south tower.
however people seem to get all hung-up on needing an explanation
of what did happen and to that all I can say is insufficient data.
however there is sufficient data to KNOW that the official story is a CROCK!
things take a finite amount of time
no such thing as “instantaneous” failure.
and as such, the inside bits could have held on at the same time the outer connections failed and therefore forming a ramp …
The complete and total destruction of the towers was the absolutely least likely scenario to be considered here.
We can’t figure out what you are saying and you want us to comment on it anyway.
Gotcha…
Nice unsubstantiated opinion you’ve got there.
When come back bring facts.
A quote from Billy Madison comes to mind.
Could you please explain what did happen? Not what didn’t happen, but what you think did happen.
That’s how science works. You judge a hypothesis based on how well it fits observed data. So far you haven’t provided any hypothesis to judge.
how convenient that all of the structural failures of the airliner waited until said airliner was inside the building… and for that matter, in 3 out of 3 airliner crashes that were into buildings, the plane totally entered the building and THEN after the plane was fully inside, the fire-ball of jet fuel ignited … and people see nothing at all even the slightest bit suspicious about the events … REALLY GUYZ?
Yes. And? This is an argument for you how?
When resistance to the energy being expected is effectively zilch by comparison it can be pretty instantanious.
No. There is no reason for this.
Firstly) I would remind you (AGAIN) the part of the core did remain standing for a brief while after the majority of the collapse happened, but also eventually failed.
Secondly) Do you have anything whatsoever to support this assertion besides your personal incredulity and constant bleating of ‘nuh-uh!’
Didn’t think so.
This thread is 15 pages long. There have been plenty of substantive responses to your claims. Have you taken any of them seriously and been at all swayed in your beliefs?
you are asking for speculation and I’m not about to go there.
the fact is that for a legal case of fraud, all we need is to prove what didn’t happen.
the media LIED about the events and the video that alleges to show FLT175 penetrating the south wall of the south tower is damning evidence.
Yes, it’s lacking. There is no content. Where are the physical calculations showing us a model of what would happen when a 767 collides with a building? What you’ve offered is not even close to a full model of the events.
That “something in the middle” is the part of the plane immediately behind the part that’s impacting the steel columns, not visible on that video because it’s adjacent to the impact point. The point of impact is going to be a tremendous deceleration, but the airframe just isn’t strong enough to transmit more than maybe 10 g’s of force to the parts farther back. So yes, it’s busting up, progressing from the nose to the tail. The parts more than a couple of feet from the impact point at any moment, however, will still be mostly intact although under stress.
in other words you don’t have a rebuttal to what I’ve written
and you choose to complain instead…
“GUYZ”?
Mind if I ask how old you are? I asked about your educational background before and didn’t get a response, by the way.
Of all the things that could be a sticking point, a plane-shaped hole as a result of a decelerating, disintegrating plane should not be high on the list.
Even if we imagined that the plane started to decelerate and disintegrate at the point the nose and leading edges hit the (relatively flimsy) skin of the building…then what?
You still have 100+ tons of plane-shaped debris travelling at 400+ miles an hour with the majority of the fuselage and trailing wing edges intact. What shape is it going to make other than that of a plane?
I think the problem you may be having is comprehending the energy and momentum present in any object going at that speed, let alone something the size of a jet aircraft. Heck, a fairly flimsy plank of wood weighing a few kg can punch clean through a brick wall when propelled by hurricane or tornado force winds, i.e. less than 300mph. Mythbusters had a few grams of piano wire going at only 300mph and it went straight through a palm trunk, plywood and embedded in a brick wall. A few grams remember.
If I had to fake the damage done to the twin towers do you know how I’d do it? I’d fly two fully-loaded airliners into them at full speed.
Don’t have a rebuttal for “Jabberwocky” either, and it is more internally consistent.
so your idea is that the destruction was confined to the area where the airliner met the building and the entire rest of the airliner would be subjected to a most 10 g deceleration force? is that it? … note that even under 10 g any given bit of luggage or for that matter equipment in the airliner would be exerting 10X its weight against whatever was supposed to be holding it.
In addition, I submit to this forum that the idea of limiting the g force in the aircraft to an arbitrary 10 g is not realistic, the whole event was said to have taken between 190 & 250 milliseconds and in that time the airliner ONLY experienced total catastrophic failure in the bit that was nearest the wall?
Most illogical …
so rather than calling it a global failure,
how about picking out a detail that you would like clarified(?)