The plane had a minimum of 50 milliseconds between the point the nose contacted the wall and the point where the wings could have touched the wall. and in that time it is alleged that the airliner displaced >3 tons of mass to create the nose punch out hole.
if there was energy sufficient to punch a hole in the wall, there was energy and time sufficient to break up the airliner and the argument that the pieces would have just kept going and done the damage as observed is missing something very important, and that is the pieces would have much less KE than the whole aircraft and therefore less possibility of doing the same damage as would be expected if the aircraft had remained whole.
Are you serious? Let’s say that the center of mass collapsed at 6m/s^2 just as an example. What does that matter? You repeat that as if that’s meaningful. You do realize that the whole building wasn’t in free fall, right? You do realize that as the top of the building fell it had to overcome the structural integrity of the building beneath it? You do realize that that would provide an upward force? This upward force would change the net force experienced by the falling portion.
No. Energy is conserved. Now a lot of energy is going into deformation. However, the kinetic energy of the parts when summed equals the kinetic energy of the plane.
Not abdicating, just in agreement with common sense conclusions. And all 19 were identified within 72 hours.
to get verbose with it,
I say the alleged airliner because there really could not have been a real airliner crashed into the side of the WTC tower, however in the event that a real airliner did crash into the tower, one could well expect things to progress in a predictable manner and I’ve outlined that in my post.
.
.
are people being deliberately obtuse here?
what?
A 767 weighs 197 tons. Why do you think 3 tons is a problem? Especially since it’s mostly glass. Kinda fragile, glass is.
I thought I kept hearing a high-pitched whine. 
misconception #99 …
the tower wall was 60% steel by area and the fact of any moving body traveling at 540 mph encountering a mass that is aprox 2% of its own mass is significant and would produce a significant deceleration jolt, not only that, but in addition to the inertia of said 3 tons of mass, there is the fact that the structure of the wall was backed up by decks spaced at 3.6 meters. so there would have to be continuous resistance as the aircraft penetrated.
I only see one person here being obtuse. Unfortunately, the forum rules prevent me from saying whether I think it’s deliberate.
and this was reported by the media on TV
do you really TRUST the talking heads on TV?
really?
Jay-Jay, I’m going to talk to you like the sane person I certainly hope you are. The answer to your last question is no. What I see “out of balance” are Truthers who are somehow convinced that in a country with hundreds of thousands of legitimate physicists, aeronautical engineers, architects, and snoopy reporters, a vast conspiracy was hatched and executed, and all of them have been taken in by the diabolical conspiracy you’ve imagined into being.
What I see out of balance are people like you who are readily convinced that American officials were more likely to have masterminded these horrific events than the terrorist group with a record of deadly attacks on American property. (You’re not claiming that the attack on the U.S.S. Cole or the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were U.S. government conspiracies, too, are you?)
What I see out of balance are people who, 16 years after the most nightmarish day in memory, insist on running around promoting half-baked pseudo-scientific theories that don’t hold water.
if you remember the reporting of the day
the comment was attached to the event of the alleged FLT175 penetrating the south tower wall. I didn’t make this up, it was part of the media commentary.
and given what is seen on the video of the alleged airliner crash, it fits
however it also proves beyond any doubt that the video is fraudulent.
Tower wall. What tower wall? If you mean the core, say “core”.
More like %.0394 of it’s weight. 2% would be 10,000 tons.
Where do you get the 60% steel figure? The top of the plane could be easily sheared off at the speed it’s going. Why do you keep insisting that the tower was some sort of monolithic mass?
Yes, for the most part. They make mistakes, but they try to report the news as accurately as possible. I do not believe they are tools of the government who are instructed to lie to the American public. You must inhabit a frightening world.
"half-baked pseudo-scientific theories " I’m really sorry that you see it that way.
the argument that there are so many experts that would speak up if there were something actually wrong here, assumes that any given expert would risk being called a “tin-foil-hat freak” for bringing up opposition to the official story.
what we are fighting here is clearly psychological warfare.
It must have taken the combined resources of Jerry Bruckheimer and ILM to create special effects that convincing.
What we are fighting here is ignorance, and not very successfully, it seems.
I got the 60% figure from the blue prints of the tower available on-line
also note that with a figure of 197 tons, the 2% works out to be closer to 4 tons not 3
how did you arrive at that .0394 number?
Note that at no time did I specify that the tower must have been a monolithic mass.
again you are focusing on speculation rather than dealing with the data at hand.
(raises hand)