Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Right, a 767 loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel, traveling nearly 500 mph, and that's a specious argument. LOL!
Right, a 767 loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel, traveling nearly 500 mph, and that's a specious argument. LOL!
This is what is called an argument from incredulity and illustrates the authors lack of understanding of material that clearly is covered in middle school science class.
Serious question for you, do you, or do you NOT understand what hollow point ammo is?
and my reference to the fact that the nose of an airliner is hollow...... (?)
And a potato is sturdier than paper, yet ...Was my question too simple for you?
Answer it.
Realizing, of course, that the WTC skin had lots of windows.
And again, the airliners were moving at something like 500 mph.
#1 specious argument, "OH BUT THE PLANE WAS GOING SOOOO FAST!"
This is a matter of the strength of materials, speed alone does not impart any special qualities to anything. PERIOD!
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-2-3.jpg
Note the steel box column construction, the force required to break these columns would exceed the strength of the aluminum aircraft by orders of magnitude.
also, have you ever been up in a skyscraper? and noticed the windows, these windows would NOT be easy to break, they are quite thick and heavy because they have to withstand bird strikes and high winds and the ordinary plate glass like you see in your home windows would not do the job.
You have not even touched upon the HOLLOW POINT issue because its a big obvious glaring fault in this whole business, the airliners nose would have mushroomed out in response to striking the wall and would have spread out the surface area of the airliners attempt to penetrate the wall, in addition to breaking the monocoque structure of the aircraft and also as the aircraft struck the wall, it would decelerate and at such a rate as to cause total global structural failure of the airframe. in short, it would smash itself to bits against the wall causing minimal damage to the skyscraper and depositing most of the aircraft wreckage outside the building.
If the videos were faked, there would also be videos of the building exploding with no plane in sight when looking at the south side of the tower.Right, a 767 loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel, traveling nearly 500 mph, and that's a specious argument. LOL!
This is what is called an argument from incredulity and illustrates the authors lack of understanding of material that clearly is covered in middle school science class.
Serious question for you, do you, or do you NOT understand what hollow point ammo is?
and my reference to the fact that the nose of an airliner is hollow...... (?)
The videos of both airliners entering the WTC were fake, because planes are hollow?
Was my question too simple for you?
Answer it.
Realizing, of course, that the WTC skin had lots of windows.
And again, the airliners were moving at something like 500 mph.
#1 specious argument, "OH BUT THE PLANE WAS GOING SOOOO FAST!"
This is a matter of the strength of materials, speed alone does not impart any special qualities to anything. PERIOD!
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-2-3.jpg
Note the steel box column construction, the force required to break these columns would exceed the strength of the aluminum aircraft by orders of magnitude.
also, have you ever been up in a skyscraper? and noticed the windows, these windows would NOT be easy to break, they are quite thick and heavy because they have to withstand bird strikes and high winds and the ordinary plate glass like you see in your home windows would not do the job.
You have not even touched upon the HOLLOW POINT issue because its a big obvious glaring fault in this whole business, the airliners nose would have mushroomed out in response to striking the wall and would have spread out the surface area of the airliners attempt to penetrate the wall, in addition to breaking the monocoque structure of the aircraft and also as the aircraft struck the wall, it would decelerate and at such a rate as to cause total global structural failure of the airframe. in short, it would smash itself to bits against the wall causing minimal damage to the skyscraper and depositing most of the aircraft wreckage outside the building.
Note that in the card sticking in a potato demo, the card penetrates a finite distance and stops. Lets take the case of the airliner striking the WTC wall, shall we, the airliner body is something a bit over 4 meters in dia. and the decks of the WTC were spaced at 3 meters so there is no-way that the airliner could strike the wall and miss a deck, the 4" thick concrete & steel deck would obviously be met by the airliner edge on, and constitute a knife edge against the nose of the aircraft, splitting the aircraft horizontally. This operation would take energy and using up energy = slowing down the aircraft. Where is the observable slowing down if the aircraft? not only that, but then the wings would have to encounter a dozen box columns each and penetrate the wall with the wings using up still more energy, so then for both "FLT11" and "FLT175" the airliner was alleged to have had so much KE as to make the tail of the aircraft enter the building and disappear inside but without having so much KE as to cause a gaping "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower...... Damn Good Trick, that.......
that card was not travelling at 500 MPGNote that in the card sticking in a potato demo, the card penetrates a finite distance and stops. Lets take the case of the airliner striking the WTC wall, shall we, the airliner body is something a bit over 4 meters in dia. and the decks of the WTC were spaced at 3 meters so there is no-way that the airliner could strike the wall and miss a deck, the 4" thick concrete & steel deck would obviously be met by the airliner edge on, and constitute a knife edge against the nose of the aircraft, splitting the aircraft horizontally. This operation would take energy and using up energy = slowing down the aircraft. Where is the observable slowing down if the aircraft? not only that, but then the wings would have to encounter a dozen box columns each and penetrate the wall with the wings using up still more energy, so then for both "FLT11" and "FLT175" the airliner was alleged to have had so much KE as to make the tail of the aircraft enter the building and disappear inside but without having so much KE as to cause a gaping "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower...... Damn Good Trick, that.......
Well, you could say just what, exactly, you think should happen when an airliner flies into a skyscraper.....
That would be the subject of some speculation, but to go off on that tangent, I can see the nose of the aircraft splat against the side of the building with the massive deceleration that would happen the entire aircraft would suffer massive deformation probably breaking of both wings in the process and most of the aircraft landing in the street below.
Try this experiment; A) Try to jam a soda straw through a potato; B) try to jam a soda straw through a potato with your thumb covering the end so the air cannot escape.
The air is incompressible and turns the properties of the soda straw from a floppy piece of plastic into a rigid body. I would not recommend up-scaling this experiment to 500 mph. Someone might get hurt.
bullshit.....this has been explained to you before...Well, you could say just what, exactly, you think should happen when an airliner flies into a skyscraper.....
That would be the subject of some speculation, but to go off on that tangent, I can see the nose of the aircraft splat against the side of the building with the massive deceleration that would happen the entire aircraft would suffer massive deformation probably breaking of both wings in the process and most of the aircraft landing in the street below.
911 researchWas my question too simple for you?
Answer it.
Realizing, of course, that the WTC skin had lots of windows.
And again, the airliners were moving at something like 500 mph.
#1 specious argument, "OH BUT THE PLANE WAS GOING SOOOO FAST!"
This is a matter of the strength of materials, speed alone does not impart any special qualities to anything. PERIOD!
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-2-3.jpg
Note the steel box column construction, the force required to break these columns would exceed the strength of the aluminum aircraft by orders of magnitude.
also, have you ever been up in a skyscraper? and noticed the windows, these windows would NOT be easy to break, they are quite thick and heavy because they have to withstand bird strikes and high winds and the ordinary plate glass like you see in your home windows would not do the job.
You have not even touched upon the HOLLOW POINT issue because its a big obvious glaring fault in this whole business, the airliners nose would have mushroomed out in response to striking the wall and would have spread out the surface area of the airliners attempt to penetrate the wall, in addition to breaking the monocoque structure of the aircraft and also as the aircraft struck the wall, it would decelerate and at such a rate as to cause total global structural failure of the airframe. in short, it would smash itself to bits against the wall causing minimal damage to the skyscraper and depositing most of the aircraft wreckage outside the building.
the previous is denial at it's finest ....Note that in the card sticking in a potato demo, the card penetrates a finite distance and stops. Lets take the case of the airliner striking the WTC wall, shall we, the airliner body is something a bit over 4 meters in dia. and the decks of the WTC were spaced at 3 meters so there is no-way that the airliner could strike the wall and miss a deck, the 4" thick concrete & steel deck would obviously be met by the airliner edge on, and constitute a knife edge against the nose of the aircraft, splitting the aircraft horizontally. This operation would take energy and using up energy = slowing down the aircraft. Where is the observable slowing down if the aircraft? not only that, but then the wings would have to encounter a dozen box columns each and penetrate the wall with the wings using up still more energy, so then for both "FLT11" and "FLT175" the airliner was alleged to have had so much KE as to make the tail of the aircraft enter the building and disappear inside but without having so much KE as to cause a gaping "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower...... Damn Good Trick, that.......
the previous is denial at it's finest ....Note that in the card sticking in a potato demo, the card penetrates a finite distance and stops. Lets take the case of the airliner striking the WTC wall, shall we, the airliner body is something a bit over 4 meters in dia. and the decks of the WTC were spaced at 3 meters so there is no-way that the airliner could strike the wall and miss a deck, the 4" thick concrete & steel deck would obviously be met by the airliner edge on, and constitute a knife edge against the nose of the aircraft, splitting the aircraft horizontally. This operation would take energy and using up energy = slowing down the aircraft. Where is the observable slowing down if the aircraft? not only that, but then the wings would have to encounter a dozen box columns each and penetrate the wall with the wings using up still more energy, so then for both "FLT11" and "FLT175" the airliner was alleged to have had so much KE as to make the tail of the aircraft enter the building and disappear inside but without having so much KE as to cause a gaping "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower...... Damn Good Trick, that.......
Laws of vision -- we all saw it happen.the previous is denial at it's finest ....Note that in the card sticking in a potato demo, the card penetrates a finite distance and stops. Lets take the case of the airliner striking the WTC wall, shall we, the airliner body is something a bit over 4 meters in dia. and the decks of the WTC were spaced at 3 meters so there is no-way that the airliner could strike the wall and miss a deck, the 4" thick concrete & steel deck would obviously be met by the airliner edge on, and constitute a knife edge against the nose of the aircraft, splitting the aircraft horizontally. This operation would take energy and using up energy = slowing down the aircraft. Where is the observable slowing down if the aircraft? not only that, but then the wings would have to encounter a dozen box columns each and penetrate the wall with the wings using up still more energy, so then for both "FLT11" and "FLT175" the airliner was alleged to have had so much KE as to make the tail of the aircraft enter the building and disappear inside but without having so much KE as to cause a gaping "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower...... Damn Good Trick, that.......
and do you have an actual rebuttal rather than simply to name it as wrong?
Logic, Reason, Laws of Physics ..... what?
Laws of vision -- we all saw it happen.the previous is denial at it's finest ....Note that in the card sticking in a potato demo, the card penetrates a finite distance and stops. Lets take the case of the airliner striking the WTC wall, shall we, the airliner body is something a bit over 4 meters in dia. and the decks of the WTC were spaced at 3 meters so there is no-way that the airliner could strike the wall and miss a deck, the 4" thick concrete & steel deck would obviously be met by the airliner edge on, and constitute a knife edge against the nose of the aircraft, splitting the aircraft horizontally. This operation would take energy and using up energy = slowing down the aircraft. Where is the observable slowing down if the aircraft? not only that, but then the wings would have to encounter a dozen box columns each and penetrate the wall with the wings using up still more energy, so then for both "FLT11" and "FLT175" the airliner was alleged to have had so much KE as to make the tail of the aircraft enter the building and disappear inside but without having so much KE as to cause a gaping "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower...... Damn Good Trick, that.......
and do you have an actual rebuttal rather than simply to name it as wrong?
Logic, Reason, Laws of Physics ..... what?
[/thread]
We're not talking parlor magic tricks here. We're talking about a plane flying into a building, the building exploding, and then collapsing. You let me know when David Copperfield figures that one out.Laws of vision -- we all saw it happen.the previous is denial at it's finest ....Note that in the card sticking in a potato demo, the card penetrates a finite distance and stops. Lets take the case of the airliner striking the WTC wall, shall we, the airliner body is something a bit over 4 meters in dia. and the decks of the WTC were spaced at 3 meters so there is no-way that the airliner could strike the wall and miss a deck, the 4" thick concrete & steel deck would obviously be met by the airliner edge on, and constitute a knife edge against the nose of the aircraft, splitting the aircraft horizontally. This operation would take energy and using up energy = slowing down the aircraft. Where is the observable slowing down if the aircraft? not only that, but then the wings would have to encounter a dozen box columns each and penetrate the wall with the wings using up still more energy, so then for both "FLT11" and "FLT175" the airliner was alleged to have had so much KE as to make the tail of the aircraft enter the building and disappear inside but without having so much KE as to cause a gaping "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower...... Damn Good Trick, that.......
and do you have an actual rebuttal rather than simply to name it as wrong?
Logic, Reason, Laws of Physics ..... what?
[/thread]
So if you saw some dood on TV pull a rabbit out of a hat, you would simply admire the magic, no?
We're not talking parlor magic tricks here. We're talking about a plane flying into a building, the building exploding, and then collapsing. You let me know when David Copperfield figures that one out.Laws of vision -- we all saw it happen.the previous is denial at it's finest ....Note that in the card sticking in a potato demo, the card penetrates a finite distance and stops. Lets take the case of the airliner striking the WTC wall, shall we, the airliner body is something a bit over 4 meters in dia. and the decks of the WTC were spaced at 3 meters so there is no-way that the airliner could strike the wall and miss a deck, the 4" thick concrete & steel deck would obviously be met by the airliner edge on, and constitute a knife edge against the nose of the aircraft, splitting the aircraft horizontally. This operation would take energy and using up energy = slowing down the aircraft. Where is the observable slowing down if the aircraft? not only that, but then the wings would have to encounter a dozen box columns each and penetrate the wall with the wings using up still more energy, so then for both "FLT11" and "FLT175" the airliner was alleged to have had so much KE as to make the tail of the aircraft enter the building and disappear inside but without having so much KE as to cause a gaping "exit wound" in the opposite wall of the tower...... Damn Good Trick, that.......
and do you have an actual rebuttal rather than simply to name it as wrong?
Logic, Reason, Laws of Physics ..... what?
[/thread]
So if you saw some dood on TV pull a rabbit out of a hat, you would simply admire the magic, no?
How'd they do that with a million eye witnesses?We're not talking parlor magic tricks here. We're talking about a plane flying into a building, the building exploding, and then collapsing. You let me know when David Copperfield figures that one out.Laws of vision -- we all saw it happen.the previous is denial at it's finest ....
and do you have an actual rebuttal rather than simply to name it as wrong?
Logic, Reason, Laws of Physics ..... what?
[/thread]
So if you saw some dood on TV pull a rabbit out of a hat, you would simply admire the magic, no?
The parlor magic is in full play, the perpetrators made 4 commercial airliners disappear, good trick that......
How'd they do that with a million eye witnesses?We're not talking parlor magic tricks here. We're talking about a plane flying into a building, the building exploding, and then collapsing. You let me know when David Copperfield figures that one out.Laws of vision -- we all saw it happen.and do you have an actual rebuttal rather than simply to name it as wrong?
Logic, Reason, Laws of Physics ..... what?
[/thread]
So if you saw some dood on TV pull a rabbit out of a hat, you would simply admire the magic, no?
The parlor magic is in full play, the perpetrators made 4 commercial airliners disappear, good trick that......
