Some Say Aluminum Planes Can't Penetrate Steel., How about pumpkins ? Options

[Quest]

There is sort of a lack of information here.

Where was the witness watching from?
Could he have been talking about another explosion?

There were lots of explosions that day,
outside of the plane crashes.

Oh, I'll agree with that. Where was he standing? Could he have seen the plane? But he was obviously RIGHT THERE and I think it's more than a little obvious he did not even hear a plane much less see one. After all, isn't engine roar normally associated with jet planes? I think it might also be safe to say that he thought he had a good enough view/perspective that he he should have seen/heard it, if indeed a jet was there and it hit the building.

Question, if someone said they saw a jet plane hit a building right in front of them but they also said they know for a fact that it made no sound, would you question wether they saw a plane at all, or maybe they saw one but the plane ran out of fuel, or the engines(s) experienced some type of failure? Or would you just assume that the engine roar was there and that the witness must be mistaken when he claimed to hear no engine roar?

You can't have it both ways, Lunk.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 28 2009, 11:46 AM

[lunk]

We already know that there were other explosions at the WTC that day.
One witness, outside of context, without more specifics, doesn't really say alot.

The janitor, said their was an explosion in the basement, just prior to the plane hitting at the top,
so it is very probable, that there were bombs syncronised with the planes hitting the buildings.

In other words the witness in the video probably did see a bomb go off,
and just diid not happen to see, or hear, the plane.
There would have been a lot of noise below the towers after the first strike,
that may have obscured the sound of the jet engines, from the ground.

[Quest]

1. We already know that there were other explosions at the WTC that day.
One witness, outside of context, without more specifics, doesn't really say alot.

2. The janitor, said their was an explosion in the basement, just prior to the plane hitting at the top,
so it is very probable, that there were bombs syncronised with the planes hitting the buildings.

3. In other words the witness in the video probably did see a bomb go off,
and just diid not happen to see, or hear, the plane.
There would have been a lot of noise below the towers after the first strike,
that may have obscured the sound of the jet engines, from the ground.

1. I wouldn't say the witness's testimony was"out of context", rather you could argue it is uncooborated. However, there are other witnesses that have likewise not seen, nor heard a plane, such as the on-site TV repoter who said he saw no plane. I think I can safely say he didn't HEAR one either because he didn't mention it to the TV station news team and nor was a plane heard on the reporters microphone and nor was the onsite reporter's voice drowned out. Of course, either witness would not have seen it because hearing it 1st is what usually draws attention skyward in the 1st place. In other words, regarding planes, it is unlikely you are going to see what you cannot hear. This is especially true if there was no plane at all. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

2. The basement explosion took place seconds PRIOR to the "hit" in the 81st floor; not at the same time. I have posted the audio for this in another thread here. The difference in timing between the basement explosion and 81st floor "hit" is EASILY distinguishable - and there is a reason it was done this way. IMO, the purpose of the basement explosion was to draw attention around the WTC periphery to GROUND LEVEL just PRIOR to the 2nd plane 'hit'. The purpose? This was the slight-of-hand; pull attention to the ground to keep witnesses from seeing what WASN'T about to happen above - no plane hitting the building. More than likely, explosives were merely planted around the 81st floor, to create the plane-shaped "gash" at the same time as the charges used to bring down the towers. The explosion goes off in the basement, everyone looks down and after a few seconds amid the confusion, the explosives in the 81st floor go off and the media tells everyone a plane hit and brodcasts the 'hit' videos from CNN and FOX replete with Hollywood screams. The "planes hit" meme is then immediately reinforced on the street with the help of phoney witnesses.

Probable fake witness? - listen to the over-the-top accent change @ 25:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO4Ohg_YHUE...feature=related

Another fake witness? Harley T-Shirt guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf-qWfT6IAM...feature=related

3. The "no 2nd plane" witness didn't hear/see "the" plane? Would the no 2nd plane witness have at least heard the plane in the following 2 clips if indeed this plane was there? Would the on-site reporter have heard the plane in the following videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q5nE-k0tUQ...feature=related

BTW, where is the basement explosion in either of the above 2 videos that we, and William Ridriguez, know was there? Could it be the audio was faked in the above videos to hide the basement explosion distraction that took place just prior to the fake "plane hit"? Bet on it.

Lastly, the audio in the above 2 clips are in sharp contrast and contradictory to what one would expect if you heard a "small plane" or "missile", which was supposedly witnessed/earwitnessed by some. How could ANYONE confuse the jet roar in the above videos with a small plane or missile? My bet is that no large plane hit, no small plane hit and no missile hit. The small plane/missile meme is merely to make plausible the idea that, "Those that heard or saw a small plane or missle were mistaken. It must have been a hijacked passenger plane." Small plane/missle is what the perp's media pushed just after 9/11 and the brainwashed public, along with many 9/11 truthers, ate it up.

Again, could the above videos AND audio be fake? You betcha dupa.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 29 2009, 12:28 AM

[Quest]

The following clip would appear to have captured a fake/staged interview just behind the interview with the above "There was no 2nd plane. It was a bomb." witness.

WTC Attack Witnesses: Staged Interview Interrupted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAJq1ejs2mQ...feature=related

CNN's hoax on America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIZh1nm8Lzg

This is the way stuff works, guys.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 28 2009, 11:41 PM

[paranoia]

if you size up all the variables involved for the successful achievment of video/tv "fakery" of "U175" crashing into the tower and compare it my proposed hypothesis of pre-impact mini-demolition, you'd find that the variables for the latter are alot easier to manage for the perps, especially if the building has already been compromised by way of having been rigged for a demolition anyway.

i have always thought/agreed that something is wrong with the ease that the plane enters the building. BUT i think that faking it would be so difficult to get away with and to accomplish successfully, that there has to be a more plausible (and therefore probable) explanation. i can think of nothing that forbids a pre-impact mini-demo from having occurred, and the evidence would suggest there is a good chance that im on to something. yet no one wants to touch it. how come?

<perplexed>
(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[Quest]

if you size up all the variables involved for the successful achievment of video/tv "fakery" of "U175" crashing into the tower and compare it my proposed hypothesis of pre-impact mini-demolition, you'd find that the variables for the latter are alot easier to manage for the perps, especially if the building has already been compromised by way of having been rigged for a demolition anyway.

i have always thought/agreed that something is wrong with the ease that the plane enters the building. BUT i think that faking it would be so difficult to get away with and to accomplish successfully, that there has to be a more plausible (and therefore probable) explanation. i can think of nothing that forbids a pre-impact mini-demo from having occurred, and the evidence would suggest there is a good chance that im on to something. yet no one wants to touch it. how come?

<perplexed>
(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

Hi Paranoi, I covered the pre-"hit" basement explosion in the above post.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10774467

I've covered it in earlier threads in the past as well.

[Quest]

i have always thought/agreed that something is wrong with the ease that the plane enters the building. BUT i think that faking it would be so difficult to get away with and to accomplish successfully, that there has to be a more plausible (and therefore probable) explanation. i can think of nothing that forbids a pre-impact mini-demo from having occurred, and the evidence would suggest there is a good chance that im on to something. yet no one wants to touch it. how come?

<perplexed>
(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

They faked a plane hit at Shanksville and the Pentagon. They also faked the 1969-1972 moon landings. What makes you think it's hard to fake the tower hits when they OWN THE MEDIA? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 29 2009, 12:35 AM

[paranoia]

apples and oranges man. you cant compare those locations or single events with TWO events having occurred in the most populated city in america. the towers stick up like mountains in the middle of manhattan (they used to). with one of them on fire tons of eyes would be fixed on them, as would a substantial number of cameras. for the perps to control that many sets of eyes and photographic equipment, would be impossible, and frankly - unnecessary, WHEN - as already mentioned (and unaddressed by you) they very likely had the buildings rigged from bottom to top to bottom with explosives. what im proposing would only require them to use a modified demo with already existing apparatus in place for the final demo.

as far as im concerned, the best evidence fakery/noplanes can come up with is crash physics. yet no one addresses that the crash (as witnessed and filmed) could have occurred IF there was nothing solid behind that wall it crashed into. instead of including ALL possibilities, they force a false constraints on the issue: either the video is fake or holograms did it (or some other non-plane- impact scenario). but the 3rd (imo 1st) likeliest possibility is that the perps simply removed the most significant obstacles blocking the plane's entry (like concrete floor sections and some of the steel columns). cuz by themselves, the thin facade metal would have easily been penetrable:

(IMG:http://i26.tinypic.com/20qx5z5.jpg)

-once its (the plane's) length was 3/5 to 3/4 of the way inside (past the facade), inertia would force the rest (tail and all) into that same hole, and the plane would forever disappear from view. this is what we saw happen.

i wont rule out fakery or holograms, although i will keep them lower on my list of what probably happened . but in keeping with the topic here (why planes cant penetrate steel), please address why pre-impact mini-demo could not have, or did not happen.



***

ps - as evidence, there are at least 40 clips of the impact (at least a dozen of which are shot by non-news crews), a dozen or so digital pics of the plane on final approach within yards of the tower, and there are at least 2 sets of 35mm (NONdigital) pics of the event. are all of them fake?

This post has been edited by paranoia: Jul 29 2009, 01:02 AM

[Quest]

1. apples and oranges man. you cant compare those locations or single events with TWO events having occurred in the most populated city in america. the towers stick up like mountains in the middle of manhattan (they used to). with one of them on fire tons of eyes would be fixed on them, as would a substantial number of cameras. for the perps to control that many sets of eyes and photographic equipment, would be impossible, and frankly - unnecessary, WHEN - as already mentioned (and unaddressed by you) they very likely had the buildings rigged from bottom to top to bottom with explosives. what im proposing would only require them to use a modified demo with already existing apparatus in place for the final demo.

2. as far as im concerned, the best evidence fakery/noplanes can come up with is crash physics. yet no one addresses that the crash (as witnessed and filmed) could have occurred IF there was nothing solid behind that wall it crashed into. instead of including ALL possibilities, they force a false constraints on the issue: either the video is fake or holograms did it (or some other non-plane- impact scenario). but the 3rd (imo 1st) likeliest possibility is that the perps simply removed the most significant obstacles blocking the plane's entry (like concrete floor sections and some of the steel columns). cuz by themselves, the thin facade metal would have easily been penetrable:


3. i wont rule out fakery or holograms, although i will keep them lower on my list of what probably happened . but in keeping with the topic here (why planes cant penetrate steel), please address why pre-impact mini-demo could not have, or did not happen.

4. ps - as evidence, there are at least 40 clips of the impact (at least a dozen of which are shot by non-news crews), a dozen or so digital pics of the plane on final approach within yards of the tower, and there are at least 2 sets of 35mm (NONdigital) pics of the event. are all of them fake?

1. All the more reason to fake the plane hits in New York City. Too many things can go wrong; plane could miss partially, plane could miss completely, perps could be arrested as a result of entire sections of plane left in streets with serial numbers. The only way to guarentee a hit and COMPLETE penetration, to make plausible the notion that we should expect to find no major debris or sections in the WTC periphery - especially under the gash, was to fake planes hitting and simply set off an explosion at time of supposed impact and show CGI plane on TV. That's how it was done. To your claim I never mentioned planted explosives - are you kidding me? Go back and read all my posts in this thread. Enuff said.

2. The physics aspect has been addressed exhaustivly. But, to your point about the beams being blown out BEFORE a plane hit, do you mean to tell me you think a plane size gash was blown out by explosives in the building and the plane flew EXACTLY into the gash? I'll tell you what Paranoi, I am not a Pilot - technology is my thing but from your response I'll venture you are not a pilot either. I'll let any number of pilots here on this forum adress the improbability of that scenario; starting with wind, speed, and any other number of other factors.

3. I am not claiming planes cannot penetrate steel. What I AM claiming is that the wings CANNOT penetrate steel from the wingroots to their wigtips for the ENTIRE LENGTH of the wing without the wings rotating forward at some point. It's an ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY, yet all the crash videos show that occuring, that is, no wing rotation. Think about it, if the wings started to rotate forward, we might expect to find a wing or other MAJOR debris in the street if indeed a plane crashed there. But if the perps FAKED a crash, they had to make sure that researchers would not expect to find any debris in the street because the building was weak, as in tissue paper weak so the ENTIRE plane entered the building leaving no MAJOR debris on the ground, especially where you might expect to find it most - under the gash.

(IMG:http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9189/hezarkhanicumv3.gif)

4. All of the impact videos are fake. The Michael Hezarkhani video, Carmen Taylor video, Park Foremen, Tina Cart, Stott Meyers, Evan Fairbanks - all of them - fake. Keep in mind that these people didn't actually TAKE the videos, their names have just been borrowed and they will "claim" they took the videos. BTW, have you ever looked into any of the video takers bios? I have, as have many others. Let's just say there are more than a few problems with their stories and pasts. Question for you, how many people would have been involved in the fake moon landings? How about NASA, the government and the entire media. How many people do you think that might add up to? Although most of the aforementioned didn't play an active role in the moon hoax, many have participated while many more had passive roles. 911 fakery was not much different.

Here's some reading for you on why the perps needed to fake the crashes. Guaranteed 'hit' and complete penetration.
http://killtown.blogspot.com/search/label/WTC

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 29 2009, 02:15 PM

[lunk]

1. It's the mass and speed, not the material that it is made of, that will blast a hole through steel (and concrete), as demonstrated by the pumpkin gun videos.
2. There are no debris left below the entrance of the gash,
as demonstrated by the pumpkin gun videos.
3. When a projectile hits a stationary object fast enough, like the side of a tower, it's the stationary object that breaks first.
The projectile stays intact, after, the stationary object has broken.

If I throw a raw egg, in its' shell, at a window, hard enough, it will go through that window.
You will not find any broken eggshell below the broken pane, outside,
from where it was thrown, at the window,

...though there will be quite a mess inside the living room.

[Rickysa]

A tornado can push a pine needle through a wall.....just sayin'

Quote from Hurricane Andrew survivor, which spawned a F4 twister:

"I still shudder thinking about seeing a georgia pine needle stuck through both sides of a wall like a dart."

[paranoia]

quest, allow me to clarify: im not saying the gash was made by explosives, no. the plane itself tore through the exterior of the building leaving a gash. what im saying was missing in action, was most of the rigid structural elements BEHIND/INSIDE the facade. the columns and floor sections that the plane should have met, which in turn should have slowed at least some of the plane, particularly the length-running frame rails/members that would have met with these solid concrete floor sections and rigid columns. since the plane went in with ease and no resistance, i think the likeliest suspicion would be that there was nothing behind that facade to slow the plane down.

i could guess that plane wings could or couldnt rip thru the facade steel, but thats all it would be: a guess. there is nothing to rule out a modified plane, where for example, the wings were fortified to make them stronger. whatever the case, even if with a fortified plane, you still can NOT rip through solid concrete floors which are solid and secured to columns and other structural supports. so the wing strength is a seperate issue from wether or not a plane (any plane) can rip its way through two foot thick concrete. so in essence we agree what is and isnt possible for a plane to do to a building, BUT again - your reasoning for it and mine are very different. your's requires multiple variables to be overcome or controlled, while mine only requires an already rigged for demolition building, to have a smaller demolition at the time of the impact.


ps- i stand corrected about your (prior) assertions about explosions. so you agree there was explosives, yes? do you agree that the building was demo'd using conventional explosives in an unconventional (top dow) demo footprint? or do you believe DEW or NUKEs brought it down? my point was that IF a building has already been compromised, i.e. rigged for a full demo, then its a very simple task to blow up ONLY PART OF IT, a part that like a womb is hollow enough to let the plane enter smoothly.


re: fakery - we'll have to agree to disagree. with all due respect, i dont find your reasons to be persuasive quest. im willing to accept that the media (major networks) were involved or complicit in some direct fashion, fine. BUT - that still doesnt cover all the contingencies: 100's of thousands of people standing around watching the event, some of them documenting on film/video. as asked earlier: there are at least 40 clips of the impact (at least a dozen of which are shot by non-news crews), a dozen or so digital pics of the plane on final approach within yards of the tower, and there are at least 2 sets of 35mm (NONdigital) pics of the event. are all of them fake?

how is covering up all of these random sources, or faking all of them, easier than or more practical than simply hollowing out a "hangar" to allow the plane to enter the building? how is faking videos and somehow fooling 1000's of eyewitnesses easier than rigging the plane to explode into many tiny/smaller pieces (so no identifiable pieces with serial #'s could be found)? besides, even if people found plane pieces (and they did) what the heck would they know about its serial numbers? they would turn it in to the feds, and from there no one would even know what became of these pieces. so to me fakery involves so much more effort and control over so many variables (some of which are beyond any reach of the perps*), that it is logistically implausible.


*example: if even one person mananged to tape an event where NO plane flew by or in (to the wtc) and the building simply blew up on its own, if even one person had photographic/video of that, they could at any time they wanted to, make it public - WITHOUT even needing the media to do it - and blow the lid off this thing. dont you think such a tape would have popped on youtube (or wherever) by now, IF it existed? do you think that everyone who filmed the event with a camera, turned their footage in to feds/media? i guarantee there are yet unseen copies of the plane hitting the building that someone somewhere has, but isnt bothering to share. but the mathematical odds of the perps being able to confiscate/possess EVERY COPY of the event, is an almost 100% impossibility in the city of new york, where millions of people are walking the streets, many of them tourists with video/camera equipment. not to mention that the 2 buildings in question were taller than anything around and could actually be see from so many places, especially at their tops. so anyone planning the 9/11 event would have to have taken those facts/limitations/liabilities into consideration when weighing out options for what to do and how to do it, and they had to have come to the safe/logical conclusion that faking it would be less feasible than the hypothesis i've proposed.





***





lunk, i hear ya, but i think you are generalizing way too much to be accurate in this instance. the physical make-up of the objects (moving or stationary) and how they are grounded or secured, as well as the speed possibly, will directly effect the outcome of said hypotheticals. show me a pumpkin going through a 2 foot thick, by 40, by 20 concrete floor, solidly secured to rigid steel beams: it cant and wont. thats why they used to use wrecking balls made of solid steel, not pumpkins. plus - when a wrecking ball meets a concrete floor, it has to chip away at it, it caNt smash all the way through it (although yes - i understand speed/momentum is a factor).

some more about wrecking balls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrecking_ball

wrecking ball vids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RphvMImGe5A...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrXOx3eyoQs (important distinction: walls not floors being wrecked)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuCfDDwuTDE...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNCK4F60maU...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx28g0aqfIk&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wntfQTuXngA...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaHWJL1obO4...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMJ8on8kX40...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_3G-OVIOgI...feature=related


now if you could get a wrecking ball up to speed (like a plane) and then shot it at a concrete floor section, you may be able to smash through it fully and successfully. the question then becomes: is a plane in any way analogous to a wrecking ball? is there anywhere on the plane solid enough to act as a wrecking ball through concrete at high speed? im not 100% certain, but i think the answer is no. the nose cone can smash in with ease. not counting the engines, the length-running frame rails are probably the sturdiest of the impacting objects (in a plane vs building), so when any of those meet with a concrete floor section of the wtc, they should slow down. the wings of course, are pretty sturdy too, considering the weight the can hold and the stresses they can withstand, so they too should slow down when meeting with columns and or (concrete) floor sections.

nonetheless, even with a plane-speed wrecking ball flying at or into the wtc, it (the concrete) still is going to display resistance. regardless of speed, the wrecking ball wont pass thru as if there is nothing there to impede it (unlike 175). the exterior facade metal, can be torn through, BUT the concrete floor sections can not, no matter how fast a plane is going. its engines might have the momentum/weight to smash through concrete partially (i doubt even they could slice all the way through), but the length of the plane (especially at the frame members) can not.

imo - a wrecking ball shot out of a canon or a munition* might be able to cut its way through a 20-40 foot long 2 foot thick section of concrete, but a plane - no.


*example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVkYe8tNZX4
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...ions/gbu-28.htm

The Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) bomb is designed to penetrate hardened targets before exploding, capable of penetrating 100 feet of earth or 20 feet of concrete. The GBU-28 was initially developed in 1991 for penetrating hardened Iraqi command centers located deep underground. This "bunker buster" was required for special targets during the Desert Storm conflict and was designed, fabricated and loaded in record time. The GBU-28 is a laser-guided conventional munition that uses a modified Army artillery tube as the bomb body. They are fitted with GBU-27 LGB kits, 14.5 inches in diameter and almost 19 feet long. The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator and then the munition guides to a spot of laser energy reflected from the target.


edited to add: ps- im not saying a bunker buster did it. what im saying is that cutting through concrete requires something like a buster bunker, otherwise its not a simple task.

This post has been edited by paranoia: Jul 29 2009, 04:10 PM

[aerohead]

Quest,

You have to look at the outer columns that Paranoia posted.
These were 1/4" box beam colums. Their strength was VERTICAL,
not so much hoizontal and werent designed to make the buildind
Impervious to plane impacts. The designers exlained it like poking
a pencil through a screen. The screen still has most of its integrity
even though it has a hole in it. The core columns were the main support
for the towers and thats what shredded the rest of plane.
Look at the impact, its DIRECTIONAL and blows out the other side
of the building in the direction of the mass of aircraft debris, fuel and
building materials that is all flowing OUT the opposite side of the building.

(IMG:http://www.latinopundit.com/tragedy-9-11-twin-tower.JPG)


Bombs cannot implode the side of the building. The plane smashed
in the outer box beams and dragged them into the building.
You would do better to look at the outter shell of the building as
a network of lighter materials than the core, which they were.
Look at the core columns compared to the outter shell columns.
A 300,000 lb. 767could easily puncture this at over 400mph.

(IMG:http://www.european911citizensjury.com/WTC%20-%20construction%20-%20good%20picture.jpg)


(IMG:http://yowusa.com/war/2006/war-2006-02a/wtc_steelbeams.jpg)

(IMG:http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/woman_wtc.jpg)


Its like smashing you car through the store-front of an office building.
The strength is vertical not horizontal. And this was less than 30 MPH.
Imagine this @ 450 MPH...........

Mass and Inertia.........................

Clicky------> Car v/s Store Front

[Sanders]

...3. When a projectile hits a stationary object fast enough, like the side of a tower, it's the stationary object that breaks first.
The projectile stays intact, after, the stationary object has broken.

Uhm, I don't think so. Speed is relative in the physics of a collision. An egg hitting a window is the same as a window hitting an egg.

Every analogy which has been brought up in this thread is apples to oranges. We simply don't have the data to make a solid case one way or another. Seems to me this would be a pretty simple thing to model with a computer.

[paranoia]

aerohead, you make some good points. but what about the floor sections, the concrete monsters - how does a plane smash through them? here is an old post of mine that i'd like to share since it has a lot of grahics depicting my referrences:


there is more than one "egg-slicer" at work. here are some crude depictions, not to scale, but should be sufficient to illustrate my point:

exterior:
(IMG:http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h279/hatenames/wtcexterior.jpg)


exterior and floors:
(IMG:http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h279/hatenames/wtcexteriorfloors.jpg)


exterior, floors, and inside columns:
(IMG:http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h279/hatenames/wtcexteriorfloorscolumns.jpg)


view from above of exterior and interior columns:
(IMG:http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h279/hatenames/wtccolumnsfrumabove.jpg)


sideview of floors, columns (both interior and exterior):
(IMG:http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h279/hatenames/wtcexteriorfloorscolumnssideview.jpg)



so now an extremely crude depiction of the plane and what it should have impacted, which in turn should have slowed it down enough for some of it (the plane) to end up OUTSIDE of the building:


plane meeting outside columns:
(IMG:http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h279/hatenames/wtcexteriorwithplane.jpg)


plane meeting outside columns AND the floors:
(IMG:http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h279/hatenames/wtcexteriorfloorswithplane.jpg)


plane meeting outside columns, AND the floors, AND the inside columns:
(IMG:http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h279/hatenames/wtcexteriorfloorscolumnswithplane.jpg)


from above, plane meeting outside columns AND inside columns:
(IMG:http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h279/hatenames/wtccolumnsfrumabovewithplane.jpg)


sideview of plane meeting the exterior columns, AND the floors, AND the inside columns:
(IMG:http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h279/hatenames/wtcexteriorfloorscolumnssideviewwit.jpg)



as mentioned before, if all of the above were in the plane's way, eventually some parts of it would have meet with objects solid enough to slow down the plane and leave some it hanging/falling OUTSIDE of the building. i dont personally believe the plane (regardless of speed) was strong/fast enough to slice through the INTERIOR columns. plus the FLOORS would have significantly slowed down the plane, again leading to at least some part (mostly the rear) of the plane sticking out, unable to fully penetrate and disappear into the building.

the only way to accomplish what was seen, in my humble opinion of course, is IF these obstacles: inside columns and floors, were OUT OF THE WAY at impact. the exterior columns were made of thin enough metal to be penetrated, but these other obstacles would and surely should have slowed down the plane, enough to at least FORBID it from fully disappearing into the building.


continued on next post...

[paranoia]

look at that picture of the woman standing on the outside column:

(IMG:http://i26.tinypic.com/106ipw9.jpg)

behind her is an empty cavern. there is no flame behind her, so why would she be standing on such a precarious ledge, IF she could have retreated back into the building? because the gaping emptiness behind her must have too far of a fall to allow her any sort of retreat. she was stuck on that scary ledge, because the rest of the building behind her was gone and must have fallen down (been dropped at impact via my hypothesis).


***

This post has been edited by paranoia: Jul 29 2009, 05:04 PM

[lunk]

Uhm, I don't think so. Speed is relative in the physics of a collision. An egg hitting a window is the same as a window hitting an egg.

Every analogy which has been brought up in this thread is apples to oranges. We simply don't have the data to make a solid case one way or another. Seems to me this would be a pretty simple thing to model with a computer.

But this is just what I'm getting at.

If the pumpkin hitting the steel side of the van left no remnants under the gash at the entry hole, then, the entire whole pumpkin, went into the van.

If I sling my egg hard enough it will go entirely through the window.

There needs to be a space behind the thick aluminum to allow time for the bullet to mushroom before the thin steel will stop it. If the steel is too close to the Aluminum the bullet will go through the steel, as well, as it deforms after it has punctured through the thick aluminum.

If, a glass pop bottle is thrown at another stationary glass pop bottle, it's always the stationary bottle that breaks.

So I'm questioning that notion,
from these examples.

The planes had enough velocity and mass
to completely go through the side of each building,
before breaking up, to any extent. Most of the wreckage would have been inside the towers, with some of the more heavier pieces carrying on forward, through the buildings.

[aerohead]

All the debate over the physics aside, since none of us
are scientists, lets think abouth this logically.

After the first plane hit.........their were hundreds, if not
thousands of video and picture camera's fixed on the Towers.
The second plane hitting was caught by every angle possible.
Including this picture that was taken by Rob Howard of
flight 175.

(IMG:http://somagcc.blogharbor.com/_photos/flight%20175%20anomaly.jpg)


Would they doctor the videos and pictures with a plane that
had a pod on it ?

[lunk]

It just looks too unsymmetrical to me,
could it be a trick of the light?

Perhaps there was some additional cargo aboard the plane.
We know it was a false flag,
of course, they are going to load it
with something to make it heavier, and the impact more dramatic.

How heavy was the plane,
how fast was it going,
how much surface area did it cover.

A big plane flew into the Empire State Building, once, in the fog.
It penetrated that structure, and was probably traveling slower, than either plane that hit the towers.

[Quest]

A tornado can push a pine needle through a wall.....just sayin'

Quote from Hurricane Andrew survivor, which spawned a F4 twister:

"I still shudder thinking about seeing a georgia pine needle stuck through both sides of a wall like a dart."

Wood is fibrous, steel is not. Next.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 29 2009, 07:45 PM