in the case of any "news video" one must take care that what is shown in the video aligns with the laws of physics. Please consider this, if the video is to be accepted as true, the aircraft would have had to penetrate the wall without slowing down, or at least not slowing down so much as would be visible in the video, I have estimated that if the aircraft were indeed penetrating the wall and lost 125 mph in velocity this may slip by as imperceivable in the video, with that said, if the aircraft did indeed loose 125 mph velocity while penetrating the wall, this would be a g force of greater than 10 g's and that would be more than sufficient to break the aircraft, only combat aircraft or special stunt aircraft can handle 10 g's, its a sure thing that airliners can not. In the video, the aircraft is seen to make a smooth entry into the building however, note that in penetrating the wall, the nose of the aircraft would break 5 or 6 box columns to penetrate, and then the wings get involved and they each have to break at least a dozen more, that is per wing, and still there is no breaking up of the alleged aircraft. Clearly the "news" is lying to us. I know is comes as a shock to most people, after all Walter Cronkite was considered the most trusted man in America. what does that say about America .... ( ? )
What complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*). "In the case....." The videos are completely align with the laws of physics. Tell me what law of physics to do the break? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. The one lying is you, by ignorance.
So you think that shredded bits of airliner inside the building would contribute to the total KE that would have to propel the aircraft into the building. right?
The jet crashed into a concrete wall is an "apples/oranges" comparison, the jet in the test case was lined up perpendicular to the wall and also the test was designed to NOT penetrate the wall, in the case of the alleged "FLT175" the aircraft penetrated the wall. The test bit does show one thing that is relevant and that is aircraft crashes are very violent, why is it that in the case of "FLT175" the aircraft is seen to as much as melt into the side of the tower?
WTF?... the jet was close enough to the same angle as flight 175. the laws of physics dont change. You're a posuer...and worse, you're dishonest. The test was designed to see the effects of a jet crashing into concrete. No more, no less. Clearly, the wings did NOT buckle as you would have liked the to. You have been debunked. This test does show one thing, that is, the claim you're trying to make is moot. Flight 175 "melts" into the tower because much of the side of the building was glass and what wasn't was demolished by the mass and velocity of the plane.
Yes, it is the same mass, but is it connected to the body of the aircraft still outside the building and is it contributing to the motion of this alleged aircraft?
It doesn't matter: it is the same mass traveling at the same velocity. It could be the size of grains of sand and the result would be the same.
...and all down the length of the wing span, the building is giving way to the plane. Did you just expect the plane to crumple up and fall to the ground? How is the eyewitness statements corroborate what all the many videos show?
When ever did I specify that the wings "buckled" What I said was that as a consequence of the design of the wing, that is the swept back bit, the wing tips would become disconnected from the aircraft before they had a chance to penetrate the wall. also note that you say the FLT11 & FLT175 strikes were near enough to completely perpendicular so as to not make a difference, but in this matter you are speculating, an aircraft undergoing >10 g deceleration, and contacting a wall at 11 degrees off perpendicular will have many tons of vector forces acting upon it, maybe in your opinion not relevant, but its real and its a factor. I ask again, where is the physical evidence that proves any of the aircraft "FLT11" "FLT175" "FLT77" "FLT93" were indeed crashed at the locations where the news reported them crashed? Inventory of aircraft bits? or?
We are talking about the mass of the aircraft maintaining sufficient KE so as to guarantee its total disappearance inside the WTC tower. if the shredded mass contributed to the total KE, exactly how is that possible?
You mean besides the black boxes and DNA of the passengers found at the scene of the crashes or ... ?
Forgive the term...but, that' what you alluding to...how else would you have described it? Lets say the wing tips did become disconnected, wouldn't they still have hit the building at almost 500mph so, the point your trying to make, is not relavant. Second, the wingtips would still be connected on the backside. It conforms with what the video shows. So what? Turns out its not relevant because the video(s) clearly show it made no difference. Not to mention, you reall have no math that shows the plane were exactly perpendicular...AND even is you did, it wouldn't make any difference. Are you really that intellectually dishonest? Eyewitnesses on the ground, in the building, across the river, ATC in New Jersey Radar that tracke the entire flight path Calls from the planes Photos from witnesses taken from various location in NYC and NJ Plane parts whch have been identified as coming from the planes Body parts falling to the ground You really can't compare your nutter ideas to the overwhelming mountain of reality you find yourself facing.
Note that these recorders are made to withstand a very serious crash, and also note that there were firearms recovered from the rubble, indicating that the destruction was not so complete as to destroy a sturdy metal object such as a firearm. The fact that there wasn't any flight recorders recovered from Ground Zero speaks volumes.
Playing stupid again? You were provided with a link to those 85 videos yesterday. Whoops - forgot about your paid agenda. Carry on with the disinfo, Boss.
I think your comment is extremely ignorant and disingenuous. These black boxes would have had to survive the plane crash and explosion, the resulting fire, the collapse of 100 stories of building and materials and subsequent fires (if any). And you think its odd they didnt survive?
Just the opposite. Swing a stick at a tree. The tree acts as the fulcrum and also the point it breaks. The tip of the broken stick then flys forward at a speed greater than the original impact.