WTC1/WTC2 perimeter columns vs. plane impact, math discussion...

Why is it you assume the events of 9/11 were a controlled demoliton and no planes as the null hypothesis when the evidence that is currently in play says the contrary?

 

If you cite bits like that PENTTBOM report as somehow proof that there
were hijacked airliners used as weapons .... oh well,
The facts speak for themselves, the complete & total destruction of
3 steel framed skyscrapers, the whole PENTAGON scene, the FLT93
fairy tale, REALLY PEOPLE! Where is the physical evidence of an
aircraft at the twin towers, oh yea, it was all pulverized along with
most of the building. heavy stuff!

 

You are ignoring the physical, forensic and eyewitness evidence.

 

Where is the physical evidence of the 4 airliners allegedly used as weapons that day?

 

Landing gear parts, seat belts, you know, aircraft parts.

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/recovery/aircraft.html

 

'Yeah,but where's the prooooooooooof the parts were from the four hijacked plaaaaaaaaaaanes?' <whiiiiine>

 

I LOVE IT! on the page you linked to there is a picture of a bit of metal
and the caption .... ( and I quote ) "Unknown Airline Piece, possibly part of landing gear.
Airplane parts were marked with yellow/green spray paint to so that FBI investigators could tell them apart from other debris."

UNKNOWN AIRLINE PART ..... what?
and this is what passes for accounting for the airliner?

Your tax dollars at work, an undefined pile of bits that
allegedly represent either FLT11, FLT175, FLT77, or FLT93
take your pic ..... whatever!

 

Because airline parts just normally lay around downtown NY.

N.Y. police: Landing gear part found, is tied to 9/11

But I know you will not believe the facts so it is kind of worthless to provide proof to a truther. I also know that truthers have no idea what happens to aircraft during crashes but then, they don't seem to know much about aircraft, physics, science, etc.

 

Do you know what the NTSB does in the case of other airliner crashes?
they take all the parts to a hanger and inventory what they have and
attempt to reconstruct what happened.

I ask again, in the case of 4 airliner crashes, WHY no inventory at all?

 

They do that when they need to piece together what brought a plane down. In the case of these aircraft, it is pretty well known what happened so it would be a pointless exercise. It is not as if the aircraft failed for some unknown reason. You guys ever apply any common sense to your world view?

 

at the present point, insufficient evidence has been presented to convince
me that "FLT11" & "FLT175" ever existed at all.

think about this, only very infrequently does an airliner crash in
such a manner as to make the wreckage unavailable for examination.
however, on one day we have 4 crashes where the aircraft in all 4
cases was as much as obliterated. what are the odds?

 

Like I said before, you have little knowledge of aircraft or physics so only make yourself sound foolish.

 

Yes, the FACTS do speak for themselevs. Plane parts have been recovered and identified matching the models of the jetliners. There are many photos of these pieces available with a quick search. Also, the eyewitness who saw the parts crashing down. Where did those come from if not from a plane crash?

Why is it you just can apply common logic?

 

on the subject of aircraft & physics, what do you think happens
say in the case of the Pentagon crash where the starboard side
wing contacts the wall considerably ahead of the port side wing?

and in the case of "FLT175" what do you think should happen when
the port side wing contacts the wall before the starboard side wing?

what do you think?

 

I think it makes no difference. I&#8217;ll rephrase that statement&#8230;What was the time differential between the two wings contacting the wall(s), in relation to the impact (opportunity) of the plane to respond? Answer: NONE.

Next question.

 

So it all happened so fast as to totally guarantee the result we saw?
is that it?

 

Exactly. Unless you can prove otherwise which would have shown something different.

 

Note that there are high speed video shots of supersonic projectiles impacting
targets and in a VERY short time, the projectile reacts to the resistance of the
target. "FLT175" allegedly had 0.20 sec to penetrate the WTC wall,
'nuff time to bust up the aircraft & leave bits all over.....

 

First, "leave bits all over"...well there WERE plenty of bits found. Second, the side of the building was absorbing the crash...as we see in the videos.

Your questions are irrelevant because the videos show exactly what happened that day.

 

The videos are illogical, an airliner penetrating a wall with no perceivable
reduction in velocity while it penetrates and not breaking off a wing or anything,
that is in defiance of physics & logic. In the case of "FLT175" the alleged airliner
is shown to have the port side wing contact the wall before the starboard side wing.
therefor the aircraft would have huge asymmetrical forces on it and yet it stays together.
WHY?

 

What "perimeter columns"?

 

Check out the steel box columns:

 

You mean the central box columns?

The floors were cantilevered from the center.

 

Defiance of physics? How.

Second, again.....again....again.....the side of the building was absorbing the plane's impacting by giving way. Also, in the video of the fighter jet crashing into the concrete block, the part of the part of the plane still to impact the block, was intact until that part of the plane impacted the block.

Again, why would it not? The fighter jet in the video did the same thing...and that imapcted a solid concrete block. Second, your "the aircraft would have huge asymmetrical forces" means nothing.

Your claim is wrong and not really well thought out.

 

In the case of the F4 destroyed against a concrete target,
the aircraft was positioned such to impact the block directly perpendicular to
the plane of the block, in the case of the alleged "FLT175" there is an angular
displacement so as to cause one wing to strike the wall before the other.
This would cause asymmetrical forces to the aircraft and break it up before
it had a chance to enter the building.