Why does the tail just disappear? [Not a good question, in retrospect. The claim made by the picture appears to be that the tail disintegrates at the entry hole.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
North Tower Pulverization
The top is already gone - what is pressing down on this massive building?
South Tower Pulverization
Stop calling this a "collapse"
Blown to Kingdom Come
Smoke pours up; the building peels to the sides all the way down to the ground.
South Tower Obliteration
If the top part is what is pile-driving the bottom part, why is it shorter than the top of the North Tower next to it? If gravity is all that is doing this, doesn't all that dust mean that the lower part is resisting the upper part? How is the top part losing mass at the same time it is driving the lower part downward in "free-fall"? And why didn't the top part fall off to the side? (Part of this may be perspective, but other pictures show the top part losing mass early on).
Do you trust your own judgment? Does this make sense?
"As the heat of the fire intensified, the joints on the most severely burned floors gave way, causing the perimeter wall columns to bow outward and the floors above them to fall. The buildings collapsed within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km/h" MIT Professor Thomas Eager
Strong Building
Those massive core columns could support the building's weight several times over. The external columns could also bear 40% of the building's weight with no wind, and also could withstand steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of a Boeing 767.
"Flight 175"
Real planes don't do this.
3 comments:
oh the lightweight smooth rounded plastic nosecone of the lightweight beer-can-like aluminum fuselage of a 767 penetrates the massive hardened steel/concrete of a wtc as if by magic!
(see: the official cartoon NIST diagrams of a 767 already inside the wtc!)
what i find to be disconcerting is that jenkins has based his deceleration nonsense on these diagrams without any explanation whatsoever.
equally disconcerting to me is the lack of response from reynolds, fetzer, prof wood, et al to this very question (that has been posed to them) that you also pose on this very blog post.
even more disconcerting to me is that more 9/11 "truthers" do not demand an answer to this question.
no aluminum/plastic plane on the face of this planet can penetrate the massive steel columns of a wtc, no matter how fast it might be going.
ningen, you are to be commended IMO for simply posing this question.
"HOW"
keep at it sir.
~ha.
i should elaborate...
the very crux of the planes/no-planes issue is centered on whether a plane can actually penetrate a wtc.
this is a separate issue from video fakery (the actuality of which has been well established) of a plane penetrating a wtc.
a plane cannot penetrate a wtc.
either one admits this fact or one explains exactly in what manner could a plane do so.
for the eleventeenth time:
does the lightweight smooth rounded plastic nosecone of a plane:
A) slice/cut thru like a blade?
B) bludgeon thru like a hammer?
C) flow (between and around the massive steel columns) like a liquid? (mercury?)
any dissembling or evasion of this simple question should not be tolerated IMO for even one more moment.
the fact that "no-planers" allow the continued dissembling/evasion of the simple statement:
"a plane CANNOT penetrate a wtc"
is quite telling in and of itself.
kudos to you ningen for asking the real question:
"HOW?"
~ha.
Thanks, ha.
I think that engine and the portion of the wing between the engines with the fuel might have enough mass and rigidity to penetrate the columns, with an explosion. But the fuselage? No way.
Post a Comment