what about the impact of the steel r/c floors on the tail? and wings?
ok, so then if everything disintegrates inside the building, then by the time the tail hits the building it still sails right on through. Is that right? Do you really think that's right?
what about the impact of the steel r/c floors on the tail? and wings?
and fuselage
Most of the tail just goes through the hole. The bits that impact the building are significantly damaged along the leading volumes. The vertical stabilizer seems crushed to about half way through:
In fact - where are the floors in that still?
Looks like it slices off some sections of wing, peels the fuselage apart. I can't see what happens to the tail. Have a look at the entire video, especially from 4:45 on where they show different viewpoints in sync. You can see the top of the fuselage is peeled off.
Remember the vast majority of the mass in the the center of the plane and the wings.
You think I haven't looked at it? But what you are asked to believe is contrary to Newton's law. First, one catastrophic collision would reduce the aircraft to very small constituent parts - apart from larger, more resistant items like undercarriage or engines, made of steel by the way - reducing the mass so as to reneder it incapable of inflicting the kind of damage you are insinuating to the building's core. That's why the simulation needs to be fake, to show that the aircraft went inside and then did damage, which is what is known scientifically as bullshit.
I suspect the floor had been destroyed by that point.
But a lot of the renderings are rendered with some elements turned off, so you can see what's happening. All the partition walls for example. Obviosuly the interior of the building did not look like this:
what time do I think it is wrong? from the first second right to the end.Are you referring to the vertical stabilizer? Most of the tail assembly would just fit though the hole made by the fuselage and the wings.
Can you give a time on the video where you think it looks wrong?
If you think that an aircraft colliding with a steel and concrete facade of the largest building in the world is not catastrophic, then what can I sayBut there was no "one catastrophic collision".
I suspect the floor had been destroyed by that point.
But a lot of the renderings are rendered with some elements turned off, so you can see what's happening. All the partition walls for example. Obviosuly the interior of the building did not look like this:
If you think that an aircraft colliding with a steel and concrete facade of the largest building in the world is not catastrophic, then what can I say
Look, the wing is at such an angle that it is going to impact the floor about half way along its length - now the video will show a specific deformation relating to that extra resistance, won't it? Oh..... it doesn't
let's have the side view of this
Are you referring to the vertical stabilizer? Most of the tail assembly would just fit though the hole made by the fuselage and the wings.
Can you give a time on the video where you think it looks wrong?
Sure it does. Maybe just not so apparent from that angle. The wing gets ripped off at that point. Play the video. You'll see plenty of deformation. 3:17.06
Rubbish - we're talking about from the outside view - there is no visible deformation of the wings as it impacts the steel r/c floors
don't you think even just the wing tips or the tip of the tail or anything might have broken on that plane as it hit the building - the very instant it contacted the steel?
Or even that structural deformation (demolition) of the leading edges would have an immediate effect on the rest? You think 'the rest' remains intact and goes on to its next collision? What, the trailing bits - about 95% of the plane according to the video? so only the front bits of the plane were damaged but they completely destroyed the steel and allowed the rest of the plane, tail and all, to sail through the hole without so much as a sniff of deceleration or disintegration?
You think I haven't looked at it? But what you are asked to believe is contrary to Newton's law. First, one catastrophic collision would reduce the aircraft to very small constituent parts - apart from larger, more resistant items like undercarriage or engines, made of steel by the way - reducing the mass so as to render it incapable of inflicting the kind of damage you are insinuating to the building's core. That's why the simulation needs to be fake, to show that the aircraft went inside and then did damage, which is what is known scientifically as bullshit.
I think I'll stick with this assessment.
Your cartoon still at post #418 is showing the wing coming into contact with central core columns, several of which it severs along with the rest of the still quite recognisable aircraft. You say that this is plausible and that the wings would not have been severed by the blades of the r/c floors, only a tiny proportion of the extreme leading edges of the much softer aircraft were damaged (not even visible in the cartoon unless you zoom in and freeze frame) while the steel suffered complete catastrophic failure. This is where it comes into conflict with Newton's law - despite your protests, it is safe to say, and I quote you: ...that is not an accurate representation of what happened
So, do you know how Purdue spent the Homeland Security Institute grant they received after producing this fiction? Or don't you want to talk about that?
Could you also quote where I say all that other stuff?
The portion of the wings that is shown to sever the central columns (and we don't know if they actually did) is the portion with fuel tanks, containing tons of fuel.
I don't want to talk about it. You should feel free though. Explain how it's relevant, how unusual it is, and how it changes the science.
Getting back to the science - can you describe what you think SHOULD have happened when the plane hit the building, and what you think actually DID happen on that day. WTC2 specifically.
Plenty of meat here, but I don't have time right now....maybe for starters, you can tell me what stuff specifically you'd like me to point out, so I can show where you said or strongly implied it. Thanks
the wings would not have been severed by the blades of the r/c floors, only a tiny proportion of the extreme leading edges of the much softer aircraft were damaged (not even visible in the cartoon unless you zoom in and freeze frame) while the steel suffered complete catastrophic failure.
Looks like it slices off some sections of wing, peels the fuselage apart. [...] You can see the top of the fuselage is peeled off.
My evidence for it is the lack of evidence against it.
The report contains what appears to be a physically accurate description of what happened. Objections have been raised, but have been shown to be groundless.
Absence of evidence against A is evidence for the validity of A if the A is subject to intense scrutiny. If you can't find anything wrong with something, and it fits that known facts, then it seems quite reasonable.
Where in the official story does it claims that everything was organized from inside a cave?
You know you could quite easily explain all those things yourself. They are just questions that have been brought up many times, and just as many times debunked. For example, the "stand down" idea:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Stand_Down
Of the lack of missiles shooting passing planes down over the Pentagon:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Pentagon_Missile_Batteries
Perhaps next time you could bring up a theory, and also explain why you think the 911myths explanation is wrong.
Also, for all the obvious incompetence inherent in the official narrative of the day of sept 11 2001, can you show me which military or civil personnel responsible got punished for their role in the incompetence? Surely a natural (physical) consequence of such grand incompetence...
Can you find any errors in the 911myths account?
I can't. That's why I like them.
If you think they are wrong, then point out why they are wrong.