Second Hit Quiz
Specially designed for "PINCH", but other people can respond too.
Please submit your answers in the comments section.
Thanks.
First, review the material. Watch
this video from CNN offically showing flight 175 attacking the South WTC tower.
Notice how the video plane disappears into the south tower without any trace of distortion of the plane or any sign of immediate explosion-- even though the wall hit by the plane was constructed of multiple huge steel beams. Once the plane got through these beams, the plane should have hit several cement floor slabs at a perpendicular angle. Yet the plane melts completely into the building without any trouble, without any distortion, without anything breaking off, without even slowing speed.
The questions (please answer yes or no):
1) wasn't this video, and other videos showing this same event, that were played over and over on 9/11?
2) wasn't it videos of this event that were the main basis for saying airplanes were used to attack the US on 9/11?
3) did we see any clear pictures of the other officially hijacked 9/11 airplanes (flights 11, 77, 93) on 9/11?
4) shouldn't a huge jet slow somewhat upon impacting such a huge steel structure?
5) shouldn't a huge jet show some distortion upon impacting such a huge steel structure?
6) if the plane is going to break apart and explode, shouldn't it do this upon the very initial impact?
7) if the plane is strong enough to slice through the outer wall and proximal floor slabs, shouldn't it slice all the way through the entire building?
8) isn't it possible that this video could have been faked using Hollywood-type special effects/computer animation?
9) do you think the things that happen in Roadrunner cartoons are realistic?
10) Essay question: let's assume the plane was strong enough to completely slice into the building, intact. What destroyed the plane when it got inside?
Finally, PINCH, you never answered the questions I asked here. Could you, please?
Please submit your answers in the comments section.
Thanks.
First, review the material. Watch
this video from CNN offically showing flight 175 attacking the South WTC tower.
Notice how the video plane disappears into the south tower without any trace of distortion of the plane or any sign of immediate explosion-- even though the wall hit by the plane was constructed of multiple huge steel beams. Once the plane got through these beams, the plane should have hit several cement floor slabs at a perpendicular angle. Yet the plane melts completely into the building without any trouble, without any distortion, without anything breaking off, without even slowing speed.
The questions (please answer yes or no):
1) wasn't this video, and other videos showing this same event, that were played over and over on 9/11?
2) wasn't it videos of this event that were the main basis for saying airplanes were used to attack the US on 9/11?
3) did we see any clear pictures of the other officially hijacked 9/11 airplanes (flights 11, 77, 93) on 9/11?
4) shouldn't a huge jet slow somewhat upon impacting such a huge steel structure?
5) shouldn't a huge jet show some distortion upon impacting such a huge steel structure?
6) if the plane is going to break apart and explode, shouldn't it do this upon the very initial impact?
7) if the plane is strong enough to slice through the outer wall and proximal floor slabs, shouldn't it slice all the way through the entire building?
8) isn't it possible that this video could have been faked using Hollywood-type special effects/computer animation?
9) do you think the things that happen in Roadrunner cartoons are realistic?
10) Essay question: let's assume the plane was strong enough to completely slice into the building, intact. What destroyed the plane when it got inside?
Finally, PINCH, you never answered the questions I asked here. Could you, please?
posted by spooked at 11:43 AM
6 Comments:
1) wasn't this video, and other videos showing this same event, that were played over and over on 9/11?
Yes
2) wasn't it videos of this event that were the main basis for saying airplanes were used to attack the US on 9/11?
This as well as a hundred thousand people or whatever the number was who watched the second plane hit, yes. Think about it. How many people do you think in lower Manhattan were looking at the WTC burning when the second aircraft hit? Are they all victims of some kind of mind-warping mass hypnosis?
3) did we see any clear pictures of the other officially hijacked 9/11 airplanes (flights 11, 77, 93) on 9/11?
No.
4) shouldn't a huge jet slow somewhat upon impacting such a huge steel structure?
If a jet is traveling at 500 knots, no.
5) shouldn't a huge jet show some distortion upon impacting such a huge steel structure?
See answer to question 4.
6) if the plane is going to break apart and explode, shouldn't it do this upon the very initial impact?
See answers to questions 4 and 5.
7) if the plane is strong enough to slice through the outer wall and floor slabs, why doesn't it slice all the way through the entire building?
Because an aircraft, in this case an airliner, is not just a collection of aluminum and titanium and steel and fuel and various and sundry other material. It is the sum of all its parts - a pressurized tube with a great deal of mass to it – 100 tons of mass, and accelerate that 100 tons up to 500 knots, fly it into a building such as the WTC and there is no doubt, based on 10 years of aviation and aeronautical experience, that what you saw would absolutely be the result.
8) isn't it possible that this video could have been faked using Hollywood-type special effects/computer animation?
I suppose. It is also possible that you are not real and that all these posts by “Spooked” have been created by a random phrase generator. Makes about as much sense.
9) do you think the things that happen in Roadrunner cartoons are realistic?
No.
10) Essay question: let's assume the plane was strong enough to completely slice into the building, intact. What destroyed the plane when it got inside?
While we’re at it let’s assume that the moon is made of green cheese and its core is a vast ocean of bar-b-que sauce. Makes about as much sense.
The aircraft had sufficient mass and structure, traveling at 500 nautical miles per hour, to, as you derisively call it, “melt” into the building. Anyone with a modicum of aviation sense or aeronautical experience or COMMON sense will understand and realize and *know* that an aircraft, when impacting such a structure, will be torn apart by the impact. Piece-parts of the aircraft will continue at 500 knots, as will the fuel which will explode with the violence depicted in the videos.
There is absolutely no doubt in my aviation mind that the conventional wisdom of what happened is actually what occured. Cockamamie tin-foiled denials of actual events by individuals who either a) have their judgement clouded by this rabid hatred of everything Bush b) have no experience whatsoever of aviation "things" or c) refuse to see the actual absurdity of claiming all this was created on a computer and was actually an animation does nothing but add heaps and gobs of hilarious derision to your cause.
completely inane response (as per the usual from "pinch"), filled not with examples of physics to back up his conjecture of course...but entirely with his Opinions, and what he THINKS happened.
And this "pinch" claims to have a "Degree" beyond 8th Grade!?? LOL And in PHYSICS NO LESS!! YIKES!!! I pray for our educational system if this is indeed true.
I could have a field day with the asinine assumptions he chose as his "Responces"...but I'll just begin with one:
pinch:
"This as well as a hundred thousand people or whatever the number was who watched the second plane hit, yes."
Could you kindly provide a basis in FACT for that statement?
Do you have a footnote to provide us?...a link?...a reference to where you came up with this figure? Anything!?
...If you can.
I eagerly anticipate your failure to provide one...(one that is REMOTELY credible, of course)
;-)
pinch:
4) shouldn't a huge jet slow somewhat upon impacting such a huge steel structure?
If a jet is traveling at 500 knots, no.
SURE you wanna stick with that answer pinch? It defies THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AS THEY EXIST HERE ON EARTH.
pinch:
5) shouldn't a huge jet show some distortion upon impacting such a huge steel structure?
See answer to question 4.
Again...you answer defies physics as we know it.
6) if the plane is going to break apart and explode, shouldn't it do this upon the very initial impact?
pinch:
See answers to questions 4 and 5.
Again...physics-defying wisdom from "pinch".
Where's your "College Degree" from again? You might want to look into a refund for your tuition.
You just proved for all to see you have absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE OF PHYSICS....whatsoever.
@SPOOKED:
let this clown post as much as he/she wishes.
He/she is LIVING PROOF of the old addage:
"Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves"
haaa
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/061205planecrashes.htm
Pinch, I appreciate your answers. I really do.
I think Rob's rebuttal is quite good.
Here's a relevant axiom of physics: with impacts at high speeds, there increased force exerted on both the striking object and the struck object.
Thus, I have no doubt that a large plane traveling very fast could penetrate part of the WTC wall, the question is what would happen to the plane. I do not think the plane would act as though it was not impacting and keep traveling at the same speed. I think the plane would immediately start breaking up. The plane should not disappear intact into the building. Parts should clearly be breaking off as it smashes into the large steel beams of the outer wall and then the floor slabs.
irregardless of the actual science involved with the penetration of steel beams and concrete floors by an aluminum plane even at a speed of 500 'knots' - I'm looking at the various captures from various angles of the '175' impact over and over and it just looks extremely fishy to me. I think the term "ghostplane" pretty much sums it up.
Post a Comment
<< Home