More on the Absurdity of the Plane-Shaped Holes
To recap, the official story would have us believe that when a 767 hit the steel columned wall of the WTC:
a) it smashed right through the wall, leaving a plane profile-shaped imprint in the wall (much like the Roadrunner smashing through a piece of steel held by Wil E. Coyote)
b) the plane went smoothly inside, not showing any slowing, distortion, breakage or explosion until the plane had disappeared into the building
c) the plane tore apart once inside but some small pieces broke off and continued full speed out the other side of the building
d) the plane went in far enough and was destroyed enough such that no signs of the plane could be seen from the entry hole.
Here are some examples of this phenomenon in other situations:
1) You push four medium-sized medium thickness metal pipes (which are firmly anchored to a strong base) into a rapidly rotating airplane propellor. (Think of the pipes as the WTC and the propellor blades as the plane.) The blade slices cleanly through the first three pipes it encounters, it doesn't slow, then the propellor blade hits the fourth pipe and the blade breaks apart, with the top part of the blade flying away at full speed.
Does this sound feasible?
Isn't it more realistic for either the blade break off at first impact, OR for the blade to slice through all four pipes, OR for the blade to slice through two pipes, slow down and stop, OR for the blade to simply hit the pipes and stop?
2) You get a sportscar going 200 mph, then you lose control and run off the road into a forest of young trees, each tree about three inches in diameter, each about one foot apart. (Think of the car as the plane and the forest as the WTC.) The car cleanly slices through ten rows of trees without slowing, then the car hits another row of trees and starts breaking apart and exploding-- such that the car is shredded into pieces, and some of these pieces continue going at 200 mph.
Does this sound feasible?
Isn't it more realistic for the car to cut through a few rows of trees and eventually slow to a stop with minimal damage OR for the car to smash up against the first couple of rows of trees and stop?
Simple common sense would dictate that an object that tears effortlessly through an struck object is not going to be suddenly itself shredded by the struck object.
So-- I'm STILL having trouble imagining what happened with the hit on the south tower, if indeed a real airplane was involved.
a) it smashed right through the wall, leaving a plane profile-shaped imprint in the wall (much like the Roadrunner smashing through a piece of steel held by Wil E. Coyote)
b) the plane went smoothly inside, not showing any slowing, distortion, breakage or explosion until the plane had disappeared into the building
c) the plane tore apart once inside but some small pieces broke off and continued full speed out the other side of the building
d) the plane went in far enough and was destroyed enough such that no signs of the plane could be seen from the entry hole.
Here are some examples of this phenomenon in other situations:
1) You push four medium-sized medium thickness metal pipes (which are firmly anchored to a strong base) into a rapidly rotating airplane propellor. (Think of the pipes as the WTC and the propellor blades as the plane.) The blade slices cleanly through the first three pipes it encounters, it doesn't slow, then the propellor blade hits the fourth pipe and the blade breaks apart, with the top part of the blade flying away at full speed.
Does this sound feasible?
Isn't it more realistic for either the blade break off at first impact, OR for the blade to slice through all four pipes, OR for the blade to slice through two pipes, slow down and stop, OR for the blade to simply hit the pipes and stop?
2) You get a sportscar going 200 mph, then you lose control and run off the road into a forest of young trees, each tree about three inches in diameter, each about one foot apart. (Think of the car as the plane and the forest as the WTC.) The car cleanly slices through ten rows of trees without slowing, then the car hits another row of trees and starts breaking apart and exploding-- such that the car is shredded into pieces, and some of these pieces continue going at 200 mph.
Does this sound feasible?
Isn't it more realistic for the car to cut through a few rows of trees and eventually slow to a stop with minimal damage OR for the car to smash up against the first couple of rows of trees and stop?
Simple common sense would dictate that an object that tears effortlessly through an struck object is not going to be suddenly itself shredded by the struck object.
So-- I'm STILL having trouble imagining what happened with the hit on the south tower, if indeed a real airplane was involved.
posted by spooked at 10:38 PM
1 Comments:
It's an amazing sociology lesson watching "the keepers of the truth" go about their business.
Out of one side of their mouths they point to the Roadrunner-smashing-through-a-piece-of-steel-held-by-Wil-E.-Coyote damage to the WTC as proof that we can take the government's word for what hit the WTC towers, yet out of the other side of their mouths, whenever anyone points to the vast differences between the shape of the damaged part of the Pentagon and a 757, they try to ridicule that person's Roadrunner-smashing-through-a-piece-of-steel-held-by-Wil-E.-Coyote belief system.
Same as with Spooked's point b). At the Pentagon, some of the truth-keepers talk about how the wings obviously folded forward upon impact. Others have suggested that they folded backward upon impact. But at the WTC, large hollow fragile aluminum birds flew intact, without deformation, through structural steel.
Of course, if people ever learned that it wasn't the hijacked airlines which struck the buildings, then people might realize that we can't blame 9/11 on hijackers. (We already know, based upon the speed of the collapses, that we can't blame the collapses on "airplanes", but, for some strange reason, people are still blaming Muslim hijackers for 9/11 anyway. I think there might be another sociology lesson there...)
Post a Comment
<< Home