A 200 Ton 540 MPH Collision Couldn't Push the Columns COMPLETELY Inside?
KICK-- as I still think this is important and not sure everyone sees it, or has seen it.
So let me get this straight.
A HUGE PLANE GOING 540 MPH SMASHES THROUGH THIS WALL AND DISINTEGRATES ONCE INSIDE.
Yet the big central panel of broken columns that the plane smashes into at 540 mph just breaks slightly inwards and plops down next to the hole???
Are you kidding me?
200 TONS AT 540MPH CAN'T PUSH THE COLUMNS COMPLETELY INSIDE OR COMPLETELY OBLITERATE THE COLUMNS?
UPDATE:
Possible explanations for the columns in the hole--
1) a plane smashed into the tower and punched the columns upward like a garage door flipping up. After the plane goes through, the columns fall down into the hole.
Problem: the "garage door" breakage pattern is highly unlikely at best, as 1) it is assymetric and the initial breakage is away from the precise point of collision, and 2) flipping the columns up means two or more floors are pushed and broken away greatly increases the overall resistance-- while the plane slid in without resistance.
2) a plane smashed into the tower and punched the columns inwards as the plane goes inwards-- then as the plane blows up and disintegrates, the columns get pushed back into the entry hole.
Problem: highly unlikely the plane blows up with enough force to propel the columns backwards and intact, and highly unlikely that the columns would be propelled perfectly backwards.
3) a plane smashed into the tower and punched the columns slightly inwards as the plane breaks apart and goes inwards around the columns. The columns don't move much after the initial displacement.
Problem: highly unlikely the plane is going to bisect around these columns after initially displacing them-- if the plane is going to break up completely around the columns during the initial collision, it would have had problems breaking the columns away in the first place. There also should have been much more deflection of debris backwards from the initial collision-- which was not seen.
4) explosives carefully placed on the outside of the towers in the shape of the plane hole-- they blow a large chunk of columns slightly inwards, and the fall into the hole.
Problem: powerful explosives have to be placed very precisely, without being detected, on the outside of the towers. This could be done by operatives posing as window washers.
Good views of the plane entering:
So let me get this straight.
A HUGE PLANE GOING 540 MPH SMASHES THROUGH THIS WALL AND DISINTEGRATES ONCE INSIDE.
Yet the big central panel of broken columns that the plane smashes into at 540 mph just breaks slightly inwards and plops down next to the hole???
Are you kidding me?
200 TONS AT 540MPH CAN'T PUSH THE COLUMNS COMPLETELY INSIDE OR COMPLETELY OBLITERATE THE COLUMNS?
UPDATE:
Possible explanations for the columns in the hole--
1) a plane smashed into the tower and punched the columns upward like a garage door flipping up. After the plane goes through, the columns fall down into the hole.
Problem: the "garage door" breakage pattern is highly unlikely at best, as 1) it is assymetric and the initial breakage is away from the precise point of collision, and 2) flipping the columns up means two or more floors are pushed and broken away greatly increases the overall resistance-- while the plane slid in without resistance.
2) a plane smashed into the tower and punched the columns inwards as the plane goes inwards-- then as the plane blows up and disintegrates, the columns get pushed back into the entry hole.
Problem: highly unlikely the plane blows up with enough force to propel the columns backwards and intact, and highly unlikely that the columns would be propelled perfectly backwards.
3) a plane smashed into the tower and punched the columns slightly inwards as the plane breaks apart and goes inwards around the columns. The columns don't move much after the initial displacement.
Problem: highly unlikely the plane is going to bisect around these columns after initially displacing them-- if the plane is going to break up completely around the columns during the initial collision, it would have had problems breaking the columns away in the first place. There also should have been much more deflection of debris backwards from the initial collision-- which was not seen.
4) explosives carefully placed on the outside of the towers in the shape of the plane hole-- they blow a large chunk of columns slightly inwards, and the fall into the hole.
Problem: powerful explosives have to be placed very precisely, without being detected, on the outside of the towers. This could be done by operatives posing as window washers.
Good views of the plane entering:
posted by spooked at 10:32 AM
8 Comments:
How would mini-nukes or other explosives set inside the building cause the big central panel of broken columns to just plop down next to the point of detonation?
So much easier to fake it with internal devices and or missiles than risk flying planes, what if those 'hijackers' missed either of the buildings?
The image of planes is central to the collapse myth.
That is indeed, exactly what it was
for WTC 1 & 2: "collapse myth".
Those buildings were blown to Kingdom Come. They didn't collapse.
Spooked -
Your blog about Sept. Clues is
what makes you suspicious that
S. Shack is a disinfo agent?
You sure about that? Unless I
missed it, all you did was review
his videos.
If that's all you've got, then
I think you're being grossly
unfair to Mr. Shack and it
is easy to conclude that you're
simply jealous of his work and
careless or unconcerned about
being objective.
Your readers deserve better.
As I already wrote:
"I have posted reviews of his videos here before. The main idea is that he makes about 50% good points, and 50% really dumb points that are too easily debunked. My thinking is that anyone smart enough to make his high quality videos, and make good points, should be smart enough to not make dumb easily debunked points. Thus I think he is intel of some sort. Further, most recently, there was some disturbing stuff going on between him and Stevenwarran that was posted at 911movement. I posted the link here a few days back."
If making "really dumb, easily
debunked points" is a sign of a
disinfo agent, then I submit that
anyone who promotes such points as
"Greer shot JFK, while driving him
down Elm street" may well be
suspected of being a disinfo
agent. Especially, if there are
other peculiarities involving that
person which can't be verified,
other than by hearsay support.
To each his own, Nickname.
"Everyone to his own taste", said
the old lady, as she kissed the cow.
Post a Comment
<< Home