Have you any experience of the real world?

[blackcat]

[James C]

[marky 54]

i take it the straw and the tree arnt also an unfair comparison? firstly because we dont know what force that caused it and secondly what speed it was traveling. i could say have you every crashed a car in to a tree, or into a steel pole? which comes of the worse? the car is travling and hits a pole or tree yet takes almost all the damage if the car was travling faster and hit something the object would take more damage but the car would also take more damage(yet the planes seem to enter the building with no damage as it hit at all, even the wing tips and tail sections didnt brake) but the cars dont compare to 9/11 so its not worth answering. all that can be taken into consideration is the building design and strenght vs the aireoplane design,strenght,speed. this is what needs to be put into pratice not a straw and a * tree . theres also other planes that crashed into building that didnt bring down the buildings or fully enter them but again this carnt be compared fully as the angle speed and mass all make a differance. all you can do is take the facts from the day in question and put them into practice. anyone know a professer who could measure these forces ? im sure it could be worked out if they can get hold of information on how much the planes weighed ect. and the strenght of the building ect. just by using maths. but my opinion is if a steel pole can make a mockery out of a speeding car and a person can cause big dents in cars when hit at speed then it becomes obvious that the speeding object takes a lot of damage and wouldnt take no damage when hitting something at a great speed, the planes enter the building in pristine condition, so unless designed not to, ie: a bunker buster i think the fact it was travling 500mph would go against the plane more so than the building. please note in the picture of the straw the straw was damaged and did not enter the tree in pristine condition. but this is just my opinon and dosnt compare to 9/11.

[marky 54]

to put the words above into plain english the plane shows no signs of damage untill in the building, especially the first crash on tower 1, but if you see any other accident the faster something is travling no matter what it hits the more damage the speeding object will take, hence the link in a other post in this thread of the bird hitting the nose cone on an airliner.

[marky 54]

also another thing im confused with is the pancaking theory, if the floors traveled down ward on top of eachother is there any links that show the last 10 or so floors in each trade centre stacked one on the other, reason i say last ten is because its obvious most would of toppled of, but the last few wouldnt of fell a distance for this to happen, all i can find is a pile of rubble with nothing looking like a pancake, i carnt find and thing that shows the last few floors looking like this. (lllll) but standing upright.

[marky 54]

[Jay Ref]

[Jay Ref]

[Jay Ref]

[marky 54]

yet again your answer contain insults to somehow make your opinon superiour to mine. note how you have to use words like thick,cartoon to somehow imply im not smart thus making you smarter and yet you was the one using a straw and a tree to argue your point, i have read the nist report as have many, just because i dont agree with you dosnt mean i havnt read or seen all the information, but at the same time i dont just believe everything i read when theres a strong possibility its all a lie. i take both accounts into consideration, how ever all i was trying to say is you'd expect the plane to take alot more damage than it did. before entering the building ie. wingtips and tail section, but you only clip and copy a tiny little part of my words you can have your sad little way with. so ill leave you now to do your job of insulting and mocking up peoples words like its the 9/11 commission.

[Johnny Pixels]

So we're happy to have a lead musket ball shot at our faces then? Lead is softer than bone, so your skull will stop the soft lead ball.

Right?

[marky 54]

dont talk wet, of course not, but when it hits something hard like bone it flattens, im not saying it wouldnt do damage to the object it hit im saying the faster something travels the more damage is done to both of the objects that collide, so was saying you'd think 500mph would go against the plane just as much as the building, which is why it seems strange that the wing tips didnt brake or tail section didnt brakes because of how thin these parts of the plane are, however it no longer matters about this subject where im concerned, i am happy their were planes i was just trying to explore the no plane theory, which i have done and carnt find anything to support it from what i can find, the biggest problem to saying no planes is the big plane shape left in the building, that would become unexplainable. and no it wasnt my theory before you start but things need to be ruled out in my mind so i know 100%.

[Mooter]

Nice to see that JP, JR & co are still contributing their infinite wisdom to this forum and still using the same amount of insults.

Well done guys, I'm sure that the Neocons of this world are extremely proud of you.

[Johnny Pixels]

[DeFecToR]

[aggle-rithm]

[Johnny Pixels]

[DeFecToR]

[marky 54]

[marky 54]