=> South Tower Plane. The Evidence Revealed.

marky 54 · Mega Poster Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 3293

right so now you've proved a bird can put a hole in a areoplane and i would consider a bird a lots less toughier than an aircraft, so if it was'nt a plane that coursed that hole in the building what did?

CB_Brooklyn · Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:10 am Post subject:

Headhunter · Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:09 am Post subject:

Didn't you see the closeup of the birds FEET?!! That wasn't just ANY bird! That he was killed in the process is what's truly amazing, since I was under the impression that he's indestructible.

Fallious · Moderate Poster Joined: 27 Oct 2006 Posts: 762

Woodee · Moderate Poster Joined: 08 Sep 2006 Posts: 159

Bushwacker · Relentless Limpet Shill Joined: 07 Sep 2006 Posts: 1628

Fallious · Moderate Poster Joined: 27 Oct 2006 Posts: 762

Right. Except I think he means the planes. How exactly he would have any chance to examine twisting and bending in an aircraft travelling at over 130 metres per second I don't know.. but bless him, he wants to try!

CB_Brooklyn · Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:10 am Post subject:

CB_Brooklyn · Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:29 am Post subject:

CB_Brooklyn · Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:32 am Post subject:

Headhunter · Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:51 am Post subject:

How do you explain that hole though Mr. no planer?

Fallious · Moderate Poster Joined: 27 Oct 2006 Posts: 762

CB_Brooklyn · Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:17 am Post subject:

CB_Brooklyn · Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:19 am Post subject:

Fallious · Moderate Poster Joined: 27 Oct 2006 Posts: 762

Fallious · Moderate Poster Joined: 27 Oct 2006 Posts: 762

Headhunter · Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:17 am Post subject:

I think he point is that the impact holes are a "cartoon cutout" shaped like a plane, in order to trick us into thinking that a plane impacted there, when, according to him, and a mere handful of other deluded no planers, the plane SHOULD have hit up against the side of the building, and been smashed into a million pieces, to fall down the side of the building, with the area of impact remaining largely intact. That's about it, as far as I understand it.. Confused

telecasterisation · Banned Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs

The question of whether or not either of the WTC aircraft could physically enter the buildings as suggested by the video footage has long since been debated. Challenges are laid down, supply the physics, supply supporting figures, which is then done. This 'evidence' is then sneered at and in response we are fed images of a splattered roadrunner.

One very interesting occasional inclusion in these debates are the photographs of aircraft damage caused by birds. If you actually stop for just a moment and think what this represents - a fragile organic structure tears a nasty gash in the outer structure (mostly the wings) of an aircraft simply by hitting it when the plane is airborne.

This raises a very difficult aspect to deal with for those who claim that the 9/11 aircraft did not have the ability to 'glide into the buildings'. If the simple, compartively weak structure of a bird can rip open the tough outer skin of an aircraft, then what can a 100+ tons travelling at great speed do when it hits something?

You will also notice the way we manipulate and alter our terminology to suit a particular argument. The word 'glide' is often added to describe the way the planes 'entered', but of course there was no 'gliding' taking place at all. To suggest the aircraft 'glided in' adds a very smooth and comfortable element to the entire process when in fact, the aircraft were being driven by powerful jet engines, moving them along at in excess of 500mph, they then literally smashed their way through all exterior building resistence, getting ripped to countless shards in the process.

The point here is this;

Consider a bird hitting the wing of an aircraft. Does it hit and bounce off? Does it hit and get pulverized? We have countless photos to say otherwise - it hits and a large hole is left, the wing nearly torn from its mounting. This is undeniable, yet when solid and researched figures are provided to support the facts on the day that large jet airliners did what they did (enter as shown, not bring down the buildings), this is poo-pooed.

We accept a lil' bird can virtually tear wings off, yet a boeing passenger jet has zero chance of punching through the side of a building? I find this all highly contradictory.

Headhunter · Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:22 pm Post subject:

Good point.

Looked like he was trying to show, with the close-up of the birds feet hanging down, that the bird in question was in fact, the Roadrunner! Laughing

When one also looks at light debris impacts from Tornado winds (not as fast as the S Tower plane), you can see that the amount of intertia involved would be sufficient to penetrate the building. Somewhere out there is an image of a piece of straw having impaled a telephone poll, and I offered that one of the shard of wood sticking into a granite wall. What is the windspeed in a tornado btw? Compare that to a Boeing 767 moving at 575MPH. Frame by frame analysis has also shown decelleration through impact. Prof Jones did some work on this when debunking Reynolds on the NPT.

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2