This video proves that in a high speed crash between a plane and a wall much of the material should bounce off on the outside.
[in the moving images flaunted on TV the "plane" enters without slowing down. In this above vid it does not enter but breaks apart entirely. Why are the two in any way analogous?]
You don't see, in this above Sandia example, some of the material turning to dust while some of it survives intact. You don't see the plane penetrate the wall even slightly (though according to a report on the test crash the f-4 penetrated some 60mm), as the "plane" appeared to do completely in the videos of the 9/11 South Tower event.
It's true that the F-4 is perhaps made of harder material and more sturdily built, since it's made to travel at higher speeds and that it is smaller than a commercial airline. But if it is harder, then why isn't it even less likely, than a 767, to disintegrate into nothing upon impact?
[Obviously, the "767" image portrayed on TV *does not* disintegrate upon inpact with the steel grid wall - it is shown to penetrate it. It is shown to remain intact while entering the building! Whereas the F-4 disintegrates entirely.]
So the proponents of the authenticity of the Media videos have it both ways - the "plane" is hard enough to penetrate the outer rigid wall of steel columns, but disintegrates to nothing once it gets inside - where it presumably is met with a lot of air and some central columns.
Did "it" lose momentum upon breaking the shell of the building? As one would assume. (But how could "it" lose momentum, if the side of the building appeared to give no resistance?)
[ the TV images portray an object which does not slow down upon alleged contact with the side of the building. The TV images portray, upon close inspection, an object which *does not* lose momentum upon alleged contact with the outside of the building.]
To follow this "logic" of no loss of momentum: would "it" then allegedly hit the central core with the same force "it" hit the outside of the building? Why then, no immediate severe damage to the central core? Enough to cause the top of the building to slouch, crumple or tip?
Yet how would this then be enough energy to disintegrate the "plane," when hitting the steel grid and the cement floors would not?
Where is the force, after the "plane" enters the Tower whole, to totally disintegrate the invincible "plane?"
[The Purdue cartoon moving image shows the "plane" disintegrating into thin air, once it gets inside.]
Or if not, would the alleged intense fires burn up all the plane parts?
Yet, if a fire from a plane crash can burn up all the parts and leave no debris, why is it this has never happened before? (I fully expect the Media perps/suggestibility specialists to start occasionally to stage such "events" from now on, to normalize freaky occurrences.)
Why were supposed plane parts, which don't even match the parts of a 767, then found in the neighborhood? (I should say "put on display" there?). When none were shown to fall away in the video presented? Why weren't these parts found in the regular rubble of the "pile?" But instead all about in the street? (Especially when there is no exit hole on the North side of the South Tower for any of this debris to have exited?)
If the Sandia test plane breaks up so well upon impact with an immovable object
Steel columns, attached to the side of a Trade Tower, are relatively immovable and attached to a 500,000 pound Tower
Why did the 767 "plane," in the moving images everyone was shown of the event on TV, remain intact, i.e. not do the same thing the real plane did in the test above?
Here's an example of the Trade Tower columns immovability:
None of the steel column segments appear to break off from where they were attached i.e. pop-out, when allegedly "hit." That implies extreme rigidity of the exterior lattice with the whole of the building. That image implies an extreme integrity of the building as a whole.
So the columns must've been pretty well secured and attached, according to the physics implied in the universe the moving image allegedly represents.
In all the images, the Trade Tower does not appear to sway or react to the impact of the "plane." That means the image implies the wall of the Trade Tower was very secure and solid and put up strong resistence to the alleged impact? Since the Tower is made of metal and cement, not of butter?
The set-up was rigid enough so that when a force was applied THE WHOLE BUILDING MOVED (according to witnesses inside the building, which belies the story told by the evidence of the moving images shown on TV - which show the building *not reacting at all* when allegedly hit by a 767 commercial aircraft.)
What is the implication?:
If the Tower did *not* sway, why not, since it was allegedly hit with an object with such alleged kinetic force. And in that case too, the "plane" itself would've absorbed the full shock/force of the impact. In that case, why did "it" not break apart? And if the plane *did not* absorb or react to the force of the impact, why didn't the Tower? Where did the force of the impact, at the moment of impact, go, as portrayed by the moving images shown on TV?
If the Tower *did* sway, why did that not show up portrayed in the movie images flaunted?
Also, if the Tower did sway, as some testified, why did the rivits which held the steel grids to the side of the building hold when the "plane" shown in the moving image on TV came in contact with the steel grids, if that depiction was real?
If the rivits holding the steel outer lattice did fail, why did not the steel grid lattice break off in a sheet?
Where was the force to cause the clean shearing of the steel columns?
If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of the building, why didn't the building sway? Since the shearing implies that the side of the Tower held tight while the "plane" cut in. Could it have held *that* tight? When it's engineered to sway with the force ofthe wind?
If there *were* resistence, the image should've shown evidence of that.
If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of South Tower, that means a section of wall, in the outline of a plane, put up no resistance to the entry of the "plane."
If the wall *had* put up resistance, some of the plane would've broken up and the Tower would've swayed.
If the Tower had put up no resistence, the building wouldn't end up swaying. If the building was soft as butter, and put up no resistence, then you'd see no swaying as a result of the "hit" - which *is* in fact what the TV moving images portray.
According to the presented images, the steel columns were just, supposedly, cut through, as with a cookie cutter - without being dislodged from whereever they were attached to the rest of the building from below.
That would mean the mass of the entire South World Trade Center was behind the "kick" it received from the "plane." Wouldn't a real plane crash?
The "impact" didn't punch out the entire column. So this implies the columns were all quite well attached and that the side of the building was, of a piece, a relatively rigid barrier. Made of steel, which is stronger than AL. Planes are made of AL for its lightness. So the side of the building was strong compared to the plane.
The wall, shown in the test video above, is made of a specially prepared cement-like material - which one would assume is softer than steel. It's meant to cushion any impact, so as not to be penetrated, as it would be if more rigid, less giving? That's why bumpers in bumper car arcade are made of soft rubber. If the material impacted on is more "forgiving'' and softer, there is less damage. If a bumper car hits a *solid* wall, there is more more likelihood the wall wil be damaged. I beleive the bumper the jet hits up against is cushioned - that' why it itself does not break up on impact.
The Trade Tower sides were also all designed to "give" upon having force applied. That is how they withstood wind storms. Witnesses state that the building swung upon "impact." (Not sure how many reading this have felt that swing of a Trade Tower in the wind, from inside of one. But you could feel it quite clearly on a windy day. It induced fear in me, and a kind of sea sickness.)
So even though both "rigid" barriers were designed to "give" upon impact, in only one case, if you compare the video representations of what happen to South Tower on 9/11 and the test for nuclear power station safety at Sandia shown in the vid above, did you see the plane break up *completely* upon impact, and the barrier successfully and totally resist penetration. That was the Sandia test. So the barrier portrayed in the 9/11 TV moving images, the wall of the Tower, did not do what it was designed to do, according to those images.
And the Sandia, we assume, was in a real world test? Why the discrepancies between the records? The cement barrier looks hardly scratched.
So why wasn't any material repelled by the wall of the WTC Tower, if it was indeed hit by a real plane? Why did the "plane" totally penetrate the wall of the Tower like a hot knife into butter?
Why isn't the hole/scar on the South Tower even big enough to allow the supposed "plane" entry, as it is shown in the videos of the event? Why is no plane debris visible in either "mouth"/scar of the World Trade Towers' wounds?
Why isn't there an exit hole on the North side of the South Tower building, even though numerous videos show material and a nose-like object, timed with where the "plane nose" would've been seen, had "it" continued on its apparent trajectory without impediment, exit on that side??
To quote a structural engineer, Pegelow, who spoke recently on the Alex Jones show, ~"The Trade Towers were not a House of Cards, where one event could push their stability over the edge, and trigger a complete collapse."
So there is more than one thing strange about the TV and 9/11 Commission Report depiction of events on September 11th.
----------------- Bulletin Message ----------------- From: GR8BENWA® Date: Nov 6, 2007 3:52 AM
NO PLANES NO PASSENGERS They Fooled Us Once ----------------- Bulletin Message ----------------- From: Zarina Jada-Zakori, Psy.D. Date: Nov 5, 2007 10:54 PM
See mom, No planes
How does GW put it? "Fool me once, shame on me...uh..shame me.. you're not going to shame me again." Whatever.
Well GW - You fooled us once, shame on you, but you are not going to fool us twice, then it would be shame on me!
BTS Data reveal no Passenger Planes Destroyed on 9/11
If the subject were not so controversial, one might assume that a very powerful blow to the story of four hijacked airplanes on 9/11 would be Holmgren’s discovery that two of the four flights connected to that day’s events did not exist and the other two alleged participating aircraft were not destroyed until four years later. As Holmgren writes, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) keeps detailed records of flight times, tail numbers, taxi out times, wheels off times, and so on for every scheduled flight from a U.S. airport, in part for liability insurance considerations. Holmgren found that the original BTS records of take offs that day did not list flights for AA77 (Pentagon crash) and AA11 (North Tower, the first hit).
Of the first hit on the WTC North Tower at 8:46, Holmgren notes that when one looks closely at the video (which wasn’t broadcast until 16 hours later "when the official story of four large planes had already been put into the public’s mind") all one can see is "a brief flash and then the explosion." Holmgren claims that whatever the object is, it "is certainly not a Boeing 767 or any kind of large passenger jet." The object is "way too small. It dive bombs into the tower in a manner which would appear to [be] impossible for a large airliner." Although, he writes, "the natural tendency is to think it is just too fast to see on the video…a frame by frame enlarged analysis…shows a very strange looking object, or possibly several objects flying in close formation. A pulsating blob or group of blobs is probably the best description."
Holmgren argues that the passenger lists seem to be fabricated "because there are impossible contradictions between the lists published by different media outlets…." Nor, he claims, are there any reliable witnesses to support a large jet of the first strike. "All early reports say that it was a small plane or missile," and others who say they simply didn’t see any plane. According to Holmgren, the first strike became a "large plane after people saw the second strike live on TV, leading to the assumption that the first strike had been the same thing," and after American Airlines declared that it had lost AA11 in the crash.
The Illusion -- Live on TV?!
Holmgren then deconstructs the "the South Tower strike – the second hit, the one shown live on TV" and acknowledges that superficially it certainly appears to be a large jet." Yet, he argues, "a close examination reveals that it is not a real plane." To support this assertion Holmgren provides a score of links to the work of researchers Rosalee Grable (aka Webfairy), Nico Haupt, Morgan Reynolds, Ivan Amato and his own supporting articles.
Holmgren finds that the plane shown on TV is not real because it "shows impossible physical characteristics and behavior." The argument that I find most convincing and easiest to understand is his claim that one can see in a frame-by-frame analysis that the alleged plane "passes through the wall like a ghost without making a hole and without breaking off any parts." Holmgren concludes that the plane is "simply a cartoon, which has been animated into the footage."
According to Holmgren, despite popular misconceptions that many real time videos of the plane striking the South Tower exist, there was only one live video of this plane and that video did not show it hitting the building, but rather it shows the plane passing behind the building "giving the impression that it impacted the hidden face," an effect easily achieved "with commercially available real time animation technology. The other videos, which seem… to show the plane actually hitting the building did not appear until hours later."
Holmgren makes short work of flight UA 93, the one alleged to have crashed in Shanksville, PA. This was also "a bona fide flight, but the plane –N591UA – was also still registered as valid for more than four years after Sept 11…The alleged crash site in Pennsylvania shows absolutely no evidence of a plane crash."
To drive home his point that no planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks, Holmgren makes much of the lack of evidence of any wreckage of any of the four planes. He suggests that if real planes had crashed, it would be an easy matter for the government to produce some portion of the tons of normally identifiable wreckage.
Likewise Morgan Reynolds finds that the most obvious defect of the official story is an absence or near absence of conventional airplane wreckage.
Government could have ended controversy over planes long ago by allowing independent investigators to examine part numbers and compare them to each plane’s maintenance logbook. This did not happen following the 9/11 crashes. Government has not produced a single airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration.
Of the two Boeing 767’s, which vanished into the Twin Towers, Reynolds asks:
How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel towers and disappear with no deceleration visible, no plane wreckage visible in gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone?
Reynolds finds a "stunning lack of evidence" that "no confirmed debris exists from two alleged 767 high speed crashes into skyscrapers within 17 minutes of each other. Furthermore Reynolds finds that
physics rejects any theory that posits an invincible airplane (a plane remaining intact after an abrupt collision with a steel skyscraper) that also disintegrates (flimsy) in the next instant in the same general physical environment (temperature, etc.)…. (my emphasis)
Another problem says Reynolds is that the maximum spread across the north tower hole is 126 feet and the south tower is only 103 feet, opening insufficient to accommodate a 767 wingspan of 156 feet." "Wings with momentum do not "fold back onto themselves" in order to slip through an undersized hole along with the fuselage." Summing up this line of argument, Reynolds writes:
defenders of the 767 theory want their cake and eat it too: supposedly powerful 767s easily penetrated steel walls and floors yet identically crumbled within a fraction of a second and vanished inside despite huge fuselage length and wingspan ¾ the length of a tower wall. Both 767s were never seen again from any side of either tower, a dazzling combination of imposing strength and fragility within a tenth of a second.
----------------- Bulletin Message ----------------- From: Pan Man Date: Nov 5, 2007 8:20 PM
I have well over 3000 friends at myspace. They have well over 900,000 friends...and the friends of their friends number well in to the millions. When I post a bulletin that's worth a shit, it gets reposted by my friends and their friends until it comes up for view by all kinds of people who are NOT my friends, many of whom find the things I say rather unbelievable and objectionable.
Some take offense and let me know about it. I have converted many of those who originally thought I was the anti-Christ for my statements about Bush, Cheney, 9/11, the New World Order, etc etc. The idea snipers who don't receive mail from any one who is not their friend have the ability to make hit and run critical comments with impunity. Sooner or later, they will come around. Until then, I just have loads of fun fuckin with their little zombie heads!
The great danger of having friends who all believe as we do is that we become insulated and all of our preaching is to the choir. Since our position as Truthers, particularly regarding subjects like 9/11, gives us the intellectual high ground, "debates" with sheep usually aren't difficult to win and our converts become rabid evangelists for Truth once awakened.
That's the best part of all this for me. When you are alone in a room with someone who knows and believes just as you do, there's really not that much left to talk about except the old mutual admiration trivia and how ignorant everyone else is. It's fun, to be sure, but it won't win the war of ideas when our competition is mass media "programming" that sings the opposition's music all day every day, relentlessly.
Do what you can with whoever you can whenever the opportunity presents itself. The people who shoved the red pill down my throat 13 months ago still write me once in a while to praise my efforts... and that really makes it all worth while to know I am passing it along to people who were just as asleep and clueless as I was in Sept, 2006. We are all just shepherds in search of lost sheep! Bring some home today...before they get fleeced, shorn and slaughtered by the false shepherds and Judas Goats they are still following blindly to the abattoir!