... but given enough velocity, both will cut through steel. That fact doesn't disappear because you don't understand it.
> Planes break away at impact, but yet no plane debris at impact at towers
Before I waste time refuting that bullshit (for the second time tonight), I'll give you another opportunity to look for yourself. If you really can't find any evidence of plane debris at impact, come back and say so, and I'll be happy to demonstrate how poor your Google skills are.
> The debris at Pentagon is a joke. Plane engines are 9 feet tall not knee high to a fireman.
Your assertion is a joke. The engines on a 757 are about 7 feet in diameter, but that's before being smashed to bits. If you want to know the sizes of the bits, you'd need something like this to know what's inside:
Then it becomes possible to identify the parts seen in the Pentagon photos:
> The "planes" were traveling at sea level speeds. The planes would of had resistance upon impact. And why plan for years only to be told no box cutters on board so you choose to fly over military bases to get to NY instead of flying out of JFK. Breaking necks is just as horrific as slicing them.
I'm sorry, but that isn't coherent enough to respond to. What exactly are you trying to say?
> This video here shows the second attack on the towers. Notice how fast it penetrates with no resistance, no debris.
And another joke. That video doesn't have good enough resolution to even show the columns and windows, which were 30" on center. Why would you expect it to show the small debris produced by a high-speed collision? As for "how fast it penetrates," did you happen to notice how fast it was moving?
> No plane could slice through those towers without breaking up.
Agreed, and I think it's quite safe to say that none did slice through those towers without breaking up. But why almost all of it ended up inside the building is really not a mystery: it's called momentum.
By the way, are you aware that many thousands of people actually saw what that video shows, in real time with there own two eyes? "No planers" seem to come exclusively from a generation that grew up with their noses buried in video games, to the extent that they seem to have not developed much of a sense of what "reality" means to normal people.
> And out of 4 "planes" there should be a shit load of seats. Where are they? Where are the charred frames and the untouched ones? Where are the pictures of seats.
You asked that question in another thread, but apparently you didn't read a prior post that described what was found in the Pentagon. There actually is at least one public photo of a charred body in a seat in the Pentagon, and I'm surprised that even that one got out, for reasons that should be obvious to most people. But here's an interesting fact: there were over a thousand people involved in cleaning up the mess at the Pentagon and a similar number at Shanksville. How many of those people don't believe that jetliners crashed at those sites? Apparently, the number is exactly zero. Perhaps they know considerably more about what was found at the crash sites than you?
> And why no try at reconstruction. It's what the FAA does.
It's what the FAA does in accident cases, to learn as much as possible about what caused the accidents, in hopes that such knowledge will improve air travel safety. Only a very small number of people don't know what caused the 9/11 plane crashes, but no reconstruction would be of any help to them.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read