visit full thread |
board home |
site home |
recent posts |
top topics
The NIST simulation goes against this statement:
"there is no way a plane could possibly reflect/bounce off, the force involved would, as was seen, destroy the plane. "
Because clearly the "plane" is destroyed on impact and some pieces bounce off acording to the known laws of physics (Deflection), as you can see on the PBS documentary.
You are twisting the laws of physics; ie: inventing new ones.
The expected behaviour of the collision is well simulated by NIST... The problem is that in the "real" world that behaviour could not be seen.
Of course letting aside the magical transparent plane.
[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]
From Thread: Why there were no planes at the WTC
Posted by brainsucker, on October 2, 2006 at 11:40 GMTThe NIST simulation goes against this statement:
"there is no way a plane could possibly reflect/bounce off, the force involved would, as was seen, destroy the plane. "
Because clearly the "plane" is destroyed on impact and some pieces bounce off acording to the known laws of physics (Deflection), as you can see on the PBS documentary.
You are twisting the laws of physics; ie: inventing new ones.
The expected behaviour of the collision is well simulated by NIST... The problem is that in the "real" world that behaviour could not be seen.
Of course letting aside the magical transparent plane.
[edit on 2-10-2006 by brainsucker]
You may use this content as long as you comply with our Creative Commons Deed by properly sourcing the author as owner, source the AboveTopSecret.com website as co-owner, do not create a derivative work, and do not use it for commerical purposes.
