Mechanical Engineers Destroy the Myths

If you look at the picture closely, you can see a part of the forward hatch and hatch frame, which were fairly massive. Also, I believe that a part of the forward landing gear was in the rubble also, there is a pic that shows that somewhere.

One thing to keep in mind, those drawings that show the extent of the damaged columns exaggerate the size of the column. There was enough room for the debris to have made it from the central entry point to this point. It looks like the punchout itself used up the last of the kinetic energy of the debris itself.

Gordon the vertical parallel lines are not brick coursing, i do know what a course line is. Please look closer. Just to confirm you are looking at the limestone wall above the guy with the moustache.
Can nobody see them?

Also the straight edge down the left side of the hole is not that way because of a brickwork return, howards look at it from this angle picture shows that.



[edit on 13-3-2006 by The Links]

spot on about "where is the massive "circular" object that punched out this hole"? (paraphrased)

how did it punch through so cleanly(indicating HIGH VELOCITY force), without even putting so much as a dent in the next wall in it's "juggernaut"(my word) pathway, or alternatively, as gordon points out, scattering debris in a much wider, larger pattern?

it looks totally faked.

Umm how about C5 in a circular perimeter installed before the impact and wired to a pressure sender/fuse. In that case even a moderate force would cause an explosion making it look like the aircraft did it. Note the explosive punched out for the most part which you would expect if it was laid on the other side of impacted walls or hid under lattice/false interior walls etc. This helps point to the obvious that the impacting force was largely directed out rather then primarily directed inward.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Sorry to cause controversy but the only way a building can be toppled with any degree of predictability is via controlled demolition.

This is your opinion.


What is your educational background? What profesional experience do you have in this that qualifies your opinion?

What is your background... in your history here you have been a pilot, a scientist, an engineer, a meterologist, an expert on politics/government

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What is your educational background? What profesional experience do you have in this that qualifies your opinion?

What is your background... in your history here you have been a pilot, a scientist, an engineer, a meterologist, an expert on politics/government

i ALWAYS like to help with this question.

howie does hazmat clean-ups and has extensive experience with demolition.

and, don't forget! "howard roark" is the fictional architect character who blew up his own skyscrapers in, 'the fountainhead', by ayn rand.





[edit on 13-3-2006 by billybob]

I never claimed to be a pilot.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
What is your background... in your history here you have been a pilot, a scientist, an engineer, a meterologist, an expert on politics/government

Originally posted by billybob
howie does hazmat clean-ups and has extensive experience with demolition.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I never claimed to be a pilot.

So then you are suggesting, by lacking address to the other assertions, that you have claimed to be a scientist, engineer, meterologist, political expert, Hazmat clean-up worker, and have experience with demolishing buildings?

Maybe you should straighten out what your profession actually is before continually requesting ours, as if we are unqualified to hold opinions based in basic physics unless we are also Hazmat clean-up guys.

"You scruffy looking nerf herder".....

"Who's scruffy looking?".......

Guess the reference. The past couple posts just reminded of these lines. I'm still trying to decifer this thread.