Killtown

The difference between the density of water and a plane is astronomical. What I am saying is very valid. The speed is what this is about. The fact is the speed of the planes that day was 600 mph when you factor in the weight of the plane it isn't hard to figure out what would happen.

Originally posted by talisman
Killtown

The difference between the density of water and a plane is astronomical. What I am saying is very valid. The speed is what this is about. The fact is the speed of the planes that day was 600 mph when you factor in the weight of the plane it isn't hard to figure out what would happen.

The wingtip would still not slice through, even if the rest of the plane penetrated though.

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by talisman
Killtown

The difference between the density of water and a plane is astronomical. What I am saying is very valid. The speed is what this is about. The fact is the speed of the planes that day was 600 mph when you factor in the weight of the plane it isn't hard to figure out what would happen.

The wingtip would still not slice through, even if the rest of the plane penetrated though.

Since when does the wingtip have to do it? The wing spars in the plane can do it as well, wings are not hollow and can quite easily penetrate that distance of steel. Also don't forget, the steel was already under compression, when something pushes it in, the weight is no longer holding it together, it would be working to push it apart, so that combined with the force of the aircraft would be enough to break the facade.

The core structure would have been stronger than the facade and more difficult to penetrate, and only American 11 would have hit it head on, not much of UA 175 hit the core section, one of the three staircases were still intact throughout the impacted section.

Killtown, et all, may I ask you, why do you continue to argue a point when it has been debunked for the last 3 pages of this thread. Time after time people have posted messages that show that a plane could penetrate the whole building, even a smaller plane as in the Empire State Bldg incident.

Please do some research into physics, as many others have seemed to have done in this (and all your other threads dealing with the same SUBJECT) Then come back to us and try to give a good explanation as to why planes could not penetrate the WTC or other bldgs.

Your posts come off as someone grasping at straws trying to hold on to an assinine theory that has been shown to be wrong on so many levels in ALL YOUR THREADS that your theory of "no planes", "holograms", "faked video" and "brainwashed witnesses" seem to be no more than a teenagers attempt to cause mayhem on what, IMO, is a very well founded, and grounded website, namely ATS.

I don't think the masses that really care about the truth of 9/11 or even the commen laymen that has a bit of interest in the turth of that day can fathom the trivial arguments you prestent daily on the subejct can take you the least bit seriously after you argue points that have been shown to be false in every way.

Please, tell us what the point of your arguments are!?!?! As I, for one, can't comprehend why you continue on with your theory after being disproven again and again.

Perhaps I do understand, as I was young once and took pleasure in getting other's to argue even though I knew I was wrong. Kudos to you if that is the case. We have all been there, and done that, but I think this topic might be a little too serious for this type of behaviour.

If I am wrong, and you are not "younguns" just having a "moment", forgive me...then again, if you are adults, with a sound mind, God help us.

I, for one, am done with your threads, as it seem you are set in your ways and will not listen to reason.

Have at it, and argue till the cows come home (I'm a country gal and can't help but say that), but I encourage all reasonable people on ATS to dismiss this wholeheartedly, and not give these "people" the ammunition to continue this, and their other theories (although I think they have one theory and are bombarding ATS with it) any merrit, as it has been shown to be ridiculous, false and assinine.

Do not feed the wild animals, as they will come back for more and more, to the point where they break thought the fence (like the planes broke through the bldgs on 9/11)

;-)

Cheers all, even those who believe there were no planes crashing into buildings on 9/11. I would love to debate you more, but I have more important things to do, and more posts on ATS to discuss in an intelligent manner, so carry on, debate subjects that defy physics, video, witnesses, and scientific data to your hearts content. I will be no part of it....

...Unless I get bored one day and decide to contribute again.

Salut!


[edit on 7-6-2007 by sensfan]

[edit on 7-6-2007 by sensfan]

[edit on 7-6-2007 by sensfan]

Originally posted by sensfan1) Time after time people have posted messages that show that a plane could penetrate the whole building, even a smaller plane as in the Empire State Bldg incident.

2) your theory of ... "holograms",

1) My argument is NOT that parts of a plane penetrate the whole building, it is that a plane couldn't 100% penetrate the facade on a building like the WTC.

2) Holograms is not my theory.

I don't believe that anyone stated that 100% of the plane penetrated the WTC. Parts of the plane did, not all of it.

your theory of "no planes", "holograms", "faked video" and "brainwashed witnesses"

There is more to my post that the few words you pulled out.

p.s. Apex. what does this mean?

Disclaimer: My Avatar may be a picture of a volcanic eruption, which some members may feel distressing. You have a 43% chance it will be a picture of a volcano.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by sensfan]

Originally posted by Killtown2) Holograms is not my theory.

I'm going to set about this no-plane theory with a view to uncovering evidence that planes did crash into the WTC towers. Now, I know some no-planers will argue that there appeared to be planes because of holograms etc. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to persuade them this was not so. However, given your rejection of holograms, would it be fair to say that if at least one piece of rock-solid evidence can be produced that shows a plane, you'll abandon the no-plane theory?

[edit on 7-6-2007 by coughymachine]