Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by Bilk22

---

In case you missed my reply, it's here.

But one thing I forgot to mention: In regards to the Purdue animation, you mentioned Ace Baker. If you want to maintain credibility, I wouldn't mention him. Ace is not only a lunatic, but a liar and a fraud.

I think the best expose I've seen on this guy is here: Post From: A Physicist's Take on the WTC Plane Crash at pumpitout.com.

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by Bilk22

---

In case you missed my reply, it's here.

But one thing I forgot to mention: In regards to the Purdue animation, you mentioned Ace Baker. If you want to maintain credibility, I wouldn't mention him. Ace is not only a lunatic, but a liar and a fraud.

I think the best expose I've seen on this guy is here: Post From: A Physicist's Take on the WTC Plane Crash at pumpitout.com.

Originally posted by davidmann
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

---

I did go through many of the replies, one of which gave me a possible insight. Clearly the kerosene in the wings was the cutting agent. Remember, liquid DOES cut steel, as mentioned by a thoughtful proponent of the official story, in this same thread. So, since the kerosene in the wing fuel tanks didn't explode, or show any trace at all where it ought to have splattered, just where the wings crashed into the steel, exoskeletal building frame, instead, the liquid became an actual cutting agent, just like in factories that cut steel with water, everywhere. That would explain why there was no fuel seen exploding near the fuel tanks. The energy was all used to remove the steel of the building instead. And the fuel, once past the building, sloshed forward and regained volatility, and blew out more obstacles so the plane could come out the other side. That explains it.

Originally posted by davidmann
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

---

I did go through many of the replies, one of which gave me a possible insight. Clearly the kerosene in the wings was the cutting agent. Remember, liquid DOES cut steel, as mentioned by a thoughtful proponent of the official story, in this same thread. So, since the kerosene in the wing fuel tanks didn't explode, or show any trace at all where it ought to have splattered, just where the wings crashed into the steel, exoskeletal building frame, instead, the liquid became an actual cutting agent, just like in factories that cut steel with water, everywhere. That would explain why there was no fuel seen exploding near the fuel tanks. The energy was all used to remove the steel of the building instead. And the fuel, once past the building, sloshed forward and regained volatility, and blew out more obstacles so the plane could come out the other side. That explains it.

A waterjet is a tool used in machine shops to cut metal parts with a (very) high-pressure stream of water. As amazing as it sounds, if you get water flowing fast enough it can actually cut metal.

Think of a waterjet as something with about 30 times the pressure of the power washer wand at your local car wash. Power washing at car washes is an everyday example of a dirt film being "cut" off the body, wheels and tires of an automobile.

The key to cutting metal with water is to keep the spray coherent. Waterjets are able to cut because the spray is channeled through a very narrow jeweled nozzle at a very high pressure to keep the spray coherent. Unlike metal cutters, a waterjet never gets dull and it cannot overheat.

Low pressure waterjets were first used for mining gold in California in 1852. Steam and hot water jets were used in the early 1900s for cleaning. High pressure waterjets were used for mining in the 1960s, and about 10 years ago industry began using waterjets for cutting. Abrasive water jets (abrasivejets) were first used in industry in about 1980.

In the past, only one piece of metal could be cut at a time with a saw or other metal cutting mechanical process. It was time intensive and expensive. Computer-controlled waterjet and abrasivejet cutting are used today in industry to cut many soft and hard materials. The plain water-abrasive mixture leaves the nozzle at more than 900 mph. The latest machines can cut to within two thousandths of an inch, and have jet speeds around Mach 3.

Do you ever wonder, when looking at the video of the impact, why the ends or the tail section, which do not have the same critical mass, cut through the same steel in the same manner, instead of being rejected after impact?

Originally posted by Yankenstein
reply to post by Bilk22

---

Do you ever wonder, when looking at the video of the impact, why the ends or the tail section, which do not have the same critical mass, cut through the same steel in the same manner, instead of being rejected after impact?

When considering the construction of the exterior columns, it only takes a little common sense to picture the interaction of the columns with the wings. The walls were not one solid piece, so the parts of the wing which impacted the columns would have reacted differently as they impacted the steel, than the parts of the wings that missed the steel. This is not visible in the videos, nor is the damage evidence (the gashes) consistent with reality. Therefore the simplest explanation is fraudulent video.

Maybe the test should be to hit the wings with a building. One wonders what those that choose to believe the official explanation, think would happen.

Originally posted by Yankenstein
reply to post by Bilk22

---

Maybe the test should be to hit the wings with a building. One wonders what those that choose to believe the official explanation, think would happen.

Sure, most folks can't imagine it, that's why the test should be done both ways, once with the columns on the sled, once with the wing; it should be the same result no matter how you slice it. Envisioning it in this manner, (with the rocket sled )really helps snap people out of it. There's a lot more psychology to propaganda than most people understand. Few realize Sigmund Freud (father of modern psychology) was also the uncle to Edward Bernays (father of modern propaganda).

What is happening now is probably the same as has been happening since the dawn of the written word, they just have better media to get their message out today. It's the Emperor's New Clothes in reverse; we're the naked ones.

People follow the crowd and they trust other people before they'll trust their own common sense, so naturally untrustworthy people will take advantage of that tendency. Pity it is the untrustworthy who rise to the top of our society, by design I might add.

I just don't buy the idea it was commercial civilian aircraft and I don't buy the manner in which it was claimed to have happened. I don't buy that untrained people could hijack aircraft with razor blades, navigate them to definitive targets at a high rate of speed with pinpoint accuracy and I don't buy the physics either.