Originally posted by psikeyhackr
reply to post by NWOwned
I am sick of these comparisons to the Empire State Building impact.
What was the weight of that plane?
What was the velocity of that plane? How did the woman Edna Centron get to the opening? What was she walking on? Was the aircraft an airliner? If
the planes impacted at certain spots to take out particular companies then how could human pilots do it?
The entire physics profession not discussing the "center of mass" of the tilted top portion of the south tower for ELEVEN YEARS is more interesting
than aircraft impacts however. It says something about the science/academic establishment that goes beyond 9/11. The Laws of Physics are more
important than 9/11.
The total destruction of the buildings must be explained regardless of the aircraft. I am not getting on the no planes merry-go-round.
I only used the Empire State crash to illustrate a few points, namely, planes (whatever size) tend to break up when they come into contact with large
hard things like skyscrapers. That and they tend to leave evidence of themselves right in the gash. The Empire State plane did, it was just a small
bomber lost in the fog. That guy who crashed into the tax building, his small plane was hanging out of the hole.
On the 9/11 North Tower hit you have no visible plane wreckage in the gash, which I think is at least strange because it was a much bigger plane than
the bomber or the tax guy's plane and therefore would leave more "pieces".
That's the first thing.
The second thing is I think the Empire State crash was an accident and not a stealthy conspiracy.
So the record of it in what pictures exist are probably what they are. I'm not sure the same can be said of 9/11.
As for Edna, she was standing on the bottom floor where there was a floor. The bottom red horizontal line on my North Tower pic (above), there is
clearly a floor running along there. Could she stand a floor above her at the wall? The floor above that? How about the middle of the gash at about
Don't toss off an opinion, look at the photograph.
You're a physics science guy.... Let me ask you then, you think all those floor 'edges' should be missing and what? Be further in? How far? beyond the
light and line of sight? Should the floor edges have been destroyed or pushed in so far we can't even see them in a decent pic? Apply your wizard
physics to that why don't you, because the physics you been touting so far (even if I suspect it's right) isn't getting you or the 9/11 truth and real
investigation angle anywhere.
Seriously, you think that the 'plane' went all the way in there, left no big pieces of itself hanging out the hole and destroyed all (5-ish) the
concrete floor edges so far into the building we can't even see them? Is that what you think?
Without leaving a single visible piece of itself?
Look at the photo, on the left, no left wing went completely in there, there is still debris from the building in the way!
Then you wonder how human pilots could be so accurate all while acknowledging 'they' (possible real perps) likely had access to the very floors that
You know what I'm sick of? I'm sick of making a sound reasonable argument based on visual video evidence that gets dismissed without being either
acknowledged or debunked.
That's what I am sick of.
It doesn't matter to me if a real 767 went into the North Tower or not. It's not any kind of CIA spoon fed religion to me. I'm just looking carefully
at the shred of evidence they gave us and was broadcast and I'm saying like, "Look, I know the story is that a plane went in there and Naudet by some
caught it on camera, but when I look at that clip I can see, I can tell, I can SHOW that what it really shows is that no 767 crashed in
This is not my belief, it's not my opinion, it's a sound argument based on an actual careful examination of the evidence we have and were
Rather than tell me what you're sick of, how bout you explain to me how the Naudet clip looks like it does if a 767 did crash in there. Because what
it actually shows is that one didn't. I don't care what people believe or what people think I believe, the "evidence" shows clearly that no 767
crashed in there. That's what it shows.
So, there's no plane hanging out the hole, floor edges are pushed back and destroyed, all while obstructions still would prevent the whole plane from
entering, and when we examine the Naudet clip really closely it actually shows that no 767 crashed in there.
Plus, forget the Empire State building crash, the Naudet clip and the South Tower crash videos do no resemble each other. Don't you think they should?
Even a little? Same size planes, same design buildings etc. etc.
I don't care what anyone believes that's a summary of what is shown.
edit on 13-11-2012 by NWOwned because: structure