See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 UAL 175 Plane on Radar AFTER It Has 'Crashed' Into The WTC; (MSNBC)
Source:
,
URL Source: http://,
Published: Mar 16, 2009
Author: msnbc
Post Date: 2009-03-16 13:04:41 by Artisan
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 14866
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 448.
#3. To: Artisan (#0)
Oh, they'll be out in force. It might take them a day or two, but for every new revelation shining light on the 911 Inside Job they have a spin very quickly. Either they will attack the film as altered or they'll have some other spin such as the Radar was incompetent. They won't hold water but for the Sheeple who don't want to look at reality they will grasp at any spin straw to avoid looking. They want the "Nightly Nooze" to tell them what they think.
if the identifying radar system is in real time as he claimed then it is pretty damning evidence of remote controlled drone planes. I don't know antyhing about such systems which is why i pinged the pilots. Anyway, we all know the truth but to what end ? There is more than enough evidence but most politicians, clergy, academics and influence peddlers won't look at or acknowledge any of this. And time has gone on and it's almost 10 8 yrs past. Anyway, it's fun to expose their lies. people do know, in general, but what comes of it? we shall watch.
I'm confused, "tracked on RADAR" 1 hr after it hit the WTC?
Only if you believe this shit are you...
The shit in the video or the Gov't shit?
The government's shit is mosty likely the closest to what happened. If anything got covered up it's how little attention the Boosh's were paying when it went down...
Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
Your prediction was akin to predicting that if you pulled your pants down and tried to blow yourself in Times Square people would look. PS: Claiming that "WE BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!!" is the same thing as self- felating in Times Square.
Explain this. See how the top of the tower is tilting on an angle? Simple physics would determine that the top of the tower should have toppled over and tumbled, as there is less resistance to the air than there would be to the steel and concrete below it, thus it would have continued it's rotational movement and toppled over. Why did it all of a sudden drop like a rock straight down through the steel and concrete rather than simply topple over as it appears ready to do in the following picture?
As you can see it's not dropping stright...your own photo shows the tilt...in the case of 1 it fell into the Deutsche Bank Building and in the case of 2 it fell into 7...
The top of the tower should have continued it's fall to where it would have flipped to the side and fallen down without going through the rest of the entire tower. Sort of like putting a can on top of a damaged box of cereral and pushing down on one end of the can till it tilts if you want an analogy. The can wouldn't fall through the box, it'd simply slide off the box and fall.
Uh no...it would not "flip"...gravity would take it in the most direct route of its momentum...
Which is through the path of least resistance, ie. the air.
Uh...no...direct route to earth, Flippy, i.e. straight down once the relatiove motion of the center of gravity becomes perpendicular to the source of the gravity, i.e. the point where the center of gravity stops moving in any direction other than downward. Flunked physiccs didja?
Uh, wrong. There was a small matter of concrete and steel between the top of the tower and their earth, where there was NO resistance to the air and the tower was already leaning in a direction where it should have slid off the structure. Since there would have been horizontal friction, the tower should have not slid but continued to fall over as is apparent it started to do. Where'd you learn physics, the gym?
The top of the tower did topple over as you've been shown...the rest of the tower collapsed downward due to the total compromise of the outside bearing walls and inside supports...
BTW, you contradict yourself here. Did it topple or did it drop staight down? It's easy to see the answer on various videos, but I'd like you to admit that it couldn't have done BOTH.
Well...I was accepting your use of the word topple which I then disputed above...the top does move angularly for the brief moment it took to establish a center of gravity...
It already HAD a center of gravity until a portion of the structure below it gave way. Never mind trying to obfuscutate the matter, it simply fell in the direction of least resistance and that was into the corner that no longer had any support. Its momentum was already causing it to topple, and if the core HAD broken at that moment it probably WOULD have flipped over as it smashed into the solid edge of the structure below. Since it didn't, you'd have to assume the core was intact, although quite bent. So, the core should have remained where it was and been visible as the upper portion of the WTC slid down it. Of course it wasn't there, so what happened to it?
Actually when it was attached ot the building it did not as the structure had a center of gravity. when that support broke the top established its own. That's basic geometry bro...
Bro, did you try to balance that can on your finger as I suggested? You can squawk all you want about centers of gravity, yet that can will fall off your finger each time, and it WILL tumble. You have no clue where the center of gravity was or wasn't in the upper portion of the WTC, as NOBODY could know since there is no way to know what part of the lower structure gave way and how long it supported the weight of the falling structure above. However, once a solid section of structure was impacted, the upper structure should have acted as your finger trying to balance a can, where it would have acted as a fulcrum on which it would have pivoted downwards to where it would have tumbled over.
Are you trying to tell me that there was more than one center of gravity on one structure? CoG is a fairly easy calculation but putting that aside, we know that basic design principles make it impossible to put the CoG outside of a building's footprint and at multiple points. So, you can make the arguemnt that the plane's impact SHIFTED the CoG but you cannot then argue agasint the physics that gravity affects CoG by anything othe rthan straight down. "It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."
There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Oh, so all those steel columns in the core and the cement surrounding them can just "implode", eh? And the floors, well, they are just about as thin as paper, right? Right. The towers certainly didn't implode for anyone who has watched the collapse on video. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Did you ever take physics? When an object's equilibrium changes due to a change in the forces acting upon it, it moves in a direction with a net force in the direction of that vector. If a corner of the supporting structure had collapsed, as is apparent in the tilted position seen in the beginning of the collapse I had shown, then its center of gravity DOES change. The fact that the SIDE of the structure is pointing at a DOWNWARDS angle indicates that the force of gravity is exerting a net force on the SIDE of the structure which causes a LATERAL force vector to be applied to that object, in this case the top of the WTC which is leaning over. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. There is no reason there SHOULD have been a near free-fall collapse. Of course, with explosives in the floors BELOW the damaged floors, the top of the tower would have just dropped like a rock, exactly as it did.
There are no replies to Comment # 448. End Trace Mode for Comment # 448.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestany debunkers?
#4. To: Original_Intent (#3)
#6. To: Artisan (#4)
#7. To: Itistoolate (#6)
I'm confused
#8. To: war (#7)
Only if you believe this shit
#11. To: Itistoolate (#8)
#14. To: war (#11)
#17. To: Original_Intent (#14)
Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
#59. To: war (#17)
#61. To: FormerLurker (#59)
#63. To: war (#61)
#64. To: FormerLurker (#63)
The top of the tower should have continued it's fall to where it would have flipped to the side and fallen down without going through the rest of the entire tower.
#72. To: war (#64)
Uh no...it would not "flip"...gravity would take it in the most direct route of its momentum...
#82. To: FormerLurker (#72)
Which is through the path of least resistance, ie. the air.
#88. To: war (#82)
Uh...no...direct route to earth, Flippy,
#97. To: FormerLurker (#88)
Since there would have been horizontal friction, the tower should have not slid but continued to fall over as is apparent it started to do.
#364. To: war (#97)
The top of the tower did topple over as you've been shown...
#390. To: FormerLurker (#364)
BTW, you contradict yourself here. Did it topple or did it drop staight down?
#414. To: war (#390)
the top does move angularly for the brief moment it took to establish a center of gravity...
#415. To: FormerLurker (#414)
It already HAD a center of gravity
#417. To: war (#415)
That's basic geometry bro...
#420. To: FormerLurker (#417)
You have no clue where the center of gravity was or wasn't in the upper portion of the WTC
#448. To: war (#420)
Replies to Comment # 448.