Hunt the Boeing II

[Snowygrouch]

Here is quite a good photo of the wing damage to the outer columns, I have SERIOUSLY considered the no-plane theory but I`m afraid I had to face the conclusion that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to fake the thin dent you see bottom-left caused by the outer section of wing that didnt have enough energy to slice through but just bouced off the steel columns here causing the thin dent clearly visable.

This would be quite physically IMPOSSIBLE to fake.

It just cannot be done in that scenario. No work could have been done to the outside of the building as its in full view 24hrs a day. It is not possible to dent the outside of a beam 1000feet up on the outside of a skyscraper using any form of explosoves inside the buidling.

Its just physics, if you explode something it goes OUTWARDS; you cannot dent a beam inwards FROM the inside. Especially not in the exact shape of a plane wing in the prescisely correct angle and position on the building.

Its just NOT a plausable scenario from any standpoint. After looking through these sorts of photos (there are dozens) I couldnt reach any other conclusion.

Its irrefutable; thats just they way it is. Belive me I HAVE thought about the possibility of no-planes but it just doesnt wash with the evidence.

C.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

How do you know that it is where you say it is?

Why is there nothing else in the frame to identify the area?

Why is the alleged engine stood on it's end as though somebody has placed it there that way?

Has anybody got any comparable Boeing engines picture from other crashes?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[quote="Snowygrouch"]Here is quite a good photo of the wing damage to the outer columns, I have SERIOUSLY considered the no-plane theory but I`m afraid I had to face the conclusion that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to fake the thin dent you see bottom-left caused by the outer section of wing that didnt have enough energy to slice through but just bouced off the steel columns here causing the thin dent clearly visable.

This would be quite physically IMPOSSIBLE to fake.





You say the wing bounced off the steel columns

In all the footage available - the plane meets no resistance and melts into the building with no wreckage whatsoever falling down the side of the building

[Snowygrouch]

1: I dont understand your question; its pretty obvious where the photo is refering to. If you want I`ll email you the whole "impact study" for you to read through.
2: There are several video's showing hundreds of shards of metal falling during the impact. Where do you think those parts came from.
3: If you think YOU colud pick up half of an 8 ton smoking jet turbine by hand you're a better man than I!!!
4: The very outer tips did not penetrate but were obvioulsy pulverised into fragments. Perhaps bounced was not the best phrase to use.
5: The melting is a bit of footage I`ve looked at many times, the recording format records frames with an obvious time gap in-between frames. Prob 25FPS. Thus if you start analysing frame transitions I am not in the least bit surprised you find it looks odd. The only way you could rely on footage to analyse that would be a high speed camera. Which it AINT. The footage is fuzzy, low quality and recorded at the usual slow frame rate; quite useless for analysing high speed impacts.


I`m not going to sit here all day posting bit and peices for you; if you are actaully interested PM me and I`ll email you the documents.

C.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Let's end this discussion Snowy - I feel you have not properly addressed the no planes area for a meaningful discussion

[Snowygrouch]

TTWSE3,
Okey dokey chap.

C.

[Patrick Brown]

I really can't believe this thread is still alive. I find the continued discussion of this theory as bizarre as the theory itself.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

You clearly have not properly researched this area Patrick

[Patrick Brown]

You clearly have not properly researched this area Patrick

And I don't plan on researching it either as it's just too far out even for me!

I once thought the idea of an astral body, in a physical sense, was plausibly until I figured out that it's the dream body i.e. It has no physical basis in the material universe and only exist in our heads.

Unfortunately aircraft are real!

[Woodee]

You clearly have not properly researched this area Patrick

Please show me evidence of your theory... I am intrigued?

[Banish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_MnCPxwKoY&eurl=

Re, the Empire State photo. The builing material used in the Empire was granite. The materials used in WTC were steel and reiforced concrete.

Empire is still standing.

[alwun]

Woodee

here is a link.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=9 ... have_holes

This will help to clarify the debate. This is more properly an cccount of 'The no big passenger jets with people theory'. An elegant and simple exposition.

cheers Al.