Lefty One,

Rest assured, I don't think I can convince you of anything. Not on this topic, at least. As I said earlier, conspiracy theorists tend to have a fact-proof mindset with built-in protection mechanisms. But converting others isn't the only reason to pursue a discussion. Just as pursuing a discussion isn't necessarily indicative of a lack of hobbies.

I find that those who jump to the most unflattering conclusions tend to be getting a little on the defensive side. It's a strange belief to be getting defensive about though. Who would want to assume the worst of humanity, after all? I suppose reality isn't always as exciting as a good conspiracy. Perhaps try finding excitment in debunking pseudoscience?

Hey LEFTY ONE,
I'm not sure he's trying to convert you, I think all AJ Philips has done is backed up his original opinion on the subject by refuting your argument - that the planes wouldn't go 'into' the towers as opposed to smashing up in a crumpled heap 'against' the towers.

They've given out some air-speed data, which was faster than I thought; and I gave the weight 420,000lbs, Loudmouth even kindly showed how to formulate the data (if that's the right terminology)
Then take into account there was a lot of fuel, so the wings weren't hollow and then maybe even consider whether cabin pressure worked a little like the golf ball video we saw earlier ?

With that much weight and speed I think its reasonable to think that the planes went through that outer casing unimpeded, especially considering the inertia that sent the flames way out the other side of the building.
I don't specifically know the strength capabilities of the building, but there are honestly a million other aspects / inconsistencies or what-have-you of 9/11 to look at before you get hung up on that tiny aspect of it.

There was a thread for 9/11 a while back, though I'm not sure its still active.
You are free to start a new topic if you want (though the forum administrator might not approve one if there's still an active existing thread on that topic)
And really we shouldn't 'cross-post' different discussions on the original authors forum.
Sorry BROCK.

If 9/11's important to you, do some research, be sure of all your arguments and come back and have another crack another day, it's no big deal.

Sheesh! Now there’s a conspiracy theory about me trying to convert. Perhaps I’m employed by the US government?

It’s alright, I’ve been accused of being a shill for Big Pharma and Big Agra by those who I'm certain must be shills Big Organic.

I was once even accused by someone of being paid by Graham Young to get them off the forum! The lengths some people will go to to avoid facing the possibility that they may simply be wrong.

I still don’t get what building-penetrating planes would prove though. It’s like those who propose this theory get so caught up in looking for inconsistencies that they forget why it is that they’re trying to find them.

If people work for forty years, like I have, yet have nothing to show for it, then cry poor when they loose their jobs, is that societies fault?

The current situation is simply the fallout of bad government decisions in the past and if some didn't stash a bit away when they had the chance, its a shame, but it was their choice.

Hi AJ,

Those planes weighed 200 tonnes (200 tonnes of aluminium is still 200 tonnes, Lefty), and were travelling at, for argument's sake, 600 kph ?

Momentum = half (mass) x velocity squared.

Some bullet.

Those planes are quite beautiful, sleek, slim, elegant. And ten metres 'thick'. So when one slams into a building at 600 kph, I wonder why it doesn't get jammed between floors ? Perhaps because all 200 tonnes of it disintegrates in a split second, surrounded by thousands of litres of high-power fuel. All part of that momentum = 1/2 m x v sq.

And what impact would that alone have on the integrity of the building it hits, i.e. a ten-metre tall plane body fitting into a four-metre space ? Or hitting the floor-level head-on (or a couple of floor-levels) ? Would that perturb the building at all ? Or would the thousands of .litres of high-octane fuel do that ? Or the effects of both together ? All that fuel pouring down stair-wells and lift-shafts.

Hi Lefty,

Just one thing that puzzles me: the second plane hit much lower down than the first one. Guess which building collapsed first. Why would that be ?

Maybe the demolitioners planned it that way ? Devilishly cunning.

Oh, another thing: what would one of those buildings weigh ? Half a million tonnes ? Two of them falling near a smaller third building: could that have a sort of destabilising effect on it ?

Or was a third plane supposed to hit it ? Otherwise, why wire it up for demolition ?

Just wondering.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Armchair Critic
As you say there are a million and one unanswered questions regarding the 9/11 report presented by the government. It could well be that the planes did smash their way in which if true, would mean the people who were told to design a tower that could handle the pact of a fully loaded 707 did not do a very good job.

I am not that bothered to continue talking about 9/11 as I think the world has lot bigger problems that we can possible affect the thinking of some on. I guess people who post come in three basic groups. Those that follow main stream media and believe what It says. Those who think about what is being stated and ask questions, if it does not make sense. And finally those who just enjoy a good blog joust with an opposing point of view.

And as you also said we are way of topic, for me it is time to move to another topic. Or more likely a take break as my wife is telling me I need to focus more on running our farm.The rains are nearly finished, which means this year at least, no flooding.

Chris