progressiveissuesblog

LawsonTheForger

[MEK Note: I believe Comments below in RED disprove the theory that the planes had to be made from computer graphics. Planes hit the Towers but they weren’t the airlines. Traveling too fast for sea level flying and with inexperienced first time pilots of large planes. These were large drones made to simulate airlines probably with hardened nose]

mcgeeandmee

8 years agoThis is cool you explain it real well! REPLY

rocket e

12 years agoGood job here, Ace Baker. You are correct in your analysis of Lawson’s presentation as having been faulty. This inconsistent puffball evidence is highly significant, IMO. It clearly substantiates that the WTC2 video planes are fake.REPLY

CollinAlexander12 years agoIt’s plenty clear. I’ve drawn the lines, it’s not even close. The puffball is above the wing in Fairbanks. The mistake was in where they drew the layer mask. It may have been careless, or someone may have done it on purpose, as a nice clue for us to find.1REPLY

king kernut

8 years agoLawson also cuts the Naudet “flight 11 impact” film BEFORE we can see the six second late “impact silhouette formation” .He claims it was the only available clip when compiling his video, yeah right!REPLY

CollinAlexander12 years agoThe puffball is right against the wall. You can tell by the shadow.REPLY

dominic150

9 years ago@CollinAlexander id agree with youroom101 on this. they are below the wings in both. the POV is different in both videos. the balls seem to be above the wing just as the buildings seem to bend out overtop of you while standing at the base. Its an illusion because your brain converts a 2d image into 3d and shadows play a large part in that. simply put, your eyes can be easily fooled. REPLY

rocket e

12 years agoFurther to my previous comment: The key here, as you suggest, is the all important frame where the alleged plane’s port-side wing clearly obscures what should be the underside puffball. Lawson’s omission of the vital frame obscures this otherwise conclusive proof of fake planes.REPLY

dominic150

9 years ago@jamesha175 even seen the aftermath of a tornado? wood is embedded into reinforced concrete without being broken. Momentum is a very powerful force. also, an aluminum baseball bat is made of aircraft aluminum. It makes contact with a 90+ mph projectile without so much as a dent time after time. A beercan is in no way an accurate description of a 767. you eyes can be fooled more easily than you might think, but that doesnt mean there were no planes. commercial planes or military?REPLY

dominic150

9 years ago momentum is a powerful force. Momentum embeds wooden 2×4 into reinforced concrete without any damage to the 2×4 itself during an F4-F5 tornado. The same principle is at work here. The Empire State building crash is not even in the same category. compare a B-25 Mitchell to a 767, the 767 is much larger in every aspect. B-25 was meant to carry bombs and is not a pressurized cabin design, therefore it doesnt have to be as rigid as 767. There is zero chance for your beercan against a wall theory.Show lessREPLYView reply

thodal2000

8 years agothx, For some reason no one wants to put their life where their mouth is. A sword fight to the death. They get the aluminum sword. I get a steel one….. REPLY

thodal2000

9 years ago If you seriously believe the collision effects change depending on which object is moving faster, you need to go take a physics class. Sorry the neither building nor the plane “know” which one is moving. They could each be moving 500mph individually or both be moving 250mph. The impulse of force is the same. I bet you think that plane in Pennsylvania “vaporized” too. heheREPLY

fcsuper

12 years agoDrawing a line on a screen doesn’t mean you understand the perspective. Puffballs are clearly below on both images. This is not a masking issue, as there is no masking in either shoot. There are real contraversies in the 9/11 event. This is not one of them.REPLY

Dolan Kang

12 years ago““a real 767 is nothing more than a giant flying beercan”” anyone who would say this doesn’t have the slightest education about aluminum alloys. What alum alloy is a beer can made from? What alum alloy is a Boeing jet made from? Is 7075-T7 stronger than the steel in the WTC? What does a 500 mph velocity do with aluminum wings filled with fuel when it strikes the side of a building that’s 50 % windows? No planers are either disinformants or disinformed.Show lessREPLY

CollinAlexander12 years agoMr. Lawson, I’ll make you a deal. If you remove your “Puffballs Busted”, and repost it after you have made it correctly, then I will take this down. Your methods amount to forgery. In particular, the frame blending in Hezarkhani creates the illusion of a puffball above the wing. You have discarded half the images in Fairbanks.Show lessREPLY

thodal2000

9 years agosigh… We are calculating force…. WTC steel on the impacted floors (which was the highest strength steel used in the building) had a shear strength of 100K PSI. Aluminum alloy used in airplanes has a 35K shear strength. The force exerted on the plane is equal to the force on the building.Yet somehow you think that the weaker material survived and the stronger material failed by some magic of the plane was moving and the building was standing still.Let’s start making Al armor piercing rounds! Show lessREPLY

dominic150

9 years ago armor piercing rounds use copper, not aluminum btw. Ur still missing the point. Shear values are a force in one direction, so throw them out. Also, the building wasnt a solid steel structure, as your comment implies. It was made of steel beams in a lattice, not a solid tube. There is no senario in which the plane would crumble against the side of the building like a beercar against a wall, period.REPLY

dominic150

9 years agoAn aluminum baseball bat is not solid either. its walls are only 1/8 inch thick. Another example would be blades of grass embedded into car bodies in a tornado. The WTC was also mechanically held together with an outer shell and inner core. You are making doubletalk about the WTC going 500mph, the stationary object will almost always lose in a collision.REPLY

dominic150

9 years agoThe B-25 that hit the Empire state building did not “crush like a beercan”. Just look at the Pictures of that event. You are also talking apples and oranges. The WTC towers had an Aluminum facade as well as windows made of glass. Also, the steel framing of the WTC Towers was NOT a solid wall. So again, there is zero chance of a “beercan” version of events. As for the WTC moving, so do the planes, otherwise, you could just hover and move at 700mph as the earth moves. that is simply fantasy.Show lessREPLY

dominic150

9 years ago Ur talking kinetic vs potential energy. Translational kinetic energy is calculated as E = ½ mv^2. vs Gravitational potential energy is calculated as PE = weight x height = mgh. But potential energy plays no part, rather the question is whether the WTC’s outer shell could withstand the planes translational kinetic energy. The outcome is very simple, NO it can not as the stationary building has zero kinetic energy.REPLY

thodal2000

9 years agoApples to oranges silliness. You are talking about solid objects. An airplane is not a solid block of aluminum . It is made of 100’s of thousands of discrete parts held together mechanically.The totality of the momentum of the airplane is not transferred instantaneously to the building. It is first transferred to the joints of the planes structure as a traveling wave (phonons). . What would happen if the WTC was travelling at 500mph and hit the stationary plane? I think u know the answer. SillyShow lessREPLYCANCELREPLY

mcgeeandmee

8 years agoThis is cool you explain it real well! REPLY

rocket e

12 years agoGood job here, Ace Baker. You are correct in your analysis of Lawson’s presentation as having been faulty. This inconsistent puffball evidence is highly significant, IMO. It clearly substantiates that the WTC2 video planes are fake.REPLY

CollinAlexander12 years agoIt’s plenty clear. I’ve drawn the lines, it’s not even close. The puffball is above the wing in Fairbanks. The mistake was in where they drew the layer mask. It may have been careless, or someone may have done it on purpose, as a nice clue for us to find.1REPLY

king kernut

8 years agoLawson also cuts the Naudet “flight 11 impact” film BEFORE we can see the six second late “impact silhouette formation” .He claims it was the only available clip when compiling his video, yeah right!REPLY

CollinAlexander12 years agoThe puffball is right against the wall. You can tell by the shadow.REPLY

dominic150

9 years ago@CollinAlexander id agree with youroom101 on this. they are below the wings in both. the POV is different in both videos. the balls seem to be above the wing just as the buildings seem to bend out overtop of you while standing at the base. Its an illusion because your brain converts a 2d image into 3d and shadows play a large part in that. simply put, your eyes can be easily fooled. REPLY

rocket e

12 years agoFurther to my previous comment: The key here, as you suggest, is the all important frame where the alleged plane’s port-side wing clearly obscures what should be the underside puffball. Lawson’s omission of the vital frame obscures this otherwise conclusive proof of fake planes.REPLY

dominic150

9 years ago@jamesha175 even seen the aftermath of a tornado? wood is embedded into reinforced concrete without being broken. Momentum is a very powerful force. also, an aluminum baseball bat is made of aircraft aluminum. It makes contact with a 90+ mph projectile without so much as a dent time after time. A beercan is in no way an accurate description of a 767. you eyes can be fooled more easily than you might think, but that doesnt mean there were no planes. commercial planes or military?REPLY

dominic150

9 years agomomentum is a powerful force. Momentum embeds wooden 2×4 into reinforced concrete without any damage to the 2×4 itself during an F4-F5 tornado. The same principle is at work here. The Empire State building crash is not even in the same category. compare a B-25 Mitchell to a 767, the 767 is much larger in every aspect. B-25 was meant to carry bombs and is not a pressurized cabin design, therefore it doesnt have to be as rigid as 767. There is zero chance for your beercan against a wall theory.Show lessREPLYView reply

thodal2000

8 years agothx, For some reason no one wants to put their life where their mouth is. A sword fight to the death. They get the aluminum sword. I get a steel one….. REPLY

thodal2000

9 years agoIf you seriously believe the collision effects change depending on which object is moving faster, you need to go take a physics class. Sorry the neither building nor the plane “know” which one is moving. They could each be moving 500mph individually or both be moving 250mph. The impulse of force is the same. I bet you think that plane in Pennsylvania “vaporized” too. heheREPLY

fcsuper

12 years agoDrawing a line on a screen doesn’t mean you understand the perspective. Puffballs are clearly below on both images. This is not a masking issue, as there is no masking in either shoot. There are real contraversies in the 9/11 event. This is not one of them.REPLY

Dolan Kang

12 years ago“”a real 767 is nothing more than a giant flying beercan”” anyone who would say this doesn’t have the slightest education about aluminum alloys. What alum alloy is a beer can made from? What alum alloy is a Boeing jet made from? Is 7075-T7 stronger than the steel in the WTC? What does a 500 mph velocity do with aluminum wings filled with fuel when it strikes the side of a building that’s 50 % windows? No planers are either disinformants or disinformed.Show lessREPLY

CollinAlexander12 years agoMr. Lawson, I’ll make you a deal. If you remove your “Puffballs Busted”, and repost it after you have made it correctly, then I will take this down. Your methods amount to forgery. In particular, the frame blending in Hezarkhani creates the illusion of a puffball above the wing. You have discarded half the images in Fairbanks.Show lessREPLY

thodal2000

9 years agosigh… We are calculating force…. WTC steel on the impacted floors (which was the highest strength steel used in the building) had a shear strength of 100K PSI. Aluminum alloy used in airplanes has a 35K shear strength. The force exerted on the plane is equal to the force on the building.Yet somehow you think that the weaker material survived and the stronger material failed by some magic of the plane was moving and the building was standing still.Let’s start making Al armor piercing rounds! Show lessREPLY

dominic150

9 years agoarmor piercing rounds use copper, not aluminum btw. Ur still missing the point. Shear values are a force in one direction, so throw them out. Also, the building wasnt a solid steel structure, as your comment implies. It was made of steel beams in a lattice, not a solid tube. There is no senario in which the plane would crumble against the side of the building like a beercar against a wall, period.REPLY

dominic150

9 years agoAn aluminum baseball bat is not solid either. its walls are only 1/8 inch thick. Another example would be blades of grass embedded into car bodies in a tornado. The WTC was also mechanically held together with an outer shell and inner core. You are making doubletalk about the WTC going 500mph, the stationary object will almost always lose in a collision.REPLY

dominic150

9 years agoThe B-25 that hit the Empire state building did not “crush like a beercan”. Just look at the Pictures of that event. You are also talking apples and oranges. The WTC towers had an Aluminum facade as well as windows made of glass. Also, the steel framing of the WTC Towers was NOT a solid wall. So again, there is zero chance of a “beercan” version of events. As for the WTC moving, so do the planes, otherwise, you could just hover and move at 700mph as the earth moves. that is simply fantasy.Show lessREPLY

dominic150

9 years agoUr talking kinetic vs potential energy. Translational kinetic energy is calculated as E = ½ mv^2. vs Gravitational potential energy is calculated as PE = weight x height = mgh. But potential energy plays no part, rather the question is whether the WTC’s outer shell could withstand the planes translational kinetic energy. The outcome is very simple, NO it can not as the stationary building has zero kinetic energy.REPLY

thodal2000

9 years agoApples to oranges silliness. You are talking about solid objects. An airplane is not a solid block of aluminum . It is made of 100’s of thousands of discrete parts held together mechanically.The totality of the momentum of the airplane is not transferred instantaneously to the building. It is first transferred to the joints of the planes structure as a traveling wave (phonons). . What would happen if the WTC was travelling at 500mph and hit the stationary plane? I think u know the answer. SillyShow lessREPLYCANCELREPLY

mcgeeandmee

8 years agoThis is cool you explain it real well! REPLY

rocket e

12 years agoGood job here, Ace Baker. You are correct in your analysis of Lawson’s presentation as having been faulty. This inconsistent puffball evidence is highly significant, IMO. It clearly substantiates that the WTC2 video planes are fake.REPLY

CollinAlexander12 years agoIt’s plenty clear. I’ve drawn the lines, it’s not even close. The puffball is above the wing in Fairbanks. The mistake was in where they drew the layer mask. It may have been careless, or someone may have done it on purpose, as a nice clue for us to find.1REPLY

king kernut

8 years agoLawson also cuts the Naudet “flight 11 impact” film BEFORE we can see the six second late “impact silhouette formation” .He claims it was the only available clip when compiling his video, yeah right!REPLY

CollinAlexander12 years agoThe puffball is right against the wall. You can tell by the shadow.REPLY

dominic150

9 years ago@CollinAlexander id agree with youroom101 on this. they are below the wings in both. the POV is different in both videos. the balls seem to be above the wing just as the buildings seem to bend out overtop of you while standing at the base. Its an illusion because your brain converts a 2d image into 3d and shadows play a large part in that. simply put, your eyes can be easily fooled. REPLY

rocket e

12 years agoFurther to my previous comment: The key here, as you suggest, is the all important frame where the alleged plane’s port-side wing clearly obscures what should be the underside puffball. Lawson’s omission of the vital frame obscures this otherwise conclusive proof of fake planes.REPLY

dominic150

9 years ago@jamesha175 even seen the aftermath of a tornado? wood is embedded into reinforced concrete without being broken. Momentum is a very powerful force. also, an aluminum baseball bat is made of aircraft aluminum. It makes contact with a 90+ mph projectile without so much as a dent time after time. A beercan is in no way an accurate description of a 767. you eyes can be fooled more easily than you might think, but that doesnt mean there were no planes. commercial planes or military?REPLY

dominic150

9 years agomomentum is a powerful force. Momentum embeds wooden 2×4 into reinforced concrete without any damage to the 2×4 itself during an F4-F5 tornado. The same principle is at work here. The Empire State building crash is not even in the same category. compare a B-25 Mitchell to a 767, the 767 is much larger in every aspect. B-25 was meant to carry bombs and is not a pressurized cabin design, therefore it doesnt have to be as rigid as 767. There is zero chance for your beercan against a wall theory.Show lessREPLYView reply

thodal2000

8 years agothx, For some reason no one wants to put their life where their mouth is. A sword fight to the death. They get the aluminum sword. I get a steel one….. REPLY

thodal2000

9 years agoIf you seriously believe the collision effects change depending on which object is moving faster, you need to go take a physics class. Sorry the neither building nor the plane “know” which one is moving. They could each be moving 500mph individually or both be moving 250mph. The impulse of force is the same. I bet you think that plane in Pennsylvania “vaporized” too. heheREPLY

fcsuper

12 years agoDrawing a line on a screen doesn’t mean you understand the perspective. Puffballs are clearly below on both images. This is not a masking issue, as there is no masking in either shoot. There are real contraversies in the 9/11 event. This is not one of them.REPLY

Dolan Kang

12 years ago“”a real 767 is nothing more than a giant flying beercan”” anyone who would say this doesn’t have the slightest education about aluminum alloys. What alum alloy is a beer can made from? What alum alloy is a Boeing jet made from? Is 7075-T7 stronger than the steel in the WTC? What does a 500 mph velocity do with aluminum wings filled with fuel when it strikes the side of a building that’s 50 % windows? No planers are either disinformants or disinformed.Show lessREPLY

CollinAlexander12 years agoMr. Lawson, I’ll make you a deal. If you remove your “Puffballs Busted”, and repost it after you have made it correctly, then I will take this down. Your methods amount to forgery. In particular, the frame blending in Hezarkhani creates the illusion of a puffball above the wing. You have discarded half the images in Fairbanks.Show lessREPLY

thodal2000

9 years agosigh… We are calculating force…. WTC steel on the impacted floors (which was the highest strength steel used in the building) had a shear strength of 100K PSI. Aluminum alloy used in airplanes has a 35K shear strength. The force exerted on the plane is equal to the force on the building.Yet somehow you think that the weaker material survived and the stronger material failed by some magic of the plane was moving and the building was standing still.Let’s start making Al armor piercing rounds! Show lessREPLY

dominic150

9 years agoarmor piercing rounds use copper, not aluminum btw. Ur still missing the point. Shear values are a force in one direction, so throw them out. Also, the building wasnt a solid steel structure, as your comment implies. It was made of steel beams in a lattice, not a solid tube. There is no senario in which the plane would crumble against the side of the building like a beercar against a wall, period.REPLY

dominic150

9 years agoAn aluminum baseball bat is not solid either. its walls are only 1/8 inch thick. Another example would be blades of grass embedded into car bodies in a tornado. The WTC was also mechanically held together with an outer shell and inner core. You are making doubletalk about the WTC going 500mph, the stationary object will almost always lose in a collision.REPLY

dominic150

9 years agoThe B-25 that hit the Empire state building did not “crush like a beercan”. Just look at the Pictures of that event. You are also talking apples and oranges. The WTC towers had an Aluminum facade as well as windows made of glass. Also, the steel framing of the WTC Towers was NOT a solid wall. So again, there is zero chance of a “beercan” version of events. As for the WTC moving, so do the planes, otherwise, you could just hover and move at 700mph as the earth moves. that is simply fantasy.Show lessREPLY

dominic150

9 years agoUr talking kinetic vs potential energy. Translational kinetic energy is calculated as E = ½ mv^2. vs Gravitational potential energy is calculated as PE = weight x height = mgh. But potential energy plays no part, rather the question is whether the WTC’s outer shell could withstand the planes translational kinetic energy. The outcome is very simple, NO it can not as the stationary building has zero kinetic energy.REPLY

thodal2000

9 years agoApples to oranges silliness. You are talking about solid objects. An airplane is not a solid block of aluminum . It is made of 100’s of thousands of discrete parts held together mechanically.The totality of the momentum of the airplane is not transferred instantaneously to the building. It is first transferred to the joints of the planes structure as a traveling wave (phonons). . What would happen if the WTC was travelling at 500mph and hit the stationary plane? I think u know the answer. SillyShow lessREPLYCANCELREPLY

mcgeeandmee

8 years agoThis is cool you explain it real well! REPLY

rocket e

12 years agoGood job here, Ace Baker. You are correct in your analysis of Lawson’s presentation as having been faulty. This inconsistent puffball evidence is highly significant, IMO. It clearly substantiates that the WTC2 video planes are fake.REPLY

CollinAlexander12 years agoIt’s plenty clear. I’ve drawn the lines, it’s not even close. The puffball is above the wing in Fairbanks. The mistake was in where they drew the layer mask. It may have been careless, or someone may have done it on purpose, as a nice clue for us to find.1REPLY

king kernut

8 years agoLawson also cuts the Naudet “flight 11 impact” film BEFORE we can see the six second late “impact silhouette formation” .He claims it was the only available clip when compiling his video, yeah right!REPLY

CollinAlexander12 years agoThe puffball is right against the wall. You can tell by the shadow.REPLY

dominic150

9 years ago@CollinAlexander id agree with youroom101 on this. they are below the wings in both. the POV is different in both videos. the balls seem to be above the wing just as the buildings seem to bend out overtop of you while standing at the base. Its an illusion because your brain converts a 2d image into 3d and shadows play a large part in that. simply put, your eyes can be easily fooled. REPLY

rocket e

12 years agoFurther to my previous comment: The key here, as you suggest, is the all important frame where the alleged plane’s port-side wing clearly obscures what should be the underside puffball. Lawson’s omission of the vital frame obscures this otherwise conclusive proof of fake planes.REPLY

dominic150

9 years ago@jamesha175 even seen the aftermath of a tornado? wood is embedded into reinforced concrete without being broken. Momentum is a very powerful force. also, an aluminum baseball bat is made of aircraft aluminum. It makes contact with a 90+ mph projectile without so much as a dent time after time. A beercan is in no way an accurate description of a 767. you eyes can be fooled more easily than you might think, but that doesnt mean there were no planes. commercial planes or military?REPLY

dominic150

9 years agomomentum is a powerful force. Momentum embeds wooden 2×4 into reinforced concrete without any damage to the 2×4 itself during an F4-F5 tornado. The same principle is at work here. The Empire State building crash is not even in the same category. compare a B-25 Mitchell to a 767, the 767 is much larger in every aspect. B-25 was meant to carry bombs and is not a pressurized cabin design, therefore it doesnt have to be as rigid as 767. There is zero chance for your beercan against a wall theory.Show lessREPLYView reply

thodal2000

8 years agothx, For some reason no one wants to put their life where their mouth is. A sword fight to the death. They get the aluminum sword. I get a steel one….. REPLY

thodal2000

9 years agoIf you seriously believe the collision effects change depending on which object is moving faster, you need to go take a physics class. Sorry the neither building nor the plane “know” which one is moving. They could each be moving 500mph individually or both be moving 250mph. The impulse of force is the same. I bet you think that plane in Pennsylvania “vaporized” too. heheREPLY

fcsuper

12 years agoDrawing a line on a screen doesn’t mean you understand the perspective. Puffballs are clearly below on both images. This is not a masking issue, as there is no masking in either shoot. There are real contraversies in the 9/11 event. This is not one of them.REPLY

Dolan Kang

12 years ago“”a real 767 is nothing more than a giant flying beercan”” anyone who would say this doesn’t have the slightest education about aluminum alloys. What alum alloy is a beer can made from? What alum alloy is a Boeing jet made from? Is 7075-T7 stronger than the steel in the WTC? What does a 500 mph velocity do with aluminum wings filled with fuel when it strikes the side of a building that’s 50 % windows? No planers are either disinformants or disinformed.Show lessREPLY

CollinAlexander12 years agoMr. Lawson, I’ll make you a deal. If you remove your “Puffballs Busted”, and repost it after you have made it correctly, then I will take this down. Your methods amount to forgery. In particular, the frame blending in Hezarkhani creates the illusion of a puffball above the wing. You have discarded half the images in Fairbanks.Show lessREPLY

thodal2000

9 years agosigh… We are calculating force…. WTC steel on the impacted floors (which was the highest strength steel used in the building) had a shear strength of 100K PSI. Aluminum alloy used in airplanes has a 35K shear strength. The force exerted on the plane is equal to the force on the building.Yet somehow you think that the weaker material survived and the stronger material failed by some magic of the plane was moving and the building was standing still.Let’s start making Al armor piercing rounds! Show lessREPLY

dominic150

9 years agoarmor piercing rounds use copper, not aluminum btw. Ur still missing the point. Shear values are a force in one direction, so throw them out. Also, the building wasnt a solid steel structure, as your comment implies. It was made of steel beams in a lattice, not a solid tube. There is no senario in which the plane would crumble against the side of the building like a beercar against a wall, period.REPLY

dominic150

9 years agoAn aluminum baseball bat is not solid either. its walls are only 1/8 inch thick. Another example would be blades of grass embedded into car bodies in a tornado. The WTC was also mechanically held together with an outer shell and inner core. You are making doubletalk about the WTC going 500mph, the stationary object will almost always lose in a collision.REPLY

dominic150

9 years agoThe B-25 that hit the Empire state building did not “crush like a beercan”. Just look at the Pictures of that event. You are also talking apples and oranges. The WTC towers had an Aluminum facade as well as windows made of glass. Also, the steel framing of the WTC Towers was NOT a solid wall. So again, there is zero chance of a “beercan” version of events. As for the WTC moving, so do the planes, otherwise, you could just hover and move at 700mph as the earth moves. that is simply fantasy.Show lessREPLY

dominic150

9 years agoUr talking kinetic vs potential energy. Translational kinetic energy is calculated as E = ½ mv^2. vs Gravitational potential energy is calculated as PE = weight x height = mgh. But potential energy plays no part, rather the question is whether the WTC’s outer shell could withstand the planes translational kinetic energy. The outcome is very simple, NO it can not as the stationary building has zero kinetic energy.REPLY

thodal2000

9 years agoApples to oranges silliness. You are talking about solid objects. An airplane is not a solid block of aluminum . It is made of 100’s of thousands of discrete parts held together mechanically.The totality of the momentum of the airplane is not transferred instantaneously to the building. It is first transferred to the joints of the planes structure as a traveling wave (phonons). . What would happen if the WTC was travelling at 500mph and hit the stationary plane? I think u know the answer. SillyShow lessREPLYCANCELREPLY

.

The 9/11 Attack Government Conspiracy

.

Specific Issues Index

from Creating Better World