Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
(1) Anthony Lawson:
I really am getting quite a lot of amusement, on a rather dull Sunday morning, from these exchanges.
Have you got a calculator anywhere handy?
If so, try this: 160 minus 48
Press EQUALS and the answer is 112
That means, according to Professor Dr James Fetzer, that 112 feet of aeroplane should have been left sticking out of the South Tower, had the plane had been real, that is.
Now send that off to the aforementioned physics departments and see what responses you get.
(2) Clare Kuehn:
No, you miss the point. Like your orange, it's a thought experiment but it's an exaggeration. Point is: SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN STUCK ON ENTERING THE FLOORS ... stuck out or not fully entered, with parts breaking off, as he's said repeatedly.
(3) Jim Fetzer:
Well, let's see. According to Anthony's hypothesis, a real plane really entered a massive, 500,000-ton building with no loss in velocity, which is a gross violation of Newton's laws and, as Clare has explained, there is no evidence of collision effects, which should have been numerous and varied due to the difference in resistance it would have encountered. Indeed, it also does not explode on impact, which should have happened due to immense friction.
P.S. The man can't even substract! The building was 208' wide. The plane was 160' long. So had to come to a halt in 48' = 208' -160'. I knew Anthony was dumb, but not this stupid.
(4) Morgan Reynolds:
I have no trouble admitting error on 9/11. Like many, I erred on the ‘demolition’ meme before Dr. Wood’s work. And long ago I hypothesized a fly-by at WTC2 with the technology the perps have to turn the underside of a plane sky-blue, ‘disappearing it’ visually. http://nomoregames.net/2006/08/27/how-they-did-the-plane-trick-at-w... When I did not get attacked for that article, I knew it was the wrong idea for how they pulled off the WTC plane trick!? I get attacked if I’m over the target, but not if I’m off target, which just adds more to the 9/11 clutter they love.
I’m so glad to see Anthony Lawson’s camera expertise employed to explain away disappearing wings ‘n things like engines in the South Tower penetration images when other parts of the plane image are clear. Isn’t that reassuring? Whatever it takes, hey Anthony? Then we’ve got Anthony’s expertise to explain impossible air speeds through air and little or no deceleration upon ‘impact’ with a steel/concrete tower despite an aluminum airliner supposedly encountering the resistance of a real steel/concrete building. Ain’t imagery wonderful, whether cgi or images projected in the sky recorded on videos located on buildings or on the ground? Road Runner physics but trot out anything and everything to defend the official story or some minor plane departure from it. Planes are a vital key to the whole caper because Planes = Muslim hijackers = war on Muslim world = war on the world.
Poor Anthony, it’s an impossible thesis to defend. Let’s discuss three points here to disprove the proposition that planes crashed into the twin towers, with more proof to follow:
2) Fact: Newton’s third law of motion was still in effect that morning; remember the ‘equal and opposite reaction’ deal? The force of the collision is equal and opposite on both objects in a collision. Same collision physics if the building falls on the 767 as the plane running into the building. Doesn’t matter, force is equal and opposite on both bodies. Either way, whichever body is in motion, the Boeing survivability is bulls**t. Pardon my truthful language. The building is hell strong vs. an aluminum plane. Capiche? The ‘damage-inflicted’ score in terms of an NBA contest (that’s a basketball league, Anthony) would have been WTC2 100, plane 2. I’ve proven that every which way, go to nomoregames.net and dig in. A zillion joules? Whatever, says the building, bring it. I’ll throw it right back at you. No time lag. See how you like it. Have some. Gonna run your VW convertible into my 18-wheeler? Fine, bring it! Stronger structure wins, big time. Gonna run your airplane into a steel lighting rig? Have at it. It doesn’t require a whole lot of steel to destroy a plane. Only takes a bit. I could get up on a plane with my 10-lb. sledge hammer and make it unflyable in minutes. Steel cables/lighting system? OK, good example: Little Rock AR American flight 1420 landed in a T’storm and hit some steel, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_1420 * destroying the plane. Broke the fuselage into three sections. Call it Joe’s Law. OK, you’re gonna run your plane into 7-8 floors of my towers? I’ve got about 4,545 tons of steel, glass, concrete, aluminum, etc., per floor to f*** you up. That’s 31,818 tons vs. your 125 tons? Hey joke, bring it. I’ve got you 254 tons to one and I’m steel and concrete and you’re aluminum. You want a piece of me? Steel is about 3x stronger than aluminum per pound. You think you can take me? Let’s see what you got! Run into me, come on! See how much you hurt me! OK, I’ve got thinner steel toward the top, so I’ll cut the margin by 5% (steel was 20% of tower weight and let’s say 20% lighter toward top = .2 x .2 = .04 = 4%). Don’t like that number? Put in another, it’s still a colossal mismatch. So the aluminum plane runs into 7-8 compact 208’ squares of steel and concrete which outweigh the plane 241:1. Can you say, “Plane go splat.” Anybody see the Asiana flight 214 miss the landing a bit at SFO? See the tail section snap right off? Plane now uncontrollable. Doesn’t take much force for that tail to go bye-bye, oops separation, cause it’s a 40’ tall heavy section hanging out at the end of that egg shell, er, airframe. Mass centralization? Not! I pull a fifth wheel trailer, trails no problemo vs. a bumper pull travel trailer. Fifth wheel hitch is over the rear wheel axle, like 18-wheelers do it, not hanging out hitched up past the bumper. A travel trailer sways much more than zero and needs an equalizer hitch to control it. Meanwhile, we have not a single tail section from four alleged airliners 9/11? Bullshit! I’m quoting George Carlin here. If religion is bullshit, then 9/11 is bigger bullshit.
4) Bottomline: the evidence shows the four plane “events” on 9/11 resembled no previous or subsequent plane crashes in history. Why is that? Duh. Could it be because they weren’t real? They were faked? Isn’t it obvious?
PS: The 9/11 planners faked the ‘plane events’ well enough, however, to convince dullards, the inattentive, the fearful, trolls, and the bought-up that planes really crashed, here, there, everywhere. Into what category does Mr. Lawson fall? Who cares? Tail sections? Serial numbers? Fuhgeddaboudit.
"After departing the end of the runway, the airplane struck several tubes extending outward from the left edge of the instrument landing system (ILS) localizer array, located 411 feet beyond the end of the runway; passed through a chain link security fence and over a rock embankment to a flood plain, located approximately 15 feet below the runway elevation; and collided with the structure supporting the runway 22L approach lighting system." 
Such structures are usually frangible - i.e. designed to shear off on impact - but because the approach lights were located on the unstable river bank, they were firmly anchored and the impact destroyed the aircraft. It broke into three pieces and ignited.