Posted on 09/25/2015 7:04:57 PM PDT by Steelfish
Hey, that technique worked for the getting rid of both Milleband brothers. :’)
/bravo
Heck, it was only a few months after 9-11 (February 2002) that Hillary Clinton stood on the floor of the Senate and declared ‘Bush KNEW!’ in advance about the attacks.
She must be made to answer for that remark AND defend her own “3AM phone call” reaction to the attack on our embassy in Libya.
Hillary KNEW and lied for YEARS.
The question is, since when has the drive-by media, or the Congress, or any sitting POTUS, or even a court, held any of the Clinton criminal gang accountable in any significant way. I attribute it to partisanship and a little thing we like to call blackmail.
When you are designing an airplane one of the most important design requirements is that the wings stay firmly attached to the aircraft no matter how hard the pilot tries to shake them off by erratically turning and twisting and diving and such. The wings while light, are filled with "compartments" or "chambered" for strength like the bones of a bird. Another design feature of wings is that the leading edge functions rather like a asymmetric knife so that its thin leading edge offers little resistance to anything flowing towards it, be it air or something more substantial. This combined with the high speed of a windborne object, is the same thing that makes it possible for a tornado to drive plastic soda straws through birds or even into telephone poles. (The asymmetry that distinguishes a wing from a knife is because a wing has to not only be a knife but it also has to create lift to keep the plane in the sky. Airflow over the upper surface has to cover a longer distance than the air below the wing to the trailing edge. This creates a lower pressure on the upper surface which draws the wings upward - lift.)
The "chambers" in the wings are, so soon after takeoff, full of fuel, making them heavier and stronger than they would be if empty, as is a pop can when it is full- only pop cans do not have interior "chambers."
The building, in contrast, was designed like a pop can that is hollow with strong vertical sides all around the outside. When you press down on an empty pop can you can make it collapse much easier if you tap the side while applying downward pressure than if you try to crush it without dinging the side. This is intentional because in order to be useful, a building has to have a lot of interior space and minimizing interior structure by making the outer walls the load bearers, maximizes interior space. Since buildings may eventually have to be demolished to build a different building, you also want a future demolition to cause as little damage to neighboring structures as possible, so you might want to design the structure to pancake a level at a time under controlled circumstances.
Bin Laden, an engineer whose father and other relatives were involved in the construction biz, was well aware of this design feature and planned accordingly. This is why when the planes approached the towers, they were traveling very, very fast [a fast object strikes with a greater force than a slow one of the same mass] and why at the last minute the pilots tipped the wings a off the horizontal so as to take out more than one floor at a time to maximize the structural damage and increase the force of that first "tap," making sure it would be sufficient to shear the vertical supports. The hijackers tried to hit as low as was practical to cut the legs out from under the as many upper storeys as possible so that the extra compressive force of the upper storeys' weight [rather than just starting at the top] would cause the floors to start pancaking rapidly out of control. The added *bonus* for the terrorist was the fuel which ran down the inside of the elevator shafts, etc, that once ignited, created a giant blacksmith's furnace.
I found that. If it was painted after, it would be like schadenfreude for Saddam. If it was painted before, it would indicate foreknowledge. It sounds like perhaps the latter.
It's harder to fact check all these years later; the reason I say that is I used to argue with truthers on another forum, then gave it up. Even people who are supposedly trained don't necessarily agree, and many have agendas. Some I get a bad feeling in my gut about and ignore them like Dr. Judy Wood and Susan Lindauer.
I've seen the tornado argument before, and it makes sense because I have seen photos of the aftermath of tornadoes which would seem to defy the laws of physics. I'm reasonably certain those aren't faked.
With the planes, you can imagine my knowledge of physics doesn't extend very far. I didn't consider flying at the angle. I did notice a lot of fuel must have been dumped outside. But it makes sense if it went down the elevator shafts which were built within 47 steel columns (why didn't those remain standing?) it would be like a blacksmith superheating to bend and shape to the point of molten metal I would imagine.
That would also explain the molten metal some time later buried deep under the debris. It remain super hot because it was insulated all around, and when the jaws of the equipment pulled it free, it burst into flame again because it was exposed to oxygen.
They are saying that the planes couldn't fly over somewhere around 500 mph at near zero sea level without falling apart; air is more dense at sea level. That is why they cruise at the higher speeds at 35,000 ft or so, save fuel, less air resistence. So maybe the video with the black plane that cuts through the building like "butter" is a fake? It sure isn't a United or AA plane.
Thank you for taking time for a rational explanation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.