I can appreciate at a new level, the job of the teacher in school, I realize that everybody sees the world in their own way. The job of a teacher is to attempt to impart specific understanding of the subject matter, and also encourage independent thought.
This isn’t easy given the differences in people.
I have attempted to explain the facts about 9/11/2001 as I perceive them, and some people get it, and some people do not. Considering the fact that this is a matter of not only national security, but indeed human race security, it behooves citizens to discuss the matter and define truth such that one can only hope that a majority of citizens embrace the truth.
May I start off with the statement that I know that no airliner ever flown could have done what was alleged to have been done on 9/11/2001 by “airliners”.
This statement will probably put off some readers, I’m sorry, this is the way it is, lots of people see the world differently than everybody else. That is just the way humans are.
So now it is my task to explain to everybody else, WHY airliners could not possibly have been used as weapons on 9/11/2001.
This is about conservation of momentum. Any physical object in motion has momentum, and upon contact with a stationary body, that object in motion must give up some of its momentum in the process of moving the previously stationary object or by conversion of that momentum into heat. If a moving object meets a stationary object and it takes the expression of 100% of its momentum, the previously moving object would have had to express that momentum by coming to a complete stop.
The crash event of the alleged “FLT175” is so controversial, because the debate hinges on the amount of resistance that the WTC tower wall presented to penetration by an airliner ( or for that matter anything ). If an aircraft were to encounter a paper target, obviously there would be only minuscule deceleration as it penetrated. In the case of the alleged
penetration of a skyscraper wall by “FLT175” there is debate as to any visible slowing down if the alleged airliner, possibly 8% or 9% decrease in speed. To address the possible resistance to penetration that the wall would have offered, in order to make the hole as seen, there would have to be a displacement of a minimum of 3 tons of mass and in addition the shearing off of no less than 40 bolts and the breaking of the connections between spandrel plates and decks so that said spandrel plates could be shifted.
The resistance to penetration would be significant, this would result in rapid deceleration of the airliner. How many people have been present in an automobile collision, note that everything in the car shifts in the original direction of motion owing to its inertia, at approx. 60 mph the effect is as observed so many times by people involved in automotive accidents, picture that same effect, only at 9 times the speed.
So on initial contact with the wall, the airliner would suffer stress from nose to wall contact, and also internal stress, caused by anything ( even bits bolted down ) in the aircraft stressing the body of the airliner from the inside. There is a max stress limit above witch no aircraft can be expected to keep its structural integrity. It is obvious to me that the stress on the airliner upon striking a wall as alleged for “FLT11” & “FLT175” would cause the catastrophic failure of said airliner and it would break apart before having any opportunity to make that famous wing shaped gash.
The following statement has often been attacked as over-simplified, is as follows:
If there was sufficient time/energy available to bust a hole in the skyscraper wall,
then there was sufficient time/energy available to bust up the airliner and do so before said airliner had any possibility of making that famous wing shaped gash.
The major objection to this that I have received, is based upon “experts” declaring that an airliner should have been able to make the hole ( & in fact both holes for WTC 1 & 2 ).
However, experts can ( and all too often are ) be wrong. I call upon citizens to look at the available information, and draw their own conclusions.