Cold-Calling "Plotline" Participants and Selected Experts
"JEFF WELLS" "PUMP-IT-OUT JEFF" PHONE CALLS
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Test Crash Airplane Pulverized
This video proves that in a high speed crash between a plane and a wall much of the material should bounce off on the outside.
You don't see, in this example, some of the material turning to dust while some of it survives intact. You don't see the plane penetrate the wall even slightly, as the "plane" appeared to do completely in the videos of the 9/11 South Tower event.
It's true that the F-4 is perhaps made of harder material and more sturdily built, since it's made to travel at higher speeds and that it is smaller than a commercial airline. But if it is harder, then why isn't it even less likely, than a 767, to disintegrate into nothing upon impact?
So the proponents of the authenticity of the Media videos have it both ways - the "plane" is hard enough to penetrate the outer rigid wall of steel columns, but disintegrates to nothing once it gets inside - where it presumably is met with a lot of air and some central columns.
Did "it" lose momentum upon breaking the shell of the building? As one would assume. (But how could "it" lose momentum if the side of the building appeared to give no resistance?)
To follow this "logic" of no loss of momentum "it" would hit the central core with less force than "it" hit the outside of the building? But this would somehow be enough force to totally disintegrate the "plane?"
Or if not, the intense fires would burn up all the plane parts?
Yet if a fire from a plane crash can burn up all the parts and leave no debris, why is it this has never happened before? (I fully expect the Media perps/suggestibility specialists to start occasionally to stage such "events" from now on, to normalize freaky occurrences.)
Why were supposed plane parts, which don't even match the parts of a 767, then found in the neighborhood? (I should say "put on display" there?). When none were shown to fall away in the video presented? Why weren't these parts found in the regular rubble of the "pile?" But instead all about in the street? (Especially when there is no exit hole on the North side of the South Tower for any of this debris to have exited.)
If a plane breaks up so well upon impact with an immovable object, as it does in the above video - and I will say steel columns, attached to the side of a Trade Tower, are relatively immovable, then why didn't the "plane" appear to break up, i.e. do the same thing it did in the test above, in the videos everyone is shown of the event?
Here's an example of the columns immovability:
None of the steel column segments appear to break off where they were attached i.e. pop out, when hit.
So the columns must've been pretty well secured and attached. The set-up was rigid enough that when a force was applied THE WHOLE BUILDING MOVED.
To quote a structural engineer, Pegelow, who spoke recently on the Alex Jones show, ~"The Trade Towers were not a House of Cards, where one event could push their stability over the edge, and trigger a complete collapse."
If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of the building, where did the force come from to cause the building to sway?
If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of South Tower, that means a section of wall, in the outline of a plane, put up no resistance to the entry of the "plane."
If the wall *had* put up resistance, some of the plane would've broken up. If it put up none, the building wouldn't end up swaying.
The steel columns were just, supposedly, punched through - without dislodging from where ever they were attached from below.
That would mean the mass of the entire South World Trade Center was behind the "kick" it received from the "plane."
The "impact" didn't punch out the entire column. So this implies the columns were all quite well attached and that the side of the building was, of a piece, a relatively rigid barrier. Made of steel, which is stronger than AL. Planes are made of AL for its lightness. So the side of the building was strong compared to the plane.
The wall, shown in the test video above, is made of a specially prepared cement-like material - which one would assume is softer than steel. It's meant to cushion any impact, so as not to be penetrated, as it would be if more rigid, less giving.
The Trade Tower sides were also all designed to "give" upon having force applied. That is how they withstood wind storms. Witnesses state that the building swung upon "impact." (Not sure how many reading this have felt that swing of a Trade Tower in the wind, from inside of one. But you could feel it quite clearly on a windy day. It induced fear in me, and a kind of sea sickness.)
So even though both "rigid" barriers were designed to "give" upon impact, in only one case, if you compare the video representations of what happen to South Tower on 9/11 and the test for nuclear power station safety, did you see the plane break up *completely* upon impact, and the barrier successfully and totally resist penetration.
And that, we assume, was in a real world test. Why the discrepancies between the records? The cement barrier looks hardly scratched.
So why wasn't any material repelled by the wall of the WTC Tower, if it was indeed hit by a real plane? Why did the "plane" totally penetrate the wall of the Tower like a hot knife into butter?
Why isn't the hole/scar on the South Tower even big enough to allow the supposed "plane" entry, as it is shown in the videos of the event? Why is no plane debris visible in either "mouth"/scar of the World Trade Towers' wounds?
Why isn't there an exit hole on the North side of the South Tower building, even though numerous videos show material and a nose-like object, timed with where the "plane nose" would've been seen, had "it" continued on its apparent trajectory without impediment, exit on that side??