Seven Questions about 9/11

[James H. Fetzer]

The separations were one meter apart, so I was mistaken about the dimensions:



However, since 18" is less than half the width of a meter and there were no windows between the floors, my point remains valid: substantially less than 50% of the plane should have passed through the windows, which is probably why Kyle did not respond with the correct figure. Even at one meter, the point remains.

Well, the 18" width of the windows came from here, but I can't recall at the moment where the three meter intervals was derived. If the sides were 63 m, then if there were 21 separations including windows, at 3 m apiece, that would yield the result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center:

Yamasaki's design for the World Trade Center, unveiled to the public on January 18, 1964, called for a square plan approximately 208 feet (63 m) in dimension on each side.[17][23] The buildings were designed with narrow office windows 18 inches (46 cm) wide, which reflected Yamasaki's fear of heights as well as his desire to make building occupants feel secure.[24] Yamasaki's design included building facades sheathed in aluminum-alloy.[25] The World Trade Center was one of the most striking American implementations of the architectural ethic of Le Corbusier and it was the seminal expression of Yamasaki's gothic modernist tendencies.[26]

I don't quite understand your research methodology. If you really want to dispute the figures I have given, then cite another source with different ones. The Purdue study was a sham and I know of no serious student of 9/11 who thinks otherwise. (Clearly, you are not a serious student of 9/11.) If any more proof were required, you have taken a diagram of the official approach to the Pentagon to refute my observation of the approach approximately perpendicular to the building, but I was based in that on the sizing photo study, where you can even see the shadow cast is perpendicular. So was talking about a frame released by the Pentagon, while you were talking about a diagram. The photo may be faked, but we know the diagram cannot possibly be right. And your reliance upon animations speaks volumes about your research capabilities.

As an example, I took a look at the windows on the Twin Towers, which were 18" across in frames that were three meters wide.

Where are you getting these flagrantly wrong figures from?

Imagine what would happen if a plane were to collide with just one of those (seven or eight) floors suspended in space!

There's no need to imagine, Purdue did a simulation demonstrating when a plane hits multiple floors suspended by a steel columned facade and core:



Granted, the fuged to angle of the plane down to cause more damage to the building in support of the notion that the impact damage and resulting fires caused the buildings to come down, but in general their approximation of the physics of such a plane impacting such a building is reasonably accurate, while yours is apparently derived from watching too much Loony Toons.

As for the angle, the plume of white smoke exiting from the plane appears to be perpendicular to the building

The angle I refer to is the one on which the light posts were downed, and it isn't even close to perpendicular, as depicted here:



As for the smoke, it dissipates with time, hence the portion of smoke trail further from the engine and further from the camera has expanded more than that which is near to the engine and the camera, leaving them appearing comparable in size due to the perspective.

I love it when you cites some other source instead of offering your own arguments, which suggests you don't know what you are talking about. That seems to me to fit you to a "t". Your arguments are not serious. I am not impressed.

Says the guy who cited a source poking fun at the argument he was making. Have you still not come to terms with the fact that you did that?