Still a picture is worth a thousand words.
Ever play the block game when you were 3 years old? This fits in here... this doesn't fit in here.
Try this one also: Why would you put gravel and sand over grass that wasn't affected?
Posted on 03/07/2002 1:15:17 PM PST by codebreaker
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:32:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Okay, I'll do it. The explosion is not what caused the straight line.
Follow along: Big explosion and fire on lower floors (I won't distress you by saying "plane"). Presently, the now-unsupported floors above the hole fall down. The collapse follows the lines of the building supports . Look at the pictures you posted. See how the top part of the building is still attached on the right side, descending at a diagonal to the left? Sort of like a hinge that swung down on one side?
The pictures you've posted are not an illustration of what the explosion did. They show the consequences of what the explosion did. They weren't taken early enough in time to prove your case. They're from many hours or even days after the initial blast.
Now, get busy on that passenger list. There aren't that many names.
LMAO!
"For want of a nail, the shoe was lost..."
The building did not collapse becasue of the aircraft strike, it stood for over 30 minutes before the support columns gave way, but only in the E-Ring. All other rings, despite being punctured front and back by the aircraft, remained intact (not by much, but the building did hold).
Evidence of the angle of the strike is in the same photo. Look at the photo and see the obviously burned rooftops running straight down the picture and on the left and right sides. That's the rooftop area of corridors 4 & 5 where the fires burned in between the slate roof tiles and the concrete structure. The 4th corridor is to the left of the picture. The plane struck to the right of 4th corridor and continued on to end up in the open area between the B and C Rings. You can see the top floor burned area of the C-Ring where the aircraft made an exit hole and caused major fires. Count back from the E-Ring to C and then look to the right of the 4th corridor rooftop and you'll see the soot from the fires. That's above the ground floor exit hole the plane made.
I'll see if I can post photos tonight that better detail what I'm trying to describe.
Still a picture is worth a thousand words.
Ever play the block game when you were 3 years old? This fits in here... this doesn't fit in here.
Try this one also: Why would you put gravel and sand over grass that wasn't affected?
If this is the picture from the video in question (I've seen the sequence floating around the web for several weeks and snagged this one) it was de-bunked. CLICK!
Must have been a light plane!!
As a matter of fact, the sequence shown IS the entire video. The plane was going too fast to be photographed between frames. The video surveillance camera apparently takes about 100 pictures a second, if these five sequential pictures were taken in 4/100ths of a second, according to the story.
The first frame shows no plane crash; the second frame, taken at about 1/100th of a second later, shows the explosion.
So the plane traversed the entire field of view of the camera between the first and second frames in less than 1/100th of a second.
This does not seem possible. I tend to think that the story is in error and the camera possibly takes only 60 pictures a minute (one per second). This would leave a full second for the plane to cross the entire field of view without being photographed. I' m not sure at what speed the plane would have to be flying to accomplish that.
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.