As long as we are doing basic Newtonian physics here, there’s another aspect of 9/11 that violates his principles. The Pentagon was supposedly hit by an airliner that day, flown so close to ground level that it clipped light posts that were seen scattered about on the street and lawn.
Let’s do some basic math: The plane had just made an amazing maneuver prior to coming in, so let’s be charitable and say that it had slowed to a speed that the body of the plane could withstand at ground level, 300 mph. At that speed the object is moving at a rate of 440 feet per second. A football field is 120 yards long, including end-zones, or 360 feet. So imagine that you are sitting at ground level on the fifty yard line, and an object travels by … one-thousand-one – blink of an eye, it has traveled the length of the field and then some, hard to even see.
That is the speed of the plane as it hit the light posts. Newton’s third law* says that it does not matter what is in motion and what is stationary – the transfer of energy takes place and the object with the greater mass will prevail. In this case, it is either the aluminum wings of a jet airliner, so light that, as we have all seen, there are warnings painted on them telling maintenance staff not to walk on them, or the light posts. Those light posts are made of steel, I would guess a 1/4″ or 3/8″ hollow tube, and fastened in place usually by four very heavy bolts. The transfer of energy takes place, the light posts absorb some of it, but the wings take a beating, are probably sheared off, and end up somewhere on the lawn of the Pentagon.
But they are gone, nowhere to be seen. The official story says that the building absorbed them, that itself impossible, but second in line on that list.
Look at it another way – you are sitting in a plane on the runway waiting to take off, and light posts traveling at 440 feet per second come your way, and hit the wings of the plane. What happens? Is the plane intact while light posts are just laying on the runway, as in the photo from 9/11 below?
Of course not. We have seen what a mere flying goose does to an aircraft.
In order for the absurdity of the stories we were told that day to be exposed, we need only look at small but easily exposed lies. If a plane, even given all the other impossibilities, could not encounter light posts without severing its wings, then everything else about that story fails as well. The Pentagon story is a lie.
There are enough of these absurdities in the official story for it all to collapse under its own weight. It only takes one small ray of light to start the mind in the disassembling process. For some, it was the sudden collapse of Building Seven, for others, the absence of air defense. The appearance of a passport in the rubble was odd, as was a Boeing 737 engine on the sidewalk in Manhattan. For me, back in 2001, it was knowledge that cell phone calls could not be made from moving aircraft. I had tried before that time, attempting to leave a message for myself at home. I got a signal, but could not initiate a call. So my eyebrows raised immediately. The 9/11 Commission realized this too, and changed that story to seat-back Airphones (despite testimony of call recipients).
But then there was another problem … there were no Airphones on the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon. So there they said that the one phone call made was from a cell phone at low altitude right before the impact. But then the problem arose that the time of that phone call, a known certainty, would put the call at 4,400 feet in the air, another certainty and, therefore, impossible. At that point, the 9/11 Commission simply said “Fuck off. It is what it is.”
But the disassembly is even bigger than that, because if the story of 9/11 is bogus, then other things are called into question as well – if 9/11 was a manufactured event, then it is highly unlikely that “Al Qaeda” was able to put on this show and arrange the deceptions. Ergo, the attack came from elsewhere, likely from a source that had access to American government resources and inside knowledge of its timing. Our justification for attacking Arab countries is gone. That makes us the aggressors. If we are the aggressors, we are no longer fighting a just cause, so that American soldiers are being killed by people defending themselves from our aggression, and these people are no longer terrorists. Newton’s eleventh law says that if a terrorist act takes place, only one party can be the terrorist. If not them, it’s us. If we are engaged in terrorism, then we are not a law-abiding nation. Since it is our government that is engaged in terrorism, then we are not a nation of laws, and our government is engaged in rogue activities. Therefore, our government should be toppled, and people imprisoned and hanged. Reparations like those imposed on Germany after World War I should be imposed.
And more still, if this part of history is fabricated, what else in our education was made up as well? Tonkin? The Maine? Lusitania? Pearl? Watergate? JFK? Cuba, the Bay of Pigs? The missile crisis? Pol Pot? The Reagan shooting? “Killing” Osama? Was our justification for participation in World Wars I and II bullshit? Korea? Vietnam? Grenada? Panama? Serbia? Iraq? Iran? Syria?
On and on it goes, so that now we can understand why Pope Urban VIII imprisoned Galileo. The first card to fall brings down the entire house.
___________
PS: This disassembly process, supervised in the Soviet Union by Gorbachev, was called “Glasnost.” Truth is a powerful force that can bring down a country. It is quite liberating.
*”When a first body exerts a force F1 on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force F2 = −F1 on the first body. This means that F1 and F2 are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.”
Piece of Mindful 
Flight 77 hit the ground first before slamming into the pentagon.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp
As far as cell phones not working you’re flying in MT. Not in cell phone tower filled northeastern US.
LikeLike
Part one, wrong. Part two, wrong. Anything else?
Pfrrrrr … you’re not even repeating the official story here. You’re just making shit up!!! There are no signs of an aircraft hitting the lawn on the Pentagon lawn that day. And anyway, goddammit Swede, this was about Newton’s laws and light poles. OK?
LikeLike
At 530 mph it is traveling at 778 feet per second. Since that is impossible at ground level, I was generous and used 300 mph.
Now, either bring something of substance, or go away.
LikeLike
All righty then, Swede: The matter at hand here is Newton’s third law – what happens when an airliner wing traveling at 530 mph hits a lamp post. Either confine yourself to that or go away. There is no lower position in life than to be ridiculed by the likes of you. Stick to subject at hand or fuck off.
LikeLike
Plane didn’t hit the pole Mark.
Fire truck backed into it by accident.
LikeLike
False. Where are you getting this stuff?
LikeLike
Lasers are here. It’s on video, it must be real.
LikeLike
As far as I can see, people will disbelieve videos. If this is TV news, it is truth.
LikeLike
Space aliens brought them in 1951. I saw it on TV. Somebody made a movie about it, and put it up on U-Tube. ENjoy!
LikeLike
It was on TV? There ya go. True.
LikeLike
I’m no expert in Newtonian physics, but I was a gas boy at the airport in Missoula for a few years, and I have to ask where you got the notion that airplane wings, or any other part of an airplane, are made of flimsy aluminum? The wings on a small plane like a Cessna 182 might be rather light, but on those big passenger jets the wings, if they aren’t made of steel, might as well be. And those sheets of metal are held in place by thousands of rivets. Geese can certainly make a mess of a jet engine or a prop, but are you saying they severely damage the body or the wings? I’ve never heard of that. And what’s this about signs telling maintenance staff not to walk on the wings? I honestly haven’t seen any such warnings, and I’ve walked all over the wings of much smaller planes, including the DC-3s, which used so much oil that we had to stand on the wing and pump oil from a tanker truck directly into the engine behind the prop on the left side.
LikeLike
I did not mean to imply that airplanes are flimsy. They are built to fly at 560 mph at 35,000 feet, and I am not at all nervous about them when I fly. Newton’s law here refers to relative mass – a baseball will not penetrate a steel wall, but will simply disintegrate on impact, even if thrown by Superman. A lightly constructed aircraft wing, sturdy and reliable, nonetheless has less mass in that eight inch section that encounters the iron tube protruding from the ground, so that the wing will not clip the light post. The light post will sever or severely damage the wing. And again, all you need do is reverse the process, and have the light post fly into the standing wing at 530 mph and imagine what will happen to the wing.
LikeLike
I didn’t think you wanted that J in your name, but then thought you might be in disguise, given the subject matter. I’ll put it back if you want.
LikeLike
Regarding the durability of commercial jet wings, they have been shown to be pretty vulnerable in the case of Flight 255 from 1987. Reportedly, the plane crashed due to its left wing clipping a left pole while flying erratically near the ground shortly after take-off, which, of course, worsened. It also caught fire seconds before the crash. We see none of that for Flight 77 years later.
If NWA255 couldn’t survive its left wing clipping one light pole, what makes you think AA77’s wings could somehow survive striking five light poles shortly before hitting the Pentagon without being in flames and flying very erratically in the last few seconds? Why would anyone believe that’s what happened?
LikeLike
This is a 2012 post, HPM. I have not interacted with Kemmeck in years. I know he’s retired, I hope happily.
LikeLike
True, but I thought it would be nice to respond to him for posterity’s sake. I think my made my points across to anyone reading my post, regardless.
LikeLike
How do you know the exact composition of the light poles and whether or not they were constructed of similar light materials? What is the alternative explanation for the severing of the light poles?
LikeLike
I made assumption that the light poles are made of steel, the most practical, just as I assumed, without knowing, that the wings are made of aluminum. Light poles are meant to be durable and long-lasting, while wings are meant to be light. Imagine being on a runway while five light poles traveling at 530 mph plus a generator hit the wings of your plane. The wings survive intact. That is what they are telling you. On TV. Must be true.
The official story is that the plane made a 330 degree turn while descending 2200 feet, and flew in at near ground level, thereby necessitating severed light poles. They also say it hit a generator, almost as If they had to justify some whilte smoke, an odd thing, not that the wole story is not a big made up lie. But that’s what they said on TV. Must be true.
LikeLike
I absolutely cannot type this evening and am swearing at this #%^|€{ IPad to boot. I have had to go back and edit monster typos. If you are subscribed and getting my comments unedited, they require some Glasnosting.
LikeLike
The “j” was preserved through one typo made several posts ago and saved in the “name” box. I’ll change it this time.
LikeLike
I thought you werent banning posters anymore but I swear there was a post from Monty on here yesterday. Or a “Kailey fart” as you say. Wheres the entertainment value if you arent going to leave the posts up so you guys can insult each other?
LikeLike
I did not feel like dealing with him. I got in late last night after a movie (Flight, really well done. Denzel Washington is on his game). And I read right off that Monty is going to explain Newtonian physics to me, since he already four-pointed philosophy at MSU. I was tired, and thought “Fuck it,” and deleted his comments. Max Bucks also chimed in, but he is auto-spammed. He was going to explain to me how Galileo was also full of shit. They deserve one another.
Keep in mind, I don’t hold truth in my hands like the AllState guy. I speculate, try to weave together a comprehensive scenario, which will follow this weekend. One little out-of-place fact could turn everything topsy turvy. I appreciate that you and others come here with a head full of healthy skepticism. That is as it should be.
LikeLike
Mark, from a humanitarian perspective, I don’t think poor Max has many other outlets. It would be sad to think he committed suicide over being auto-spammed. Just something to think about.
LikeLike
I think that use of the word “Max” put this in the SPAM basket. Would I feel responsible? Having been brought up Catholic, absolutely. Fortunately, none of us know his real name.
LikeLike