Anyway I asked a friend for his reply: and he replied:
Let us imagine three cases: a) a soft and a hard object collide each travelling at 275 mph or b ) one object (soft) hitting another (hard) object at 530 mph or c) a hard object hitting a soft object at 530 mph. [some doubts expressed by pilots about how fast one can fly a Boeing at 1000 feet, but let that pass]It's Newton's 3rd law.
1) Steel girder is thicker/harder than aluminium wing strut - obvious fact
2) Newton's 3rd Law (over 300 years old) - to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
3) Aluminium strut experiences same force a steel girder during collision
4) Aluminium snaps, steel does not
End of story - those telling you otherwise are pushing a bogus fake reality. No science qualifications needed - it's a basic rule of our 3d reality. Those that want to change this reality are not seeing it correctly or are working to persuade people into a new reality - created by dictators.
What I hear from the Scholars for Truth seminar is that all three cases are identical, the soft object will come off worst and you can't rope speed/momentum in on one side of the argument because at the point of meeting they are meeting at 530 mph (supposedly!).
This seems to be an area of fundamental physics which it should be possible to clear up definitively. Has anyone a credible argument or good reference which says the opposite?
[One counter example, that of straw embedded in trees after hurricanes , isn't strong IMO: a) because the wind around the straw makes it less likely to splatter outwards and b) because if the tree is shaken by the winds, small gaps could easily manifest in the side of the tree).
SnowyGrouch'es example of hitting oneself on the head with a soft plastic bottle and then doing the same when it is full of Tizer doesn't count either IMO: The fuel tanks only go to near the end of the wings, not all the way, making it even harder to imagine why the less massy wings didn't break off if the images we 'saw' are veridical. That is to say, the outer ?12/15 feet of the plane's wings have no heavy mass (fluid/kerosine) within a second internal skin (both the wing suface and the internal sheath where there is fuel tank would be about 'sixty thou of an inch', according to a very experienced retired aircraft engineer I recently spoke with on a National Express coach) ) .
Can anyone seriously claim these wings cut through steel and didn't fall off even if the other bits supposedly cut through the outer layers? And that the Tizer/kerosene would be coherent enough not to break up and mostly flow around and outside the exterior steel columns?
Then behind the exterior grill of thinner steel beams, there is the issue of the inner very strong core being only 30 foot into the building, and yet none of the Boeing should supposedly be visible in nor after the ensuing fire and friction holocaust. But quite soon come secretaries to wave for rescue .... (nobody had told them about any plane-crash nor plane-consuming inferno, I guess).
Another issue relates to the sudden turn=banking of the second supposed plane, as it means that there is no way that the wings can just happen to slide in on the one floor, but would have to cut all the way into/through more than one steel-pan concrete floors. And several other bits of this flying 'beer can' (Morgan Reynolds phrase) would also be likely to have had to plough through this horizontal concrete and steel medium.
Of course one can always point to the huge and very heavy Titanium engines, which have a VERY high melting level, they would surely be harder than even steel and concrete floors and steel columns - but
a) pointing to them only makes it even weirder that the other bits didn't do something different i.e. break off when they encountered the building' and b) that's my point - one CAN'T POINT to any such thing, all consumed in the immediate entry-friction(-fiction) or the subsequent fires which even NIST admit never got hot enough to melt even the steel.
Enter Stephen (Los Alanos) Jones'es Thermate hypothesis and the dodgy photos of molten aluminium flowing out of one window then switching to another. Not only are the photos/video-sequence dodgy and the light-emissivity of the supposed molten aluminium in question [which maybe cost Michael Zebuhr his life] but the story of the subsequent pools of molten metal in the basement are highly improbable - given the extensive hosing-down carried out from day one [to control the alternative physics dissociative reaction problems] which would have caused huge Steam Flash-explosions - such as were never seen on any of the fabled 99 days. Remember the stories all come second-hand from people allowed by FEMA to enter the site and talk to 'clean-up workers'.
The NIST report also tells enough truth to refute the controlled demoltion theory when it reports the 'collapse' of the South Tower as happening in 9 seconds - which is certainly tons faster than if the top floor has to clunk its way down through 109 other steel and concrete floors. But this doesn't support Controlled demolition hypothesis as it is also faster than falling except in a vacuum (the conditions for which explosions destroy by definition) and it is also a lot faster than falling through air at sea level (13 secs?).
[IMO this faster than falling conundrum can only be solved if one reperceives the video evidence as being of a wave of destruction passing down in 9 secs, but the actual building was nearly all turned into a tower of very fine dust and went upwards.]
Perhaps the invading frat would like to take their feet off the chairs and either f**k off home or else kindly deal with the above points. Thank you.