by
Morgan Reynolds
A reader alerted me to this bird strike that forced a Boeing 757 emergency landing at JFK a couple of days ago.
He comments:
“I am somewhat taken aback, however, that the liner simply didn’t entirely DISAPPEAR into the bird doing the striking!
HA!!”
And subsequently: “MULTIPLE BIRDS struck the engine per a phone cam video Deb NOrville showed last night on her program. I seldom watch TV incidentally….
Opposite of Shanksville, and the other venues……..WHAT A multi-layered PSY OPS, hey…….what GUMPTION, what deep understanding of social psych and mass media and obedience to authority…..a la Stanley Milgram and Phil Zimbardo research.”
nomoregames.net 
Wouldn’t the fuel in the wings have exploded upon impact with the tower? I would bet my life that they would. Flight 175 should have exploded upon impact.
Edit last comment: July 31, not August 31. Sorry.
Also, if a high-speed collision with a light flesh-and-bone bird can puncture a hole into an aluminum structure, then could a high-speed collision with a light aluminum plane puncture a hole into a steel structure?
Not that i’m routing for the official story. But the above question needs thought.
Regarding birds vs. airplanes:
If a light flesh-and-bone bird dents or even punctures a plane fuselage, then surely the fuselage will have smashed the bird to pieces. This is what Newton’s third law of motion is all about. A bird can’t hit a plane any harder than the plane hits the bird. The force of the collision is equal for both objects, no matter who’s moving! Question is, which object is better able to withstand the collision?
Planes — as fragile as they are — are considerably stronger than bird bodies. In other words, a plane is better able to withstand the force of the collision with a bird, since even a light aluminum airplane is made of materials far more solid than those of our feathered friends.
For proof, take a look at what happens to a bird after a collision with an airplane. It ain’t pretty. All that’s left is flesh, feathers, blood, maybe even a beak and claws. The bird is toast.
Likewise, an aluminum plane can’t hit the face of the WTC any harder than the WTC hits the plane. Who’s stronger in that collision? Obviously the steel and concrete tower.
So to apply the same logic, if the forces of a collision are the same for both objects, then even if an aluminum plane could somehow puncture a hole into the face of a steel-faced skyscraper, the skyscraper would surely beat the hell out of the plane. It certainly wouldn’t be a clean knife-through-butter entry. The 9/11 perps were better off to use real-life cartoons and a mechanism to create the plane-shaped holes. Directed energy, anyone?
Yes, just as the birds were pulverized when they smashed holes in the much stronger planes, the 9/11 planes were pulverized when they smashed holes in the twin towers. That’s what happened, that’s what the standard explanation *says* happened, and that’s consistent with what we see in the videos.
If I understand your complaint, you think the 2nd plane impact looked like the plane was entering the building intact, the way a knife slices through butter, and therefore it couldn’t have been real (since a knife has to be a lot stronger than butter but the plane was weaker than the building). If you actually saw the plane enter the building intact you’d have a point, but you didn’t. All we ever see in the videos is the portion of the plane that is still outside the building. The rest is your imagination at work.
It doesn’t look like a knife slicing into butter to me. A knife doesn’t burst into flames when it enters the butter.
Jewish TV doesn’t show collisions. That’s why it just melted. Jewish masonic space program don’t do stars, and their tribal brother in TV doesn’t do collisions. THE BETTER TECHNIQUE IS TO HIRE JEWISH ACTORS TO SAY THEY SAW IT GO KAPOW AND THE HEAT OF THE FIRE OBVIOUSLY MADE IT ALL COLLAPSE JEWISH STYLE. THEN THEY WORK TOGETHER TO SUE THE AIRLINE CO. THAT IS SO ABSURD. Henry Ford was 100% right about them. William, I’m a master metallurgist…you’re a master idiot. 1/8″ alum sheets rolled into a hollow tube will not slice 14″ carbon steel at the face only. NOT EVER YOU IDIOT> 1/8″ OF ALUM VS 14″ = 122 TIMES LARGER AND ALSO THE STEEL IS TWICE THE STRENGTH. THAT’S 244 TIMES STRONGER YOU IDIOT. BYE ……DUMMY. HHAHHAHAHAHHA
There’s photos of birds stuck in the plane wing and fuselage. Thus birds aren’t obliterated with no trace of them.
Right John. A couple other things, there was zero deceleration of the alleged plane as it impacted the building. The largely titanium engines would not be destroyed or burned up. Nor would the steel landing gear be destroyed beyond recognition.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372710/Plane-forced-make-emergency-landing-significant-damage-caused—flock-birds.html (http://www.webcitation.org/6BuYQJchr) – April 1, 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2181872/Bird-strike-leaves-MASSIVE-hole-United-Airlines-jet-lands-Denver-airport.html (http://www.webcitation.org/6BuYXYcci) – August 31, 2012
Video of same here: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/united-airlines-flight-strikes-bird-on-descent-to-denver/ (http://www.webcitation.org/6BuYumem8)
Edit – July 31, not August
@ onebornfree…….you believe in road runner? LOL. The point is the delicacy of AIRCRAFT, not a point by point reference of steel vs. composite nose-aluminum fuselage-titanium-steel engines.
for heavens sake, lighten up…..we all know the videos were totally BOGUS.
This is total B.S. “grasping at straws”- the bird[s], for heavens sakes, flew into the plane engine, not the wings or body of the plane! What has this remotely got to do with planes not being able to cut through steel girders in tall buildings? Regards, onebornfree
just like 911 ; a lot of bird droppings : they will be cleaned up before the fbi gets to check it out ;not that it would matter ,