WTC South Tower to Plane: So You Think You Can Take Me?

WTC South Tower to Plane: So You Think You Can Take Me?

by

Morgan Reynolds

[For context, see the A. Lawson email posted below]

I have no trouble admitting error on 9/11.  Like many, I erred on the ‘demolition’ meme before Dr. Wood’s work.  And long ago I hypothesized a fly-by at WTC2 with the technology the perps have to turn the underside of a plane sky-blue, ‘disappearing it’ visually.  https://nomoregames.net/2006/08/27/how-they-did-the-plane-trick-at-wtc2/  When I did not get attacked for that article, I knew it was the wrong idea for how they pulled off the WTC plane trick!?  I get attacked if I’m over the target, but not if I’m off target, which just adds more to the 9/11 clutter they love.

I’m so glad to see Anthony Lawson’s camera expertise employed to explain away disappearing wings ‘n things like engines in the South Tower penetration images when other parts of the plane image are clear.  Isn’t that reassuring?  Whatever it takes, hey Anthony?  Then we’ve got Anthony’s expertise to explain impossible air speeds through air and little or no deceleration upon ‘impact’ with a steel/concrete tower despite an aluminum airliner supposedly encountering the resistance of a real steel/concrete building.  Ain’t imagery wonderful, whether cgi or images projected in the sky recorded on videos located on buildings or on the ground?   Road Runner physics but trot out anything and everything to defend the official story or some minor plane departure from it.  Planes are a vital key to the whole caper because Planes = Muslim hijackers = war on Muslim world = war on the world.

Poor Anthony, it’s an impossible thesis to defend.  Let’s discuss three points here to disprove the proposition that planes crashed into the twin towers, with more proof to follow:

1) Fact: the core was 39’ from the wall in the case of the 9/11 South Tower hit.  Talk about a tight, hellacious collection of steel and concrete only a first down (that’s an American football term, Anthony) + 9’ away.  So it is not stupid, ignorant or arrogant to expect most of a 160’-long aircraft to be stopped cold outside the building.  It would have been.  That WWII B-25 bomber  was mostly stopped outside of the Empire State Building or stuck in it.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUlWpqLsOVs  Further, the 9/11 ST videos show no deceleration.  Impossible in a real collision, otherwise known as Newton’s first and second laws.  Don’t know them?  Look ‘em up.  Joe’s law might help.  https://nomoregames.net/2008/06/13/311/  Of course, Joe’s just a retired engineer who worked once upon a time in the aerospace industry, so he don’t know nuthin’.  Then we see no 9/11 aircraft debris visible in either WTC hole—rather unusual, no? (=impossible collision physics).  There was such debris in the B-25 crash.  Of course that was a real crash, not a fake one.  Further, there was no aircraft debris below the holes according to first responder testimony I cite in my legal affidavit.  https://morganreynolds.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/080128_reynolds93aff.pdf  There should have been a lot.  Another physical impossibility.  Surprise!  You believe otherwise?  Prove it.  There was such debris in the B-25 crash.  For another instructive NYC crash see https://nomoregames.net/2012/01/19/what-911-should-have-looked-like/

2) Fact: Newton’s third law of motion was still in effect that morning; remember the ‘equal and opposite reaction’ deal?  The force of the collision is equal and opposite on both objects in a collision.  Same collision physics if the building falls on the 767 as the plane running into the building.  Doesn’t matter, force is equal and opposite on both bodies.  Either way, whichever body is in motion, the Boeing survivability is bulls**t.  Pardon my truthful language.  The building is hell strong vs. an aluminum plane.  Capiche?  The ‘damage-inflicted’ score in terms of an NBA contest (that’s a basketball league, Anthony) would have been WTC2 100, plane 2.  I’ve proven that every which way, go to nomoregames.net and dig in.  A zillion joules?  Whatever, says the building, bring it.  I’ll throw it right back at you.  No time lag.  See how you like it.  Have some.  Gonna run your VW convertible into my  18-wheeler?  Fine, bring it!  Stronger structure wins, big time.  Gonna run your airplane into a steel lighting rig?  Have at it.  It doesn’t require a whole lot of steel to destroy a plane.  Only takes a bit.  I could get up on a plane with my 10-lb. sledge hammer and make it unflyable in minutes.  Steel cables/lighting system?  OK, good example: Little Rock AR American flight 1420 landed in a T’storm and hit some steel, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_1420 * destroying the plane.  Broke the fuselage into three sections.  Call it Joe’s Law.  OK, you’re gonna run your plane into 7-8 floors of my towers?  I’ve got about 4,545 tons of steel, glass, concrete, aluminum, etc., per floor to f*** you up.  That’s 31,818 tons vs. your 125 tons?  Hey joke, bring it.  I’ve got you 254 tons to one and I’m steel and concrete and you’re aluminum.  You want a piece of me?  Steel is about 3x stronger than aluminum per pound.  You think you can take me?  Let’s see what you got!  Run into me, come on!  See how much you hurt me!  OK, I’ve got thinner steel toward the top, so I’ll cut the margin by 5% (steel was 20% of tower weight and let’s say 20% lighter toward top = .2 x .2 = .04 = 4%).  Don’t like that number?  Put in another, it’s still a colossal mismatch.  So the aluminum plane runs into 7-8 compact 208’ squares of steel and concrete which outweigh the plane 241:1.  Can you say, “Plane go splat.”  Anybody see the Asiana flight 214 miss the landing a bit at SFO?  See the tail section snap right off?  Plane now uncontrollable.  Doesn’t take much force for that tail to go bye-bye, oops separation, cause it’s a 40’ tall heavy section hanging out at the end of that egg shell, er, airframe.  Mass centralization?  Not!  I pull a fifth wheel trailer, trails no problemo vs. a bumper pull travel trailer.  Fifth wheel hitch is over the rear wheel axle, like 18-wheelers do it, not hanging out hitched up past the bumper.  A travel trailer sways much more than zero and needs an equalizer hitch to control it.  Meanwhile, we have not a single tail section from four alleged airliners 9/11?  Bullshit!  I’m quoting George Carlin here.  If religion is bullshit, then 9/11 is bigger bullshit.

3) Fact: the official seismic data on the Richter equivalent scale show  0.9 ML and 12 sec. duration at 8:46:26 for the NT hit and a weaker 0.7 ML and 6 sec. duration at 9:02:54 for the ST hit despite allegedly much higher speed by the 580-mph 767 (whoa, big boost in joules) and a hit lower in the tower.  And the ST hole was smaller than the NT hole too, though both were quite undersized to swallow 767s whole.  At least that was consistent: the hole was too small at all four events.  NIST never gave the dimensions of the tower holes despite its 10,000-page report, predictably enough.  A 1.0 ML (local magnitude Richter) is equivalent to 30 pounds of TNT of force or energy yield (source: Wood, WDTTG?, pp. 78-9) or about 20 pounds at 0.7 ML.  This is a ‘micro earthquake’ not felt by humans.  Under 2.0 are micro earthquakes usually not felt by humans.  Since the towers were anchored in bedrock, the signal traveling through the earth would be bigger if a real 767 had hit but it was weak, weak, hardly above the background noise level.  Virtually no ground motion.  It had no P or S wave, just a barely detectable surface wave.  Like the destruction of WTC7 (ML=.06), we can say “there’s basically no seismic event,” Wood, p. 87.  That raises a question about manipulation to make the WTC 2 image sway as shown in Anthony’s favorite data point for the WTC 2 hit  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPICd0o_kg   Let’s get the photographer under oath, etc.  Towers designed to withstand #5 hurricanes waving around like palm trees in a hurricane?  Hmmm…http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php.  Who buys that?  I don’t.  If the video is honest, and based on visual inspection and seismic data I have serious doubt, then the no-plane weapon that made the hole is responsible for the sway anyway, as previously pointed out.  Here’s a more credible video posted by the same guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIZO-zY3Cug&feature=c4-overview&playnext=1&list=TL_AaqC1ZAe_U showing no deceleration in the Evan Fairbanks immaculate penetration ST video.

4) Bottomline: the evidence shows the four plane “events” on 9/11 resembled no previous or subsequent plane crashes in history.  Why is that?  Duh.  Could it be because they weren’t real?  They were faked?  Isn’t it obvious?

QED

PS:  The 9/11 planners faked the ‘plane events’ well enough, however, to convince dullards, the inattentive, the fearful, trolls, and the bought-up that planes really crashed, here, there, everywhere.  Into what category does Mr. Lawson fall?  Who cares?  Tail sections?  Serial numbers?  Fuhgeddaboudit.

*The aircraft skidded off the far end of the runway at high speed, slammed into a steel walkway with the landing lights for runway 22L and finally came to a stop on the banks of the Arkansas River.

“After departing the end of the runway, the airplane struck several tubes extending outward from the left edge of the instrument landing system (ILS) localizer array, located 411 feet beyond the end of the runway; passed through a chain link security fence and over a rock embankment to a flood plain, located approximately 15 feet below the runway elevation; and collided with the structure supporting the runway 22L approach lighting system.” [2]

Such structures are usually frangible – i.e. designed to shear off on impact – but because the approach lights were located on the unstable river bank, they were firmly anchored and the impact destroyed the aircraft. It broke into three pieces and ignited.

Here is the email from Anthony Lawson, 9/11 plane defender/hugger:

Hello Morgan,

I really don’t much care about you no-planes lot, any more, because I know that you are wrong, but in this email you have bought up some issues which I can help you with, if you are willing to have some of your pre-conceived notions shattered.


You wrote:

I wasn’t sure how they did the cartoon physics.

Imperfect projection would explain the inadequate imagery which is hard to explain via cgi.  

All we have is evidence that points to an advanced, secret military projection technology.

Finally

Regarding the technology, none of us knows. 


None of you may know why the South Tower impact looks so strange or surreal, but I do.

First, please watch this video.


WTC PLANES THRU STEEL WTC CONSTRUCTION — 911TRUTHINATOR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c&feature=email

Then consider that a plane weighing about 150 tons, and travelling at a velocity of about 550 mph would have to dissipate what I have calculated as kinetic energy of approximately 1,189,068 kilojoules.

 

Regarding the videotaped images of the plane impacting the South Tower, the following factors have to be taken into account:

The building was 208 feet wide, and the plane’s wingspan 156ft 1in

In the case of the CNN/Hezarkhani video, the impact frame covers about three times the width of the Tower; say 600 feet. Let’s say that the average size of a YouTube viewing area is 6 inches across; half a foot. What we are talking about is a visual compression of 1200 to 1. And enlarging the image will never result in it becoming more defined.

Photography has been around for a long time, and we are well used to visual compression, and often take it for granted. We can imagine the grandeur of the Matterhorn from a postcard of a similar size to the YouTube viewing area, but would we be able to make out individual rocks and fissures on the face of this mountain?  Of course not.  So to try and imagine what was really going on between the plane and side of the South Tower at a visual reduction of 1200 to 1 is virtually impossible. Digital zooming does nothing for us, because the loss of definition is commensurate with the change in image size.

Now look at this video:  The Liftoff for Apollo 11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygBxN5UiOaM

Some of the camera positions are extremely close, and show the kind of visual detail of what was going on that could not even be imagined from a wide shot that showed the rocket in its entirety.

One other point: Many of the shots appear to be in slow motion, because of the sheer size of what was being captured by the cameras, then reduced in size to fit a TV or a YouTube screen. But this is from a live broadcast, so I’m almost certain that the shots are all in real time.  But the slow motion feeling one gets from them is a similar visual effect that we must accept when watching the South Tower plane move away from the camera at about 850 feet per seconds; about 3/4 of the speed of sound. The shot appears to be in slow motion, but it is not.

As a former professional cameraman, I am aware of all these factors, and I have never found anything to question about the plane-entering-the-building shots. They certainly look surreal, because we have never seen anything like them before, but there is nothing to suggest that they are fake.

Then there is the video of the Tower shaking.


Tower Shake
12th Comm’ On 9/11 TV Fakery – Newtons Law

 

Can CGI or “advanced, secret military projection technology” account for that; a directional swing of the building towards the north?  Doesn’t this even give you cause to ponder:  Could that have happened if a real plane had NOT hit the south face of the building.

Perhaps if someone had heard this explanation before Joseph Keith offered his, things might have been different.

I’m not interested in getting into another argument about this because I know, and so do many, many others, that I am right.  And remember it is a big man who can admit that he may have been mistaken or mislead.  But that has nothing to do with me. 

Only you can resolve that issue in your heart of hearts.

Anthony

This entry was posted in 911. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to WTC South Tower to Plane: So You Think You Can Take Me?

  1. Betty says:

    You people are delusional. ‘Nuff said.

  2. GaR8 says:

    I don’t believe anyone can argue against the fact that there were ‘no planes on 9/11’

    The evidence continues to grow with every passing day and more people are accepting the evidence and well reasoned arguments for it. The physics, impossible impact dynamics, lack of wreckage etc, are things you can not dismiss just because people want to believe it did happen.

    The planes impossible speeds were never brought into question at the 9/11 hearings, had that and all the other evidence been included we would not be discussing this it would be accepted as fact ‘NO PLANES ON 9/11’

    The documentary made by Pilots for 9/11 Truth – Simulations, shows that the speeds were impossible to achieve, and that is going by the governments own data.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs5RQ_5nu4k

    Of course there are those who continue to argue that this is not the case and PF9T are just conspiracy nuts looking to make an earner. So people with professional expertise are wrong and those who believe in planes are correct because truth is determined by popular belief I guess. BULLSHIT truth is determined by facts and data not belief. Watch and learn people.

  3. Robert E. Salt says:

    Consider the tail section of a 757. The vertical piece is 44.5 feet high extending well above the rest of the craft. The video shows the “plane” entering WTC-2 on an angle. Dividing 44.5 by root 2 gives more than a 31 foot vertical height for this piece at a 45 degree angle. This aluminum piece would have to cut through three floors of four inch thick concrete not to mention the steel columns. Boeing must be using a secret ingredient to make aluminum this strong to do all this incredible slicing. Methinks the general population has been watching too much TV and going to too many movies to buy into this. Could we be surrendering our freedoms to the real terrorists in order to protect ourselves from make believe terrorists? And what about all the mass shootings around the country? It all seems very suspicious.

    • william02138 says:

      The video does not show the plane entering WTC2. All it shows is the plane approaching the building, then touching the building, then getting smaller as the nose disappears while the tail continues to move forward. It doesn’t show the plane wreckage piling up on the outside of the building either. That’s because most of the wreckage did enter the building, since it was heading that direction at 500+ mph. But it went in as a pulverized mess, not as an intact plane with a tail slicing through concrete floors and so forth.

      When you see a frame of the video that shows the rear half of the plane up against the wall of the building, you can’t assume that the front half of the plane is on the other side of that wall. It’s not. The front of the plane no longer exists; it’s just mush. Same with when you think you see the tail enter the building. There’s not a single frame of that video that shows the tail slicing through a concrete floor.

      When you say the video depicts something impossible (tail slicing through concrete floors), you’re wrong. Not because it’s possible, but because the video doesn’t depict it. And no competent proponent of the official explanation says it happened. It’s just your in your imagination.

  4. Bob says:

    Mr Reynolds,
    The archived audio interviews are spoiled by the live radio that plays at the same time. Could you fix this bug? Many thanks.

    • John says:

      When you load the archived interviews page, look in the upper-left corner and press the pause button. This will pause the live radio and the interviews will play uninterrupted.

      • Bob says:

        Many thanks.

        • Marcos says:

          One has to have lived under a rock the past 5 years to still not understand this was an isidne job. Everybody knows this today, its a sad state of affaires when americans are to dumbed down to think for themselves and demand justice. RIP to all those who lost their lives that day and to all the others who died as a result of american aggression in the middle east.

  5. onebornfree says:

    Thompson Twins said: “Lastly in some “amateur/pro” F175 exiting the south tower films it’s a dust explosion and in others it’s nose and fuselage intact, the two versions, of course, contradict each other.”

    Good points, but, actually it does not really even matter if it is claimed to be a dust cloud[ as some argue] or the nose of the plane merging [as others argue].

    The fact of the matter is that whatever it is, that image runs into an otherwise invisible layer running vertically down the center of the screen between the twin towers, causing that dust cloud [or plane nose] to completely flatten out [vertically] against it.

    This can be very clearly seen in frame 39 of the famous Fox 5 “nose out” video, a screen shot of which I have posted here as Fig.1: http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/total-911-video-fakery-versus-richard.html

    That vertical layer down the center of the screen gives the game away.

    Conclusion: The entire Fox 5 sequence is a digital [i.e computer generated] composite that used image layering as an integral part of its construction.

    And bear in mind that that entirely faked, digital composite sequence was broadcast as genuine live footage on 9/11.🙂
    Regards, onebornfree.

  6. onebornfree says:

    william02138 : “The videos do show the same entry point. Your analysis is grossly in error. No account for the different horizontal viewing angles. And in the third panel you’re measuring from the impact point up to some point up in the sky above the building!”

    Bull$hit. And the flight paths all match too? For example see Fig. 5 here, a gif file comparing the last 7 sec.s of Fl 175′s approach in two different [and contradictory] videos:
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/total-911-video-fakery-versus-richard.html

    Whatever. Believe what you will [i.e. that the plane videos are all genuine, the entry points all match, the flight paths all match etc. etc.]. It’s your life, your brain. Have fun with it.
    Regards, onebornfree.

  7. the thompson twins says:

    Lawson was having a hissy fit with one of the posters on his no planes youtube who accused the FOX chopper 5 cameraman of being a liar over his rationale for the coincidental post “flight 175” nose out fade to black frames, the cameraman who to this day claims he witnessed the plane exit the south tower nose and fuselage intact! doesn’t this leave Mr.Lawson with a dilemma?
    Also, in the “Jennifer Spell” flight 175 film we see a mystery object cartwheeling on a left/right downward trajectory just above the “impact point”… in the CNN Herzakahny(sp?) this object is absolutely not there.Lastly in some “amateur/pro” F175 exiting the south tower films it’s a dust explosion and in others it’s nose and fuselage intact, the two versions, of course, contradict each other.

  8. onebornfree says:

    Adnane said: “the reported speeds are impossible.”

    Yes, of course, 500+ mph at close to sea level is impossible for jet only designed to perform at that speed at normal cruising altitude [35,000 ft.] where the air is around 4x less dense than it is at 1000 ft.

    But in the end, actual real speed does not even matter, it cannot change the physics of the event [e.g Newton’s third law of motion] – the force/energy applied by the plane to the building at contact cannot be greater or less than the force applied back in the exact opposite direction, to the plane itself, by the building.

    So if the same model of plane had been travelling at 1000 mph, the force applied to its airframe at contact would _still_ be equal and opposite [i.e. in the opposite direction to which the plane was moving prior to impact].

    Regards, onebornfree.

    • Adnane says:

      I may slightly disagree with you, onebornfree, about the speed issue! It is as important as the crash physics themselves and it does matter in that the planes have structural limitations and the reported speeds near sea level normally generate a dynamic pressure that will break up the planes in flight BEFORE they can actually reach their targets (the purported AA11 speed of 385 kts is somehow achievable but…)! This applies to the alleged Pentagon and Shanksville crashes, too! People just repeat “planes travelling @500+ mph before impact” over and over without being intrigued by such an impossibility! It’s part of the “perception management” conducted by the mainstream media! No wonder why Boeing won’t provide 767-200 wind tunnel data to the general public because doing so will expose the OGCT as rise people’s awareness!
      In regards to the crash physics I completely agree! Newton’s first law of motion applies as well because the depicted 175 “impact” wasn’t perpendicular to the tower so the left wing will hit the tower first causing the plane to rotate counter-clockwise and the tail section will separate instantly from the fuselage and fall to the ground as well as many plane’s parts! so it it’s impossible for a 767 to continue straight in the same path upon a non perpendicular impact.

  9. onebornfree says:

    RegardingMr Lawsons posted video clip “Tower Shake 12th Comm’ On 9/11 TV Fakery – Newtons Law”, at the 0.39 sec. mark it clearly shows the North side of the South tower in full sunlight [ no shadow at all!] when at that time of day it was still in the shade.

    An impossibility and an obvious clue to the fakeness of the entire sequence if ever there was one. And no tower movement at all can be seen in the slowed down [and just as fake] Fairbanks sequence examined here:
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html

    The Fairbanks clip was originally faked in 2001 [or possibly before then], and first aired either on the evening news of 9/11/01, or sometime on 9/12/01 [I forget which], while the clip Lawson posted was faked years later and was an attempt to rectify an obvious earlier fakery error [i.e. lack of tower movement]; just one of several observable fakery errors seen in the many, various fake plane/tower video sequences released to date, such as the Fairbanks clip.
    Regards, onebornfree.

  10. onebornfree says:

    Morgan Reynolds said: “That’s 31,818 tons vs. your 125 tons? Hey joke, bring it. I’ve got you 254 tons to one and I’m steel and concrete and you’re aluminum. You want a piece of me? Steel is about 3x stronger than aluminum per pound. You think you can take me? Let’s see what you got! Run into me, come on! See how much you hurt me! ”

    Still the best analysis of this scientifically impossible event[ Fl. 175 allegedly striking/fully penetrating the S. tower] that I have seen to date is “Killtowns” brutal deconstruct of the Evan Fairbanks clip “Air vs. Skyscraper”:
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/air-versus-skyscraper-shortest-simplest.html

    Regards, onebornfree.

  11. Adnane says:

    Before even talking about the ST impact, there’s a major problem with the speed reported for the alleged Flight 175 (471 knots or 542 mph according to NIST). Vmo (Velocity Max Operating) speed for a 767-200 near sea level is 360 knots. Vfc is 390kt above which flight characteristics & stability must be demonstrated. A 767-200 travelling near sea level @471 knots means that, in the International standard Atmosphere (ISA) conditions, it can travel at a speed of Mach 1.47 @ 35000 feet. Wow! Boeing made supersonic jets without even being aware of it? There’s a good reason why they refuse to provide wind tunnel data of a 767-200 (they claim for national security reasons, duh) because simply the reported speeds are impossible.
    As for the gash made in the south tower, it’s 106 feet wide. A 767-200 tail section is 52 ft high and the wingspan is 156 ft. How on Earth could a 767-200, upon impact with the ST, create a gash shorter that its actual wingspan without any marks of the vertical stabiliser and wing tips or tail section breaking up and falling to the ground?
    The alleged UA175 supposedly impacted the ST with nearly ZERO deceleration (according to NIST, the 159 ft long fuselage disappeared INSIDE the building in 0.2s thus a speed of 542 mph). So an plane can maintain the same speed in two different environments (thin air vs. steel wall backed up by steel reinforced concrete floor slabs and 47 inner core columns, not to mention that the “plane” was supposedly banking left at an angle of 38° thus hitting many floor slabs ) and yet, within the same environment, the plane managed to slow down from 542 mph to 0 mph in the remaining “50 FEET” distance??? well….

  12. onebornfree says:

    Not only do the impact points for Fl. 175 not match video to video as indicated in my previous post, neither do the flight paths captured on videos of Fl. 175.

    For example see [part 4] Fig. 5 here, a gif file comparing the last 7 sec.s of Fl 175’s approach :
    http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/total-911-video-fakery-versus-richard.html

    Regards, onebornfree

  13. onebornfree says:

    Morgan, if the various videos allegedly portraying fl. 175 hitting/penetrating the S. Tower were in any way genuine, you’d at least expect them all to show the exact same impact point- and yet they do not.

    The Fl. 175 alleged impact point has as much as a 165 vertical feet difference between videos.

    See: “So Exactly Where Did Flight 175 Strike WTC 2 ?”: http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/so-exactly-where-did-flight-175-strike.html

    P.S. the Lawson video showing tower movement at strike is a 100% fraud produced years after the event, just as all of the other Fl.175 videos [including all original “live” network footage], are.

    To assume it is genuine is, methodologically speaking, a grave error for a scientist- however people like Mr Lawson simply don’t know any better, so I guess he has an excuse, unlike all of the other alleged “scientists” investigating 9/11.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    • william02138 says:

      The videos do show the same entry point. Your analysis is grossly in error. No account for the different horizontal viewing angles. And in the third panel you’re measuring from the impact point up to some point up in the sky above the building!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s