He also thinks your madcap idea is nuts. How do you account for that?

I disagree.

You haven't produced any satisfactory explanation for why those pieces could not end up where they are after a plane crash.

Please belay your fake astonishment. You have made no satisfactory case despite repeating your slogans a thousand times.

The piece hanging off the South tower (presuming it really is a piece of cladding) is suspended from the structure at some point or points, but which points these are is far from clear. Your repeated garbage that it can't have got there as a result of a plane crash because something something butter is not improved by repetition.

So your habit of relying upon it to handwave away multiple practical objections to your obviously absurdly impractical version of events is not persuasive, to understate it severely.

Oh please.

Four young men who could barely play their instruments are going to start a revolution. Those were merely CGI images and a few million screaming teenage girl crisis actors. Want more?

Just ask anyone, ANYONE, if they ever saw the "Beatles" play a live show that WASN'T on teevee.

Go ahead skeptics, I'll wait.

I never got to see the Beatles, But I did get to see the Rutles when the played Melbourne in 67. I must admit when they played "I must be in love" I screamed like a little girl.

I can guarantee they were real..

Out of Dirk Stig Barry and Nasty. Dirk was my favourite.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

We're using your standard of evidence. I'm working on my own CT website where my informed sources are talking frogs. Chicks dig talking frogs.

The fact is (and Yankee is trying to exploit it to the last bit), we can't reliably explain the oddly bent bits and pieces either. We do know there were no missiles though...
Some analogy with stage magic: There are hundreds of magic tricks only the creator knows the secret of (Pen and Teller "Fool Us"). There will be 2 types of people watching them. The first type accepts he is missing something and will live with it. The other type will try to prove witchcraft is real...

You've just described an airliner wing.


If your intention was to show how different the JASSM behaves with respect to what we saw in the WTC, congratulations, you have succeeded.

Correct, a port (left) airliner wing to be precise!

A port side, actually. What about sticking to the old-fashioned LEFT and RIGHT?:)

Correct, and corrected

In the 80's we were still using Air Warning Radar on RN ships that had their roots in the e1950's

George of course.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

And favourite Beatles song, that Merseyside classic, Stairway to Heaven.

https://youtu.be/3WfoccRna6I

In the early 1970s. I learned diagnostics and electronic fault finding on the RT82 - AN/APX25, an L-Band IFF transponder manufactured by Stewart-Warner which was basically a 1953 upgrade of the earlier model AN/APX6 - introduced into service in the latter part of World War II

APX 25 was used in

F-86 Sabre
RC-130A Hercules
B-50 Superfortress
B-52 Stratofortress
B-66 Destroyer
C-121 Constellation
C-97 Stratofreighter
F-89 Scorpion
F-100 Super Sabre
F-101 Voodoo
F-102 Delta Dagger
T-28 Trojan
T-33 Shooting Star
T-37 Tweet
T-38 Talon

Some of these aircraft were still in service as late as the 1980s WITH the APX25s still fitted...

... so yeah, just because you tag technology "military" doesn't automatically make it the most advanced.

Therefore, even if it was a 12" missile, it was hitting at an angle, and therefore could not have passed cleanly through the gap, as yankee451 claims it did.

yankee451, I am going to keep posting this until you stop running away and reply.
I have shown how, using your own sources, your theory is wrong.
You keep asking us to discuss the evidence. I am doing just that. Why are you so unwilling to discuss it?

Nope, if a jet wing had done it, the damage would be consistent with it.

How thick is a wing spar on a 767? How thick is the wing tip?


https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...d-cladding.png

How many times would you like me to repeat it?

That's fascinating. However the laterally bent steel is proof a wing striking head on didn't do it. Not to mention that pesky cladding that the "wing" was no match for.

If anyone has a better explanation for the laterally bent steel and the lightly damaged cladding then I'm all ears.

Your immature image analysis leads you to incorrect conclusions. the damage is perfectly consistent with an airplane chasing into the tower(s).

Almost a week late but...
 

... I'm now thoroughly convinced of the CD and the existence of the NWO! Why it's so bleeding obvious! All it took was one photo brazenly posted here, passed off as nothing when it clearly contained the one single proof of the NWO's existence! I shall revel in your hubris!

That's right, all it took was one single photo of Wolfgang (or is it Sharpe?)! ;)
(pgimeno, this thread, #2092)

If you had a leg to stand on you'd explain how the damage is more consistent with the head on impact of a mostly hollow aluminum jet, rather than the lateral impact of cruise missiles.

I mean just look at it. Why, you could fly a jet plane through that hole!

When's a plane not a plane? When it's a plane.

Wheels within wheels.

evidence free missile claims, labeled insane
 

Says the author of the insane missiles did it...

As he failed to prove any videos are fake, the thread ended at the second post, and you got no clue.

Those planes weight about 400,000 kilograms... x 500 mph OUCH

he has no practical knowledge of physics
 

the missile would have 18 pounds of TNT of kinetic energy, 175 had 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impact

a small portion of any part of the wing has more kinetic energy than the entire missile.

Yankee will continue to promote flat out bonkers notions. You cannot stop that. Even his family tried and failed.

But at least facts may prevent others falling for the utter BS.

At that speed it was thick enough. Maybe in your reality just the tip matters but out here in the real world the entire body of the wing has to be taken into account. Which end of a bullwhip do you want to be struck by? The handle? The middle? Or the tip? Why is that? Why does one end of the whip have more energy than the other?

So what you're saying is that even though a 767 is mostly aluminum with rubber for tires it might be a bad idea to let one roll over my feet.

Interesting.:D

Why are they bent laterally near the engine mount, Steve?

What happens to aluminum when exposed to extreme heat and flame even for only a few minutes, Steve?

What happens to steel when exposed to extreme heat for an hour, Steve?

How many cruise missile launches have you personally witnessed, Steve?

How many cruise missile impacts have you witnessed, Steve?

How many hours do you have logged flying heavies, Steve?

How long were you a Boeing test pilot, Steve?

What's the difference between a standard steel girder and the steel of the WTC facade, Steve?

Why was the WTC designed to survive the impact of a 707 if a plane was not a potential threat, Steve?

Steel when bent tends to stay bent, while aluminium tends bounce back.

Also the cladding is a cosmetic component, it is not very strongly attached. You can see where the joins break off. The steel, however, being a structural component, is very, very strongly attached.

But there is more to it that just that. Read on.

Take a look at a 767 some time (or any modern airliner for that matter) from above. Notice how the wings are swept back, at 31.5°? Remember this.

While the Flight 11 B767 struck WTC1 almost head on (0.3° clockwise from perpendicular) the Flight 175 B767 struck WTC2 at a fuselage angle of 13° clockwise from perpendicular. This would make the angle that the wings presented different for the left wing and right wing - it would decrease impact angle of the left wing to 18.5°, and increase the impact angle of the right wing to 44.5°

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wi869ff5ow...pact.png?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6kwbihgz9b...pact.png?raw=1

Keep in mind that any object or part of an object striking another object at a lateral angle such that one end of the object strikes before the other, that object will exert a pushing force with a left or right vectorial component dependant upon which end impacts first - if a car strikes a fence at an angle to the right (left front strikes first) the fenceposts will be pushed to the right.

Now look at the impact damage from flight 175 (use your own images, they will suffice for this purpose)

Notice how the surviving cladding and steel on the right is mostly pushed to the right, and the surviving cladding and steel on the left mostly pushed to the the left? There will be anomalies that might push the cladding and steel the other way because a wing is not a homogeneous object, it has stronger parts (spars, ribs and flap tracks) and weaker parts (skin and stringers), but the general direction will be away from the first point of impact, and therefore, away from the aircraft centreline. The effect is not dramatic, but even in the low resolution images, it is detectable.

Furthermore, notice that while the slight outwards bending of the cladding and steel on the Flight 11 impact is more or less equal on both sides, the Flight 175 impact cladding and steel is a little more severely pushed to the right on the right side than to the left on the left side. This is because of the angles of the two aircraft impacts, Flight 11 hit almost head on, so the wing impact angles on both sides was much the same, but Flight 175 hit at a clockwise angle as explained above, causing an increase in the wing impact angle on the right, leading to a greater vectorial component to the right, leading to greater force towards the right.

But wing sweep is not the only angle we have to consider. We also have take into account the dihedral angle - the angle at which the wings are bent upwards. A B767 wing dihedral angle is 6° stationary on the ground. In flight, lift causes the outer wing and wing tips to flex upwards, increasing the overall dihedral angle to about 8-9°.

What if we took took a drawing of a 767-200 rear view, scaled it correctly, increased its dihedral to 8½° to account for lift in flight, and superimposed it over the WTC1 damage?



The wing dihedral is the clincher.

Not only is it the smoking gun for an airliner hitting WTC1, its a smoking gun for a Boeing 767 hitting the WTC1. Any other aircraft would have different wingspan or different dihedral or both. A Boeing 767, and ONLY a Boeing 767 matches the observed damage hole in WTC1.

The evidence that a B767 struck WTC1 is conclusive. Consider your batcrap looney "not planes but missiles" theory debunked.

Why don't you tell us, and show your calculations as to how the damage is inconsistent with that?

I have two legs to stand on and the damage is consistent with an airplane crashing into each of the towers. Your explanation is weak, uneducated untrained analysis so now you hop around.

x 500 mph SQUARE if I should be pedantic. I made a rough calculation of the energy involved some pages back. The kE of the plane was equivalent of about 10 warheads of the missiles in question.

And mostly hollow! Don’t forget that!

I know. The next thing skeptics will tell Steve is that he'd be crushed if someone dropped a 1-ton bag of feathers on him.

I mean, come on, they're feathers not lead.

Wake up, sheeple.:D

You haven't answered my question once, so repeating it would be impossible.
Your only response so far has been to quote material that destroys your theory.

One more time:
How can a 14" missile pass through a 14" gap without either getting stuck, or causing significant damage to the gap (as explained in your own link)?
How can a 12" missile, impacting AT AN ANGLE (as per your own theory) pass through that gap without either getting stuck or inflicting damage consistent with your own source information?

So again in the case of Steve... we see someone who refuses to accept facts, engineering, physics etc... clinging to a conspiracy based on one thing they identified in an image which makes no sense to them. Ergo the whole account is impossible, made up out of who cloth and in his case... an FX of such complexity that it would confound film and animations experts from today's technology.

His initial curiosity is far far exceeded by his stubbornness and his distrust of "authorities".

It amazes me how that gets overlooked by some people. I'm not a crash expert, engineer, or anything else related to the events of 9/11. So, what I think the damage from a jetliner should look like is irrelevant because I don't technically know beforehand what it should look like. What that means is that I have to do two things:
1) Rely on expert witnesses that have a strong education in this area to check data and other observations to determine what the correct outcome should be.

2) Look at what evidence is available and that I understand to form a conclusion.

For example, with WTC 2 I have seen several videos of the impact, saw pictures of debris that looked like it was from planes (landing gear, engine, other random parts), and even the outline in the building looks similar enough to a plane for me to be comfortable with the idea that a plane struck it. That satisfies the second step. For the first step, people more educated in these areas than me have analysed flight paths, FDR, and the building dynamics to conclude that what happened to the building was consistent with a massive jet flying at speeds of 500+ mph striking a building that was designed as uniquely as the WTC buildings were.