Shortly after 00:14:28 GMT on June 30, 1908 ...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ktrge6s1x...ska1.jpg?raw=1

... all this was done by nothing but air!

Have you got any evidence of missiles?
For example: pieces of debris, radar tracking of missiles, specifics about where these missiles were fired from, specifics of who fired them, whistleblower statements from anyone involved in any part of the transport, launching or clean-up operations, inventory lists showing missing missiles....anything?
I am quite happy to examine your evidence with an open mind, but all you've done so far is post some pictures from (as has been pointed out) the same sources you claim are faked, with some arrows on them. That isn't what you'd call conclusive, is it?

Truther claims are begin with two foundations:

A. all media and government reports / accounts are false and deliberate lies... told to hide the true agenda

B. what they see in pics and vids could not possibly be caused by planes hitting buildings or the ground.

(A) is sometimes and somewhat true. We accept PR and spin and so on as normal.

(B) requires some level of technical knowledge or acceptance of what those who have it say.

Both (A) and (B) reinforce each other and create an endless loop with no way out.

There were no planes, you're not keeping up! It was missiles!

Facts negated, Yankee wins!

You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead. :boxedin:

Bahaha :)

An open mind is necessary, but so is knowledge of the physical dynamics of moving and impacted objects and structures, and the tools (primarily mathematical) for applying that knowledge.

You have done no mathematics. What you have are what Dave Rogers calls unevaluated inequalities. You claim that the force of impact by airplane wings are less than the force required to cause the observed deformation of the wall columns, but you have not quantified either of those forces. You claim that the force of impact and detonation of a missile equals the force required to cause the observed deformation of the columns, but you have not quantified either of those forces. The creation of those forces involve speeds and masses and strengths that are well outside the range anyone is intuitively familiar with. They can only be understood and compared by careful calculation, which you have not done. You insist that x is greater than y and z is equal to y, but you cannot say what x, y, or z are.

When others who do know how to evaluate and compare x, y, and z tell you you're wrong, you reply with accusations and insults instead of calculations of your own.

That's why your ideas are unpersuasive. They fail to qualify for admission into even the openest of minds.

Have they even bothered to identify which missile system was used? The entry gash in the tower was massive. I guess it could have been caused by a missile if it were going sideways as they tend to not do.

I'm guessing they know less about missiles than they do about airplanes.
But that shouldn't stop them from saying it was X.

A bunch of people have responded to, questioned Steve's presentation. They have because it simply does not make sense. Nothing will change Steve's mind.

More interesting is what happened to Steve's mind?

He did what most conspiracy minded people do-he started with a conclusion and began working backwards. Lots of bad things happen when you do that. Before long your "reasoning" becomes as succinct as the star wars sequel trilogy.

See: Earth, Flat.

Classic example - Howard Donahue's conclusion that since he could duplicate LHO's shooting, LHO couldn't have fired the shots.

See also, forcing the square block of conspiracy into the round hole of reality

:thumbsup:

If I look back at my weird years at JREF/ISF in 25 years or so, I think Dave's Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy may be one of the few practical wisdoms with universal applicability I shall have learned here that are (I think) original to this place.

Conversely, I believe it was Marcus Allen, who described in a live recorded video presentation that he was unable to duplicate picture of Gene Cernan and the Earth and therefore the image was fake and Apollo was a fraud/fake. Only in the minds of CTs and individuals that really don't think about what was said and how it was said. Of course Marcus could not have frame Gene Cernan and the Earth, as he wasn't on the Moon doing the framing. But he couldn't get a frame correctly that would have been what would have been needed to take the image.

Foam vs. carbon-reinforced panel?

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

One of two things:

1. He's a troll.

2. He has high-functioning Aspergers.

Either way he gets off on the attention.

That pretty much covers it.

Some folks that make the rounds on various sites and post this or similar nonsense seem to be attention driven or impaired.

When are you going to start presenting evidence that backs your theories so far you have debunked Yourself, a plane made from aluminum hitting a steel building should produce exactly the evidence you have shown.
Thanks for nothing.

Depleted Uranium is way softer than Tank Armor yet in the first gulf war it was used in A10 wart hogs against tanks because like aluminum it was Pyrophoric on impact.

I’ve been to the Columbia Recovery Room at the Vehicle Assembly Building and seen the results of this firsthand - insulating foam vs. the ultrahard reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge of the port wing, leading to an impossible result according to the ignorant and frankly delusional OP.

That is true if all conspiracy theorists, including the one in the White house right now, Scary isn't it?

We're still waiting, aren't we, for The Yank to tell us where the four planes and the occupants are now? Or is he claiming that none of those flights ever took off? Maybe Boston and Dulles airports don't exist?

It's to do with density

Depleted uranium or conspiracy theorists?

Dave

I understand quite well. I also understand mostly hollow aluminum wings don't slice through steel skyscrapers in the real world, but if they could do so, the damage left to the building would reflect it. Something about equal and opposite reactions proves something else happened. ;-)
The damage to the building indicates small projectiles struck from the side. It doesn't indicate a large one struck from head on. This damage alone is what proves the jet impact videos are fraudulent.


http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ectories-1.jpg

If you had any clue about trigonometry, you'd use it to prove I'm wrong. The problem is, it proves I'm right.

I wrote this for frauds like Jeff.

lol

Occupants of what? The non existent planes? The empty offices? What do you mean?

Empty offices?

We've already been down this road, need I remind you.

In other words, let other people do your thinking for you. Do as you're told. Vote. Pay your taxes. Die. This is as good as it gets.

You guys are a crack up.

I remember. Never letting the facts interfere with your skepticism of anything that doesn't support the "official" story (read: tripe), you gnashed your teeth and pointed to information provided by the most likely suspects, as if that somehow overrides the physical evidence.

Apparently you don't

Unless you're now retracting that and introducing new evidence that supports your argument.

Then by all means, please proceed.

While I have you on the line here Steve, which original image did you grab this from? Can you post the whole image?

https://media.giphy.com/media/WCSj7Skn4IhEc/giphy.gif

Has to be a troll. Nobody is this stupid.

Tell me again, Jeff.

According to the Purdue cartoon, the left wing tip fully penetrated the wall, yet even a barnyard animal can see the wing tip didn't fully penetrate, in fact it took a sharp turn to the right and sharply bent the more massive, much more dense, less brittle 1/2 inch-thick steel plate in a completely different direction than the jet wing, with a leading edge as sharp as a basketball, was traveling.

This part of the wing:
https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...Purdue-Gif.gif

Struck like this:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...1-48-16-PM.png

This wing tip
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...0278c1d4_b.jpg

was not big enough, or dense enough, or massive enough, even at 500 miles per hour, to do more than lightly bend the aluminum sheet metal that covered the steel column here:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...MAGED-SFRM.png
But a few feet away it was big enough, dense enough, and massive enough to sharply bend steel columns in a complete different direction than the wing tip was traveling? And on the ninth column from the left (of both towers), the wing blew a hole in the column?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rrow-burst.gif

Please explain.

When in Rome...

Be specific please.

I would like the whole class of clowns to pay attention to this. Friction he says, as long as the wings were still connected to the fuselage.

Well shoot, according to the official story, the wings were "completely fragmented" by the exterior wall columns as they simultaneously, sliced through them like butter. See below.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...wall_small.png

This means that by the time the engines penetrated the walls, the wing tips would no longer be attached to the rest of the plane.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...05/inside1.jpg

Another fantasy shattered.

I did prove you wrong, you just won't admit that fact.

I missed it, would you please provide the link, or repeat yourself?

I miss the relevance of that.

You guys are all over the place; "Look over here. What about this hypothetical situation? You had a hair out of place six years ago."

You haven't mentioned the straw through the tree yet. Or have you? What does any of this have to do with this thread, or the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on?