When you're trying to make a math problem out of it, it must include the calculations of the building's construction too. It would require a finite element analysis of the impacting bodies. The wing would behave differently when striking the sharp steel knife-edges of the protruding column sides, or the flat face of the column, set-back from the protruding edges of the column sides, than it would when striking a window.This is why no one has ever done it. Because it will prove that a jet couldn't have possibly caused it. So the propaganda organs like Purdue, NIST, FEMA, MIT, et al, simply ignore the evidence. And their fawning sycophantic skeptics, dutifully follow suit.

Any comment on Robin's point that your magic missiles did more damage as they progressed, rather than losing momentum and doing less damage?

That little crease in the aluminum sheeting was no more than a couple inches wide, and whatever it was that hit it was not massive enough or dense enough to do more than lightly bend it.


That means this wingtip, traveling at 500 miles per hour, was no match for the thin aluminum sheeting that covered the steel column. How thick is the wing tip of a 767?

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

So this wing tip, which was at once so flimsy that it couldn't even cut through aluminum sheeting, suddenly changes direction and becomes much more dense, much bigger, and much more massive, and sharply bends steel columns in a completely different direction than it was traveling.

Furthermore, every video and photo of the "crash" in the public domain, is just as dishonest as the Purdue cartoon is. They ALL show the wingtips sliding like butter into the tower. Nothing fell off. The whole plane slid in, all the way to the horizontal stabilizer, BEFORE the alleged fuel eruption.

The video evidence is not consistent with the physical evidence. None of the official reports from NIST, Purdue, MIT, FEMA, etc. are either.

Unfortunately for the official story faithful, the fact that all of these official organs are all singing the same tune, does not change the evidence that proves they're wrong. Ignoring the evidence doesn't change it, but it does expose the dishonesty of the party doing the ignoring.

Sure. Thank you for the question, this is the best part.

Whatever caused the north tower gash started here, a projectile of some kind struck the face of this column hard enough to pinch the aluminum cladding that covered the steel, popping out the bottom at the seam.* It was very thin, much thinner than the wing tip of a 767 and it wasn't very dense, as evidenced by the fact that the steel behind it isn't damaged.

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

Considering the uniform construction between the left wing and the right, they should have left similarly-sized gashes - but that's not the case. On the left there's a little pinch but on the right there's a much wider gash. So what could cause a pinch on one side but crush the cladding on the other?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ngTipright.jpg

Compare again to the left:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...maged-SFRM.png

So we have a big difference between the sizes of the imprints left by the wing tips of the "jet," and whatever it was that wasn't dense enough to do more than pinch the cladding on the far left, but as it moved right it became MORE dense, as can be seen by the sliced cladding just to the right of it (columns 151 and 150).

Moving to the right the bends and twists to the columns become more pronounced.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...m-the-side.png

So what projectile is at once more dense and smaller in some places than it is in others? Whatever it was it was traveling at an oblique trajectory of say 10-15 degrees from parallel to the face of the towers:

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

As a reminder, a swept back wing, even if it could do such a thing, would have struck the columns on the opposite edges, to what the damage evidence shows:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...triking-ri.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ide-dents1.jpg

There are very few things that can explain this damage. Only one that I can find. The damage to the cladding was caused by the impact of a small and lightweight missile wing, hence the light damage. Moving to the right, the fuselage of the missile, presumably fiberglass and aluminum, began to impact the columns, causing worse damage to the aluminum sheeting, as the denser materials within the fuselage of the missile began to impact the columns, the protruding steel sides of the columns begin to bend to the right. And finally as the dense metal, 900 lb. warhead begins to impact, the whole columns are flattened and sharply bent to the right, before the warhead was deflected and then detonated in front of the 9th column.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...3/Approach.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...e-shatters.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rst-strike.gif

Wayne Coste, well-known truther (and often identified by fellow Truthers as a "plant" or "disinformation agent", for Wayne will (sometimes) go where the evidence leads) has a presentation somewhere where he shows where the momentum of the large plane went:

The towers started to sway laterally quite significantly immediately following the plane impact, and in the direction of the plane trajectory, and Wayne computed that the momentum of the swaying building was, within reasonable error margins, equal to a 767 with 10,000 gallons of fuel at the speed "officially" clocked for the 767s that impacted them.
(I think NIST did the same calculation, didn't they?)

"Missiles" do not explain this momentum transfer, do not even begin to. Missiles themselves, on account of being so very much lighter but hardly any faster than 767s just don't have enough momentum, and if the explosions of their explosive payloads (which have net sum zero momentum) were the cause, that would require that a significant proportion of the missiles mass was propelled away from the impacted sides in the opposite direction at hypersonic speeds - and that would eat up completely the explosive energy and leave too little to break any steel. In other words: Physically impossible.

So I wonder how come the towers swayed after the alleged missile impacts. If someone were so nice to quote Mr. Yankee's response, thanks.

The "sway" was based on the television show. The title of this thread is "How they faked the videos." Fake video is fake video. The damage evidence I have been discussing trumps the fake videos, which some people think included a building "sway." All the official story witnesses, all the "amateur" videos, all the flight paths, all the flight recorders in the world, don't change the evidence that proves they are all BS.

O' the irony.

The physical evidence Jeff refers to is that which supports the plane crash story, which of course does not change the evidence that proves there was no plane crash. What Jeff continually does is defer to authority, the same authority that insists planes were used (despite the evidence to the contrary), the same authority that broadcast the fraudulent videos, the same authorities that provided the fraudulent flight paths, the same authorities that have been invading the world ever since.

Even the "first responders" have been busted for 9/11 corruption, but that doesn't stop Jeff from continuing to point to to the authorities (otherwise known as the 'most likely suspects') as if that somehow changes the evidence in the impact holes.

Can't wait.

FAILED to prove fake videos
 

oops, you failed because we saw Flight 11, and Flight 175 break the shell of the WTC. I doubt you can state the thickness of the steel columns where the planes entered.

I know for a fact you have failed to account for the energy of impacts, equal to 2093 pounds of TNT for Flight 175, enough energy to break the shell designed to stop 184 pounds of TNT impact from a jet. Math is required, not wild fantasy speculation based on paranoia and hate.


Flight 11 hit at 490 mph, with an impact equal to 1300 pounds of TNT, 7 times more than design.
Flight 175 hit at 590 mph, an impact equal to 2093 pounds of TNT, 11 times more than design.

What is the thickness of the steel? Why do fantasy version of 9/11 alway use butter as an analogy. The dumbest analogy, for the most idiotic claims.

Ironically you use missiles to do the damage, but the planes had more energy than the missiles. You failed to make a valid point and failed to prove the videos and vision of hundreds of people was faked.

Right, hundreds of NYC people were paid to lie about 9/11 and seeing flight 175 break the shell of the WTC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-z...ature=emb_logo

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

You don't have a practical knowledge of physics, you have no idea what you are talking about as you make up silly lies about 9/11. Why do you apologize for terrorists who murdered thousands on 9/11 by making up lies and blaming ourselves?

The videos stand as evidence, you failed to make a valid point, failed to explain how they were faked. You presented a wild baseless fantasy of fake videos and fake witnesses.

FAILED to interview eye witnesses to flight 175's impact! FAILED

FAILED to stay on topic! FAILED

You are aware that it did not strike at a perfect 90 degree angle relative to the side of the building, right? The forward momentum of the plane was not directed perfectly inward.

Yes, and with parallel columns the mostly hollow fuselage would not damage a column it didn't hit, as evidenced by every video of the crashes in the public domain, as well as in the Purdue cartoon.

Now you're just making things up. There was no buckling visible in any of the videos, including the Purdue cartoon.


You're still making things up. I have never said the wing would maintain its shape. I have said just the opposite. Anyone can scroll back on this thread, or click any of my links, to check for themselves.

And I have never said I expected the columns to be wedged away from the center. I have said that IF the jet was a super-duper reinforced jet that was (somehow) at once dense enough to slice steel, but still light enough to fly, it might behave like a bodkin arrow, wedging apart columns. Either way, the bends on the left sides of the column (but not on the right side) is a clue that it wasn't caused by a head on impact of a 30 degree swept back wing anyway. It is a moot point that continues to ignore the lightly bent aluminum sheeting, and the sharply bent steel columns.


It is the same evidence that was used to justify almost two decades of war.


AGM-86D missile warheads are about 14 inches wide and weigh 1200 lbs, they are big, powerful missiles that have been around for decades.

The smaller AGM-158 looks like a plane and in 2001 no one had ever seen one before, but if someone had seen one it could easily have been mistaken for a small, white plane. JASSMs were being produced for testing and for the Pilot Production models in 2001, but they were not in the military’s inventory at the time. Official production didn’t begin until December of 2001, giving the authorities plausible deniability, but JASSMs used off-the-shelf technology from other tried and true missile systems so there is no question the technology was there. They look like planes, they are stealthy, they can fly in formation, and with planted targeting beacons, their margin of error would be next to zero. If the hole wasn’t cut by cruise missiles such as the JASSM, it was something very similar.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

As I said, it is the same evidence used to justify the invasion, looting and occupation of sovereign nations. I would think that you would want to be more careful about what you think justifies the murder of thousands of innocent people.

I see. So that explains the tiny pinch at the far left and the progressively worse damaged steel columns, bent in a completely different direction than the television jet was traveling.

No, see, Steve drew some lines and arrows on some fuzzy crops and that trumps everything - The victims, the planes, the hundres of thousands of eyewitnesses, radar, cvr data, fdr data, every letter agency involved in the response, recovery and investigations, and so on.

Just admit defeat already, Steve's about to blow the lid off this thing.

I will, just as soon as any single one of you can show a modicum of integrity and provide a better explanation for the evidence that leads me to my conclusion. You've got plenty of examples to choose from where I have been wrong and publicly ate crow.If I'm wrong I'll admit it. So what's stopping you now?

FAILED
 

You are wrong, the videos were not faked, and you failed to provide evidence to make your point.

FAILED

And now you have no clue what the topic is. ( yankee451 will now gish gallop away)

I did already.

A great ******* airliner flew into WTC 1 and exploded.

That makes no sense. Why don't you just blow the lid off it now?

It's almost as if the attention you're getting is your motivation, and you don't give a **** about the truth.

Is that like, "Because I said so! <stomps foot>?"

How quickly you forget:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=522

The projection is strong with this one.

Notice how they twist themselves into pretzels of denial to avoid addressing the evidence that proves all the videos of the jet impacts are fraudulent.

No, it's because it's the truth and that's irrefutable.

Okay, so that's that!

:thumbsup:

And this is "evidence" that you have obtained FROM A PHOTOGRAPH PUBLISHED BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY.


O'yea.


And the same authority that PUBLISHES THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU USE.

Can you explain why you trust these photographs?

FAILED fake video claims FAIL
 

wow, where is your Pulitzer Prize for this fantasy lie of fake videos?

Right you never knew you have no evidence, only FAILED analysis based on BS.

How many years have you wasted talking when you need physics and engineering to figure out your fantasy is BS.

Where is your proof the videos are fake, you are off topic and doing the Gish Gallop

Why do you spread lies and ignore thousands killed by 19 terrorists who figured out how to use hijacking as a ploy for mass murder? It appears the terrorists figured out 9/11 before you. You are not smarter than a terrorist who kills due to hate.

Why have you failed to notify the newspapers and others? Because you are spreading idiotic lies and failed conspiracy theories.

Well of course they did. They were trying to sell the story that planes cut the holes in the towers. That would be difficult to achieve without releasing footage and photographs of the damage. There is no reason to believe any of the photographs of the damage left by the alleged plane impact are fraudulent, as the damage is consistent from video to video, and photo to photo. If you are suggesting that ALL of the photographs of the damage are fraudulent, well that's a valid point, considering all of the videos of the jet impacts are as well. But logically, if the perpetrators could fake the photographs of the damage any way they wanted to, then they would have done so in a way that supported what they were selling on television. They would have bent the steel in their fake photographs in the same direction as the fake plane was traveling. They would not have faked the photographs by inserting laterally bent columns and lightly damaged aluminum sheeting, which contradicts what they were trying to sell.

The same can be said for the claim that the holes were cut by precision explosives, and not the lateral impact of multiple small cruise missiles; if the perpetrators could do with their precision explosives what these people think they can do, they would certainly not have bent the steel in a direction that contradicts what they were selling on television. Therefore, the damage evidence indicates exactly what it appears to indicate.

The perpetrators knew they could control the opposition by directing the attention of 'truthers' away from this evidence by giving notoriety to the truthers pushing nukes, and holograms, and DEW, and Israelis, and reinforced planes,etc. - ANYTHING but the impact evidence. And the proof is in the pudding. Whenever I bring up the discussion of the evidence that proves the holes were not cut by planes, the reaction has been to ignore it.

I repeat:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...d-cladding.png

Fake video not proved, big Boeing Jet hole debunks lies of yankee451
 

you keep showing a photo of the aircraft impact and it broke the WTC shell because the Kinetic Energy was more than the shell could stop.

Physics wins again. Why do you keep debunking yourself showing a photo with a big Boeing Jet hole in it, and pointing out BS?

FAILED again to prove fake videos, and showed a Boeing Jet hole in the WTC. Big Fail, sad fantasy for you.

Why do you lie about 9/11?

And the fact resistant humans with no experience in the subject matter will produce their youtube video analysis for their fellow know-nothings until the earth stops spinning.

Physics prove you wrong again.

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

Will you use this video to prove your fantasy? That is funny.
BTW, there are many part on the Boeing jet which are as strong or stronger than anything in the WTC shell, but go ahead ignore the landing gear, and engines. And it seems you have no clue what mass is.

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

You can't grasp what mass is, and why a plane with enough energy (speed) can break the WTC shell. No clue for you.

When we fly the plane is in the air, we are not going exactly stright relative to the ground (aka the WTC towers), thus the direction individual parts hit the WTC at are not straight on unless there is zero wind and the pilot is perfectly balanced in yaw, roll, and pitch. You have no clue what flying a plane is about, and no clue why the impact might be different from left to right.

I can fly my plane in a slip, or skid, and you have no clue what the flight parameters were on the planes when they impacted. Were the wings rolling? When we pull gs in flight and roll at the same time, the g force on the wing rolling up is greater than the wing rolling down. If the plane is not in coordinated flight, then the impact will not be uniform. Don't forget the heading, pitch, roll and yaw. Good luck being able to use common sense when flight dynamics and physics are required - you are so far behind it hurts to think about how dumb your claims are and the lack of effort you have spent make up dumbed down lies about 9/11.

What is your expertise? So far the only proof of what you are an expert in is making up wild stories about 9/11.

Yes, large aircraft were flown in to the towers at high speed as witnessed by thousands of people.

767s are not small aircraft by any stretch of imagination. They are considerably larger than these missiles. This was pointed out to you by another poster many pages ago.

And? From the street a thousand feet down, someone might think they saw a small white plane (which were reported). Anyone who insisted they saw a missile, had a TV shoved in their face.

No. You saw it on television, therefore you assume thousands of people saw it. But the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting, and the sharply bent steel columns, say otherwise.

Proves.

Even barnyard animals know a jet wing impacting at 500 MPH would have done more than lightly "pinch" the aluminum sheeting at the far left.

It was Manhattan in the middle of a weekday.
Of course thousands saw it.
Do you think the entirety of the city population are in on it?

Nobody knows your constituency better than you.

Somehow the residents of Conspiralandistan have rejected Ben Franklin (Three can keep a secret if two are dead) and the general principle of K.I.S.S. (keep it simple, stupid) for "the more the merrier" and the belief that the more moving parts involved in a plan the greater the chance for success.

Then I need to bring you back to one of my first post in this thread and ask you again where the giant speakers were located that broadcast the sound of jet engines to apparently emanate from commercial passenger airliners and not the tiny missiles that do not share either a similar physical size nor sound profile.

Good lord, each engine on a 767 is not only physically larger than a JASSM but also weights 4 times as much.

Steve... there WERE eyewitnesses to the AA11 hitting the north tower. Not only the fire fighters seen in a video you will claim as staged... but many commuters driving southbound on the FDR drive where the twin towers... were clear as a bell that day and they say AA11 directly overhead rather low and then hit the towers.

I was in NY that day at work. I could see the smoke streaming from the towers. I have a friend who, an architect, worked on the 54th flr of tower 2. He saw the 2nd plane hit the tower.

The problem is that the AGM-158 was still in early testing in 2001 and Lockheed couldn't get it to work consistently. Another problem is Lockheed would have noticed their handful of prototypes missing (they all have serial numbers). Then there is the problem of all of that jet fuel which neither missile carries, and it is the burning jet fuel combined with the impact from the aircraft which caused the buildings to collapse.

Plus you keep posting photos showing the damage claiming a plane couldn't have caused it yet there is aircraft wreckage in those pictures.

You fail.

It's like in the aftermath of the Boston bombings the CTs had to come to the conclusion, with pictures with arrows pointing at random various things of no importance, that the true perpetrators of the event secretly used flashbangs and smoke bombs to cover up the carefully pouring of fake blood on the ground instead of using an actual IED to cause genuine destruction...or moon landing hoaxers pointing out 'prop rocks' to prove their nonsense.

It's all so interesting on a psychological level as to why everything needs to be even more convoluted than necessary to achieve the same ends.

Steve, you don't care about the lives of innocent people so quit hiding behind them. You don't care about people at all, you lack empathy and you think you're better than everyone.

With a wave of your hand you dismiss the murder of over 3,000 Americans on 9-11 because it conflicts with your simplistic, distorted, and naive political views. Yet you portray yourself as a crusader for humanity while foisting the single dumbest 9-11 conspiracy theory in existence, which I guess is an accomplishment.

Yes, the United States used 9-11 to prosecute foreign Islamic terrorists and their state sponsors. This is a fact and it is still open to honest debate about the wisdom of the concept of a "war" on a shapeless threat. However there is a difference between taking advantage of a catastrophic attack to advance a foreign policy with a narrow world view and faking or staging an attack to initiate armed conflict.

The American people weren't fooled by some dark cabal's Kabuki Theater on 9-11, the American people reacted to the attack the way the American people always have - by overreacting and inflicting non proportional retaliation on any and every perceived threat. Seriously, as a Native American sometime about how Americans respond to what they perceive as a genuine threat, ask Mexico, ask Spain, ask Imperial Japan, ask Manuel Noriega.

The US has a dark side and it has historically been facilitated by people like you - fools - who don't care to educated themselves about the workings of their country or government and are content to simply sit back and complain.

JSanderO is an honest broker who had questions about the attacks of 9-11, and still has some of the same questions, and is most definitely against our never ending wars in the Middle East. He represents millions of other like-minded honest people who would love to see the US evolve beyond our knee-jerk military response to all things terrorist. But he and all of those other people are ham-stringed by guys like you who throw crazy, ill-thought out conspiracy theories around making it easy for those on the other side of the argument to lump you in with JSanderO and then ignore everyone.

If I worked at the CIA running PsyOps I would have invented 9-11 Truth just as it unfolded to aid the war effort by undermining the anti-war movement in it's initial stages and handicapping it ever since.

Seriously? Are you saying that an airliner could crash into a building at 800 kph and not bend even a little???
I have no idea what "the Purdue cartoon" you keep.referring to is.


You literally said this just a few words before. I said the plane would start to buckle and crumple as it hit and you said I was making things up.

You are building a whole case on the wings maintaining their shape as they go in, you have an animation of it doing that.

Make up your mind. Would the wings start to buckle as the engine hit or not?

When someone's worldview is based on action movies and super hero movies the concept of grand conspiracies and criminal masterminds make sense.

For those of us that live in the real world and have professional knowledge from investigating criminal conspiracies, all this claptrap would be funny if it didn't involve death and destruction.

Sick Fantasy of fake video dies with RADAR and rational thinking
 

Your posts prove you don't have a practical knowledge of physics, flying, science, missiles, fire, and more.

What about the RADAR data for Flight 175 and 11, which ends at the WTC? Now we have all of the FAA, NTSB, and the airlines faking your sick pathetic fantasy.

You lie about 9/11, and have failed to prove the videos are fake. In fact, the videos match the RADAR data and time.

Thus Radar, and video debunk your sick fantasy.

Jeff,

And? So what. There were more witnesses that said they saw small planes, missiles or no planes at all. Not all the witnesses can be right. The damage evidence (that you keep avoiding) can thin out which of the witness accounts match the evidence, and which match the "official story."

I think the majority of the population are just as duped as you are.

"A loud sound that I can only describe as a missile, not an airplane"
https://youtu.be/5_a1foRId6M?t=90

I'm saying that whatever it is you want to believe, is not supported by the evidence.

This Purdue cartoon:
https://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/0...ffmannWTC.html

In a normal plane crash, it would buckle and crumble, but that's not what happened in this case is it? The plane didn't deform at all as it slid effortlessly into the steel skyscraper. Nothing fell off. No part buckled, crunched or deformed. You have a vivid imagination, granted, but it is not supported by the facts. Or the Purdue cartoon.

No. I answered this already. To you. You might want to scroll back on the thread.