International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   9/11: How they Faked the Videos (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275)

pgimeno 19th January 2020 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959627)
The jet wing would cut through the cladding before it could cut the steel.

Not if the cladding moved sideways (as that and the others to its right did). Then it had the way clear to bend as the wing passed above it and cut the column.

In some of the others there seems to be a similar effect, but with a thinner remnant.

Robin 19th January 2020 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959624)
How do you figure? The cladding was attached to three sides of the steel column. As your image shows, three sides of the steel were gouged out, but not the back of the column. This means your jet wing was at once able to gouge out steel columns, but missed the face of only one piece of cladding, and then stopped before it completely severed the column, yet as all the videos show, nothing bounced off.

It is hanging on by the side, the face of the cladding has been punched through, as you can see if you follow the window washing track.

If a missile had hit it from the side then you would not expect that side of the cladding to survive.

With a head on collision there is the possibility of the sides surviving.

And there is still the question of how a missile can pass through that gap.
[quote] Every bit of the jet slid like butter into the tower.
/QUOTE]
I am not sure where you are getting that. Most of the jest disintegrated on impact the heavy parts punched through.

yankee451 19th January 2020 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12959657)
Not if the cladding moved sideways (as that and the others to its right did). Then it had the way clear to bend as the wing passed above it and cut the column.

In some of the others there seems to be a similar effect, but with a thinner remnant.

Really. the cladding was attached to the face of the column and both sides. How do you figure it could be moved so, considering it was wrapped around the steel column, which is gouged out?

yankee451 19th January 2020 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12959677)
It is hanging on by the side, the face of the cladding has been punched through, as you can see if you follow the window washing track.

If a missile had hit it from the side then you would not expect that side of the cladding to survive.

With a head on collision there is the possibility of the sides surviving.

And there is still the question of how a missile can pass through that gap.
"Every bit of the jet slid like butter into the tower."

I am not sure where you are getting that. Most of the jest disintegrated on impact the heavy parts punched through.


Again, how do you figure? That's the face of the cladding there.

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

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

waypastvne 19th January 2020 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957092)

Oh look, someone else that can't address the thread, and instead, would like to point out a previous hair out of place.

View from another angle. The aluminum column cover was cut completely into. Then it dropped down and became wedged behind what could only be a large fragment of Boeing 767 wing skin.



https://i.imgur.com/KlNxqPR.jpg


You got another hair out of place Steve.

yankee451 19th January 2020 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12959677)
It is hanging on by the side, the face of the cladding has been punched through, as you can see if you follow the window washing track.

If a missile had hit it from the side then you would not expect that side of the cladding to survive.

Look at the column to the left. And to the left of that one. Notice the progressively worse damage? That is an indication of the direction of travel of the projectile. As it penetrated deeper into the tower, it caused more and more damage to the columns. On the fifth column from the left it had penetrated deeply enough to pass behind the cladding. After that it continued on like a large bullet, deflecting off the steel, and bending and twisting columns sharply to the right.

yankee451 19th January 2020 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waypastvne (Post 12959692)
View from another angle. The aluminum column cover was cut completely into. Then it dropped down and became wedged behind what could only be a large fragment of Boeing 767 wing skin.



https://i.imgur.com/KlNxqPR.jpg


You got another hair out of place Steve.

Wing skin fragment? How do you know that's not the fragment of a piece of missile fuselage? Or aluminum cladding? What do the other images show?

waypastvne 19th January 2020 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959697)
What do the other images show?

A severed column cover wedged behind a fragment of 767 wing skin.

Craig4 19th January 2020 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959697)
Wing skin fragment? How do you know that's not the fragment of a piece of missile fuselage? Or aluminum cladding? What do the other images show?

Funny, you're still here. Odd.

yankee451 19th January 2020 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waypastvne (Post 12959704)
A severed column cover wedged behind a fragment of 767 wing skin.

So that wing tip, which isn't noticeable in any of the images i have ever seen, managed to survive, just like that aluminum cladding did, eh? The steel columns should have been made of aluminum, huh?

yankee451 19th January 2020 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 12959709)
Funny, you're still here. Odd.

Pot, meet Kettle.

waypastvne 19th January 2020 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959710)
The steel columns should have been made of aluminum, huh?

That would have been expensive to make the towers out of 7xxx series aluminum but it is more than strong enough to do it.

pgimeno 19th January 2020 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959679)
Really. the cladding was attached to the face of the column and both sides. How do you figure it could be moved so, considering it was wrapped around the steel column, which is gouged out?

By breaking, for example. Isn't that side missing? Or by being dislodged. Something like that must have happened to the neighbouring cladding pieces.

curious cat 19th January 2020 07:50 PM

And we can discuss this into oblivion... Neither side can provide a firm evidence (based on the photographs) what exactly happened in every detail. Either side can show a few point showing damage being consistent with their theory. Gets worse. Anybody can walk in and show the damage is being consistent with a giant steel robot poking his fingers through the building. I think Godzilla would be perfectly capable of leaving the same mess behind.
The beauty of the situation is, we KNOW there wasn't a giant robot or Godzilla and there were no missiles because there is no a single piece of supporting evidence for either of these and all are just products of a wild imagination.
So, we are really stuck with what we can be absolutely sure about: 4 passenger jets were hijacked and crashed into 4 locations. The details how particular pieces of damage were caused are definitely interesting to discuss, but all the stuff is of a matter interest only. Happy to monitor :-).

yankee451 19th January 2020 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12959723)
And we can discuss this into oblivion... Neither side can provide a firm evidence (based on the photographs) what exactly happened in every detail.

Every detail isn't necessary. The lateral damage, and especially the fifth column from the left of the South Tower, is enough to discredit the videos of the jet impacts.

yankee451 19th January 2020 08:01 PM

I'm guessing that if one hadn't seen the jet impacts on television, one wouldn't even consider a plane wing was responsible for this damage.

yankee451 19th January 2020 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12959720)
By breaking, for example. Isn't that side missing? Or by being dislodged. Something like that must have happened to the neighbouring cladding pieces.

How is any of this consistent with the head on impact of a jet wing, that was not traveling in the direction of the sharply bent steel columns? Even IF the jet wing could do such a thing (in which case, there would be no need for missiles), the damage indicates something else happened.

Elagabalus 19th January 2020 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959729)
Every detail isn't necessary. The lateral damage, and especially the fifth column from the left of the South Tower, is enough to discredit the videos of the jet impacts.

No it isn't.

Regnad Kcin 19th January 2020 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959729)
Every detail isn't necessary. The lateral damage, and especially the fifth column from the left of the South Tower, is enough to discredit the videos of the jet impacts.

If you say so.

yankee451 19th January 2020 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12959753)
No it isn't.

Sure it is. The videos all show the wing sliding like butter all the way to the wing tip.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ni_CNN_GIF.gif

But as the damage shows, that's not what happened.
https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

beachnut 19th January 2020 09:06 PM

Gish Gallop
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959679)
Really. the cladding was attached to the face of the column and both sides. How do you figure it could be moved so, considering it was wrapped around the steel column, which is gouged out?

excellent gish gallop - "How do you figure" - you always have the next stupid question, or delusional claim

why can't you figure out 9/11? Flight 11 and 175 hit the WTC at speed great than twice what the WTC shell could stop. When you double the speed, you quadruple the Kinetic Energy - basic physics proves your claims are fantasy at best, and lies as you persist at ignoring reality.


This is sad, the engine ejected is enough to know it was an aircraft. Radar tracked 11 and 175 to the towers - don't need TV, never did to know you are now a liar on this issue.

TV? Radar, DNA, and people who saw and recorded the planes hitting the WTC prove you to be a liar on this issue.

yankee451 19th January 2020 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12959779)
excellent gish gallop - "How do you figure" - you always have the next stupid question, or delusional claim

why can't you figure out 9/11? Flight 11 and 175 hit the WTC at speed great than twice what the WTC shell could stop. When you double the speed, you quadruple the Kinetic Energy - basic physics proves your claims are fantasy at best, and lies as you persist at ignoring reality.


This is sad, the engine ejected is enough to know it was an aircraft. Radar tracked 11 and 175 to the towers - don't need TV, never did to know you are now a liar on this issue.

TV? Radar, DNA, and people who saw and recorded the planes hitting the WTC prove you to be a liar on this issue.


It isn't a lie to notice the damage isn't consistent with what what shown on television. I could be wrong about it, but it did exist. Not a lie. In fact, your insistence that I am lying, could be considered a lie.

yankee451 19th January 2020 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12959755)
If you say so.

I do. And since you can't demonstrate otherwise, then as it is written, let it be so.

Elagabalus 19th January 2020 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959765)
Sure it is. The videos all show the wing sliding like butter all the way to the wing tip.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ni_CNN_GIF.gif

But as the damage shows, that's not what happened.
https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

Why don't you let us see more of your gif? Even in it's lo-res state you can clearly see the permanent damage to the cladding et al. the aircraft has produced. It also dovetails nicely with your still photos.

Regnad Kcin 19th January 2020 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959765)
Sure it is. The videos all show the wing sliding like butter all the way to the wing tip.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ni_CNN_GIF.gif

But as the damage shows, that's not what happened.
https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

I am embarrassed for you.

Regnad Kcin 19th January 2020 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959791)
I do.

Yep. And I say there’s a Starbucks on the far side of the moon. A claim no less valid than yours.

Quote:

And since you can't demonstrate otherwise, then as it is written, let it be so.
Shifting the burden of proof.

yankee451 19th January 2020 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12959800)
Yep. And I say there’s a Starbucks on the far side of the moon. A claim no less valid than yours.

Shifting the burden of proof.

Red herring fallacy.

Axxman300 19th January 2020 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959627)
The jet wing would cut through the cladding before it could cut the steel.

.

The siding is clearly displaced.


Quote:

The JASSM didn't make that hole.
No, a 767 did.

Axxman300 19th January 2020 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959729)
Every detail isn't necessary. The lateral damage, and especially the fifth column from the left of the South Tower, is enough to discredit the videos of the jet impacts.

No.

Problem #544 of your farce is that had a cruise missile clipped the side of the building as you assert it would have cartwheeled and detonated on the exterior or spun into another building.

Which you might know if you listened to anyone with military background.

Robin 20th January 2020 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959683)

Follow the window washing track from the bottom up. It leads to a big hole punched through.

Look to the left of that hole.

It is connected from the bottom to the top.

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...1/image-11.png

Robin 20th January 2020 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959729)
Every detail isn't necessary. The lateral damage, and especially the fifth column from the left of the South Tower, is enough to discredit the videos of the jet impacts.

You have a hanging piece of cladding which would have been sliced of by the wing on the right of the missile if it was not knocked off by the body.

Moreover if the missile had hit the cladding from the left side then the left side of the cladding would have been demolished, whereas we can see it is still connected on the left.

This is just not consistent with a missile strike.

On the other hand that big hole punched through the face of the cladding is consistent with it being hit from the front.

pgimeno 20th January 2020 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959737)
How is any of this consistent with the head on impact of a jet wing, that was not traveling in the direction of the sharply bent steel columns? Even IF the jet wing could do such a thing (in which case, there would be no need for missiles), the damage indicates something else happened.

I already explained. The wing did not detach immediately, it was pulled by the fuselage as it penetrated.

Jack by the hedge 20th January 2020 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959514)
They are centered. 44606 is zoomed-in.

However, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're right. They are centered, but the dolly was moved between takes. What does that prove, exactly?

They are clearly not in the same location. There is no "doubt" from which to benefit unless you propose that the traffic lights have marched out into the middle of the street, in which case I urge you to re-watch the video instead of staring at those still frames.

You now propose that instead of a single portable camera setup plus a tripod, they laid a camera track in a city intersection and mounted a camera dolly on it, then fixed the camera to it using a customised pan and tilt mount which allowed the camera to be wobbled to rotate the picture a little either way to give the appearance of a handheld shot.

And you imply that somehow this allowed them to fake the video using some kind of TV magical fairy dust. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to fill in some of those missing steps, please. How did it work? What equipment did they use?

The Common Potato 20th January 2020 06:41 AM

TeeVee
 
I'm feeling generous as tomorrow is pay day. (Track IR for my flight sim!) My tenterhooks are in a cromulent state.

So, I am prepared to give Yankee451 a bit of a break and accept that most of what I personally know has come from either television programmes and those pesky books. My education was up to the grade of "Bugger, I failed my A' Levels." However, even in my sadly limited manner, I am able to look at what I see on the box or read elsewhere and compare it to what else I know. I neither automatically faithfully trust nor immediately discard new information.

I might be, but I learn, I learn.

This does raise this question: Yankee451, have to ever seen anything on teevee that you do not disbelieve, and why?

Jack by the hedge 20th January 2020 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12960018)
This does raise this question: Yankee451, have to ever seen anything on teevee that you do not disbelieve, and why?

Another interesting question is about how good video fakery was in 2001. Nowadays we see really good CGI (and a lot of mediocre CGI too) but it wasn't nearly so polished 20 years ago.

I really don't think Yankee451 comprehends the technical difficulty of achieving the effects he assumes must have been done. Video fakery was (is) good enough if the viewer was willing to suspend their disbelief, but you can still "see the joins" if you're looking for them. In this case it wouldn't be good enough to produce an impressive effect, it would be imperative to produce a flawlessly perfect effect which nobody, however technically proficient, could spot, even when they were looking for it.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, etc, but that's not good enough here: you'd get one shot, with multiple cameras and they all had to be out-of-this-world flawless.

So I think this thread deserves to be more about it's title: HOW they faked the videos, because I think the short answer is they couldn't.

GlennB 20th January 2020 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959513)
They are centered. He was TRYING to act like a rookie camera man, recall he was only practicing shooting, therefore his exaggerated wobbles should be viewed with that in mind.

They're not even centred in your original series of frames. They appear nearly centred because they're much farther away than the people and other stuff closer to the camera. It's called parallax - where the apparent position of a distant object changes very little when the viewer moves.

yankee451 20th January 2020 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12960100)
They're not even centred in your original series of frames. They appear nearly centred because they're much farther away than the people and other stuff closer to the camera. It's called parallax - where the apparent position of a distant object changes very little when the viewer moves.

Sure they are. Anyone can check for themselves.

So we have the damage evidence that proves a plane wasn't responsible, and we have the photographers staging the scene.

Jack by the hedge 20th January 2020 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960121)
Sure they are. Anyone can check for themselves.

So we have the damage evidence that proves a plane wasn't responsible, and we have the photographers staging the scene.

No, we don't have the photographers staging the scene. We have a shot facing down the street where the towers are in the middle of the background and later a shot of the towers as the photographer follows the first jet to its impact.

Aside from that we just have you raising a metaphorical eyebrow and going "Hmmmm?" as archly as possible, as though that demonstrated something.

Time to flesh that out a bit or admit you have nothing but a Dunning-Kruger-style assumption that this implies tv trickery.

GlennB 20th January 2020 08:59 AM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960121)
Sure they are. Anyone can check for themselves.

Not centred, and the change in the traffic light position tells us the camera has moved to the left and has angled upwards. This is a perfect example of parallax in action and yet you're weaving it into something significant and ominous.

Jack by the hedge 20th January 2020 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12960144)
Not centred, and the change in the traffic light position tells us the camera has moved to the left and has angled upwards. This is a perfect example of parallax in action and yet you're weaving it into something significant and ominous.

You'll also notice that the verticals don't quite match because it's a handheld shot.

GlennB 20th January 2020 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12960145)
You'll also notice that the verticals don't quite match because it's a handheld shot.

True.

yankee451 20th January 2020 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12959947)
I already explained. The wing did not detach immediately, it was pulled by the fuselage as it penetrated.

Really.

Here are images of the damage done by birds:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...30-620x413.jpg

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

So you're saying the mostly hollow fuselage "pulled" the wings inward.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...01/1281454.jpg


This is of course, contrary to the official story, which states the wings were disintegrated by the steel, as they cut through the steel. Read the reports. Watch the Purdue video. There is no mention of any inward pulling, anywhere.

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

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ts-on-WTC1.png

Look at the columns to the right of the one with the still-standing cladding. They were not struck on the right side and then dragged inwards, they were struck on the left side and sharply bend to the right.

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

None of the evidence supports an "inward pulling" that you describe.

yankee451 20th January 2020 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12960144)
Not centred, and the change in the traffic light position tells us the camera has moved to the left and has angled upwards. This is a perfect example of parallax in action and yet you're weaving it into something significant and ominous.

I'll repeat what I said earlier:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Clearly these two frames you label 43609 and 44606 were not shot from the same position.

Look at the traffic lights in the foreground. In the first frame they are well over to the left while in the latter they are right in front of the towers, indicating that the camera position had relocated some distance to the left.

No fixed tripod location. Perhaps you could explain to use what you think the significance of a tripod was to faking this video and then factor in the significance of his not using one.
They are centered. 44606 is zoomed-in.

However, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're right. They are centered, but the dolly was moved between takes. What does that prove, exactly?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1234

yankee451 20th January 2020 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12960018)

This does raise this question: Yankee451, have to ever seen anything on teevee that you do not disbelieve, and why?

Among other things, for years I bought the same things you do. Planes burrowing into the ground, boring through concrete and brick buildings, and slicing steel skyscrapers. But I got over it.

yankee451 20th January 2020 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12960013)
They are clearly not in the same location. There is no "doubt" from which to benefit unless you propose that the traffic lights have marched out into the middle of the street, in which case I urge you to re-watch the video instead of staring at those still frames.

You now propose that instead of a single portable camera setup plus a tripod, they laid a camera track in a city intersection and mounted a camera dolly on it, then fixed the camera to it using a customised pan and tilt mount which allowed the camera to be wobbled to rotate the picture a little either way to give the appearance of a handheld shot.

And you imply that somehow this allowed them to fake the video using some kind of TV magical fairy dust. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to fill in some of those missing steps, please. How did it work? What equipment did they use?

They are centered. One is zoomed in, the other is not. Anyone can check the video for themselves. Try exporting all the frames and comparing them, as I have. Even if the camera position was moved between takes, the constant center of the camera is evidence it was dolly or tripod mounted.

yankee451 20th January 2020 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12959917)
You have a hanging piece of cladding which would have been sliced of by the wing on the right of the missile if it was not knocked off by the body.

Moreover if the missile had hit the cladding from the left side then the left side of the cladding would have been demolished, whereas we can see it is still connected on the left.

This is just not consistent with a missile strike.

On the other hand that big hole punched through the face of the cladding is consistent with it being hit from the front.

The air frames of the missiles would shatter on impact, leaving the warhead to do it's thing.

yankee451 20th January 2020 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12959917)
You have a hanging piece of cladding which would have been sliced of by the wing on the right of the missile if it was not knocked off by the body.

Moreover if the missile had hit the cladding from the left side then the left side of the cladding would have been demolished, whereas we can see it is still connected on the left.

As explained earlier, at an oblique impact of somewhere around 10 degrees from parallel, the wings and fuselage of the missiles would cause only light damage to the columns, but the warheads caused worse damage. The progressively deeper into the tower the damage goes, is a clue as to the angle of attack of the missile.

The wing hits the cladding and snaps off, the fuselage hits the cladding and knocks it off the column, shattering the fuselage at the same time, but the warhead gouged out the first column it hit (4th from the left) and continued to penetrate deeper into the tower, when it gouged out the second column it hit (5th from the left), but passed behind the cladding that covered it. After that, the warhead continued on but it was slowing down, as can be seen in the way the back of the columns are sharply twisted to the right, but not gouged out like the first two. This warhead likely did not detonate.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1536x959.png

pgimeno 20th January 2020 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960161)

Yeah, the cone is weak. The sturdy part begins a bit after that.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...age-752813.jpg


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960161)
So you're saying the mostly hollow fuselage "pulled" the wings inward.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...01/1281454.jpg

Yes, it's still the heaviest part of the plane, no matter how "mostly hollow" you want to paint it, therefore it has that ability.


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960161)
This is of course, contrary to the official story, which states the wings were disintegrated by the steel, as they cut through the steel. Read the reports. Watch the Purdue video. There is no mention of any inward pulling, anywhere.

No it's not contrary. The inward pulling only had to occur for an instant before the wing began to disintegrate.

beachnut 20th January 2020 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959789)
It isn't a lie to notice the damage isn't consistent with what what shown on television. I could be wrong about it, but it did exist. Not a lie. In fact, your insistence that I am lying, could be considered a lie.

Yes, the missiles claim is a lie, there were no missiles used on 9/11. You spread lies based on you being wrong, and you are wrong. Flight 11 and 175 did it.

yankee451 20th January 2020 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12960197)
Yeah, the cone is weak. The sturdy part begins a bit after that.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...age-752813.jpg



Yes, it's still the heaviest part of the plane, no matter how "mostly hollow" you want to paint it, therefore it has that ability.



No it's not contrary. The inward pulling only had to occur for an instant before the wing began to disintegrate.


According to the official story the wings were completely fragmented by the columns.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...wing-burst.png
This means that by the time the engines penetrated the walls, the wing tip would no longer be attached to the wing.

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

The wing tip is the weakest part, yet there are huge gouges on the 4th and 5th columns from the left, but moving to the right the damage isn't as bad.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...hanced-clo.jpg


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.