D'uh, keep up (with yankee logic)!

The fact that it "can't have been a plane" means that trucks were touring around the Penthouse lawn scattering plane debris. The rest was down to explosives and faked DNA evidence.

Simples.

joke? teasing yankee451? or more woo
 

I see physics and you have never met. Darn, why did the engine hit and enter the building, the fragile engine? lol, and the landing gear, the fragile landing gear? You are joking right?

Wait, how is a low speed video going to catch crushing of an 800 foot per second plane with the Kinetic energy of 2,000 pound bomb going to catch the crushing of 175 when parts like the wings were crushed and dented the WTC shell in less than 1/60 of a second? Explain who you catch an event which happens during a frame of video, and the video is not panning with the accident event? Have you heard of the Nyquist theory? No? Why not? Right science is not used by 9/11 truth.


The wings did not fold back they left big dents in the Pentagon facade, as seen in photos. Check it out. Eyewitnesses are not needed to know Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Some 9/11 truth nuts ignore the evidence and quibble about eyewitnesses, which is a big error, aka fail.

Did you forget to get your vaccination for woo?

FTFY as he shows no logic and he keeps repeating the same things over and over hoping that repetitive sentences will win over someone, or make them correct.

In the instant of the impact, however, this inward pulling could happen, before the fragmentation began.


Maybe there was something heavy there. I'm not that familiar with the construction of the 767 wings.

There was no dolly. There was no tripod. There is nothing but your imagination seeing sinister forces at work in one camera shot from before the crash which happens to have the towers in the middle of the background.

If, as I guess you mean to imply, there had been some kind of mechanical stop used to allow the camera to be swung back to point exactly at the towers again, why don't we see a jolt as the camera reaches the stop? Why isn't it pointing in *precisely* the same direction as before? Why don't the verticals align? Why do they wobble? Why would a competent camera operator need such a setup to find the towers again anyway?

You have a hatful of nothin' here.

Not to mention thousands of eye witnesses

Hooray! Steve has a supporter, the show will continue! :D

So why bother with a tripod?

Do you know what a dolly is and how or why it is used?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I have to suspect that he has no clue or is just trying to deceive (though he seems to be deceiving only himself). Anybody watching the Naudet video must conclude that the camera is hand held. It's all over the place.

Like the other sites, the damage left is not consistent with it.

Plane nosediving into ground is a relatively rare event, but still, without doing much research... Note the Lockerbie jet disintegrated in the air and the hole has been made only by some major part. Tell me which one...
On the left: Ethiopian 302
On the right: Lockerbie

Equal and opposite reactions happen instantly. If the wings were that strong that they could pull the steel columns inward, why wouldn't they just wedge them apart like a big bodkin arrow?
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...T-approach.gif

Ok. You're referring to Shanksville now?

Do you think the bodies of the passengers were strapped in to seats and burned at the Pentagon or was it done somewhere else earlier?

Showing the damage to a fiberglass radar dome on front of the Plane pretty much Guarantees you are.

So he could capture footage of the undamaged tower, and use it as a mask layer to hide what really cut the hole. And he had to have the center position saved on the dolly in order to be able to spin around and still be centered.

No the steel is softer more meltable than the Aluminum steel alloy the steel also does not have as hard of a coating as did the Aluminum, also the steel would not have produced much Oxidation reaction.

According to some people fuselage is a battering ram.

I posted a few days ago about the 'Time Team' excavations of crashed WW2 aircraft in the K that had buried themselves deep in the ground.
Parts of one of them, a Douglas A-26 Invader that went in nose first were over 20ft below the surface..
Another a B-17 that met a similar fate left hardly any trace on the surface apart from small fragments and a crater when the crash scene was reached. Its remains were also deep in the ground.
It's not rare or unusual for an aircraft going in fast and steep.

I am referring to your reference (highlighted bold) to the "impossible" plane burrowing into ground.

You get all this from the photographs, eh? So does that oxidation explain the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the steel bent sharply to the right, in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling?

According to the official story, the deeper they dug at Shanksville, the bigger the pieces they recovered. Can you provide links to the crashes you're referring to please?

Okay, so compare the sites.

Also, the Shanksville crater can be reproduced on a smaller scale with the oblique impacts of small projectiles at trajectories of less than ten degrees from horizontal, and explosives. It is reproducible, and predictable, according to NASA. In other words, Cruise missiles were used at Shanksville too!

I give up. Why wouldn't they?

I'm also curious about the bodkin arrow theory. How big do you estimate it would have to be?

According to Newton, they would neither wedge them apart or pull them in.

So, why can't you find them? Did you fail to research the very topics needed to understand why your claims are fantasy based on massive ignorance in many areas (like physics).

Like an engine? Landing gear? Always with the Gish Gallop.

What are you talking about? Flight 93 was shredded up into thousands if not millions of pieces. No doubt they found some landing gears parts (aka large?) the deeper they dug because these parts had the most mass and took longer to stop moving (Physics).

You don't seem to have a practical knowledge of physics, and each post proves it.

And not only there. I've done the calculations, and come to the conclusion that the 'stone' that chipped my windscreen at a trajectory of less than ten degrees from horizontal was actually a miniature cruise missile!

Bigger pieces go deeper. In the case of the crashes excavated by time team it was the engine blocks and wing spars.

All episodes of time Team are available through the Channel 4 UK website.

I haven't the time or inclination to search through 96 episodes for you.

Here's a link https://www.channel4.com/programmes/time-team

Nope. Everyone knows the mass of the wings, the fuel, the load, the airframe. Everyone knows the mass of the building. Except you. Because you don't want to know.

Would that be the TV in your imagination? Because I had no TV at the time so I couldn't possibly have seen it on the "TV".

Oh, right, part of the delusion you are foisting is that everyone is mesmerised by the TV except for you. That notion falls apart when you realise that I didn't have one at the time, doesn't it?

Wow, this conspiracy goes deeper than I thought! Isaac Newton is supposed to have died on March 20th 1727. But if he had an opinion on 9/11 we must conclude that he was either still alive in 2001, or had foreknowledge of the event - possibly even both!

No point arguing about "how long is a piece of string". No major effort required to find cases like this. A friend of mine hit a field about 1 km from the airfield by supersonic speed in his Mig 21. His widow has been presented by his left foot in a boot to bury...
But the wast percentage of catastrophic airliner disintegrations is caused by the horizontal speed after a relatively shallow ground impact and it is easy to imagine why. It is followed by a "pancake" type of crashes following a low level stall. Nosedives come distinctly third.

While riding his checkerboard-colored Martian unicorn. Don’t forget that part.

Funny, because I'd swear that equal and opposite thing proves I'm right.

Funny, I can't find anything in Beachnut's post conflicting with "that equal and opposite thing" :D

our not a physics expert weighs in on what he can't do
 

No wonder lead bullets can't break steel, or damage big people, the lead is too soft to do damage. /Not physics

I like the ping pong ball ripping up the wooden paddle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

Physics, what you can't figure out given over 18 years.

How do missiles with much less kinetic energy than the planes used on 9/11 make a 767 shape hole and scare in the WTC? There was no high explosives used because there was no Blast. I forgot does yankee451 missiles do it kinetically or with explosives which have no blast effects. Magic missiles at the WTC, invisible magic missiles which look like 767s. wait

It is likely the same tripod as the TV I didn't have and never existed. Fantasy can be whatever one wants.

No the main frame is, it's heavy duty aluminum steel, the wing tips are not.
You showed the wedge effect but you don't show the other physical reactions that would be a result of the wedge effect, the wings being forced inward at the tips.

Yes it shows actually how the inpact occured it was a glancing blow shortly before the forward connection on the main connection of the wing spar failed and the wings swung back into the Fuselage.

It seems a waste of time to do an FEA of the jet hitting the towers. Why? Because the damage appears to engineers to be exactly what such an impact would look like.

There was mutual destruction when a moving plane part hit a static part of the building. The liquids inside the plane were massively destructive, the fuel exploding was as well. Some of the heavy dense parts passed through the building passing without being stopped, but being slowed down and landing only a few blocks away.

Steve believes that something looks odd to him. He appears to not have the physics and engineering background to comprehend the crashes. His naivete has led to incredulity to a belief that we were lied to and that it was all an FX event by "the powers that be... and that every witness was an actor, none of which has leaked in 20 years. His conception is so outside of reality... it cannot be taken seriously...and lacks any affirmative evidence.

Anyone who believes the "official story" has had the wool pulled over their eyes... and lack critical thinking skills.

Oh the irony!