Insane no planer Gerard Holmgren used to support insane missile fantasy
 

It gets worse, the terrorists were real pilots, and it is easy to fly heavy jets. Flying is easy, landing and takeoff harder, landing and taking off in bad weather harder, and flying the weather (can't see out) hardest when doing a complex approach procedure.

You posted the dumbest essay on why planes that were used, were not used. Only super gullible people would believe this claptrap you posttest from Gerard Holmgren. His paper is a string of idiotic nonsense.

Gerard Holmgren seems to be insane. His claims and fantasy are insane.

For people like Gerard Holmgren who can't do physics to figure out the 767 did do the damage at the WTC, all that remains is delusional evidence free rant and baseless speculation based on ignorance of the subjects needed to comprehend the Complex Plot, ...
Complex Plot
1. Take planes
2. Crash planes

I thought your ideas were crazy, Gerard Holmgren is worse, he has no clue the WTC collapsed as they did, and has no clue how easy it is to fly a jet.

Your missiles don't have enough kinetic energy for the thin wings to do what you claim the winges did.

Your video analysis is bad.

You failed at the second post, and now quibble with insane paper by Gerard Holmgren, a failed 9/11 truth nut.


Gerard requested in 2007 the removal of all his 9/11 articles from the web. Oops, he got sane before he died. Now idiots have republished his fantasy work.

I am surprised the perps didn't use the services of the genius who wrote this lunatic pamphlet! He is the one with a perfect plan! :D

One lapse of logic that hit me particularly hard:
They wouldn't use remote controlled planes because rescue workers etc could find and recognise the revealing parts. Well... obviously the same people are supposed to be stupid enough not to identify parts of a missile! There is more, too many to list.

They used planes.. nothing suspicious about the impact damage.
Case closed

And the damage is consistent with a collision by an airliner.

OK, lets see:

Big evasion right here.

Apparently it is easier to fool the whole world than it is to fool a handful of Islamic fanatics. Who knew?

Aside from all the other glaring inaccuracies and omissions which are always at the forefront of any no-planer hallucinatory scribblings, This one is special because it dosen't simply glance over the population of one of the world's largest cities - it ignores it entirely. During the height of the morning commute, no less.

Millions of eyes cast skyward, watching WTC 1 burn. Millions. Sure, not all were in position to see 175 crash and the vast majority did not get a reporter's mic shoved in their faces.

But to make no mention of them at all?

Thanks for the laugh.

You need to reverse this. What is actually possible is what happened (hijacked planes crashed into the WTC, Pentagon, and Shanksville), and what YOU think happened (fake video, cruise missiles, fake witnesses, smoke machines, no dead bodies) is something you have made no competent effort to prove.

Planes did do it. Cruise missiles would have looked entirely different and sounded entirely different.

The damage is exclusive to 767's. Two identical buildings, two mostly identical impact scars on the facade, and two identical results (collapse). 400,000 pounds of aircraft and fuel moving at 450mph was more than enough to do the damage.

You've shown nothing to support this statement.

In the real world - no.

Oh good, you link to a nutjob whose other intellectual works include: Darwin's theory - a giant hoax / Gerard Holmgren and A case against reproductive technology / Gerard Holmgren and Colin Goodwin

He says this:

A 767 is more maneuverable than a cruise missile (for the most part), and all that was required was to fly into two tall buildings - which was done. Those airframes are pushed to their limits during testing and the 767, while not an F-15, was more than suited (and perfect) for the job.

He follows that with this:

He needs to explain this. How are the mechanics of a cruise missile's guidance system different than the autopilot on the Boeing? And remeber, we're talking remote control - not automation - so it would be the same as if the pilot was in the cockpit meaning any in-flight corrections could be made manually.

Holmgren didn't do his homework.

The rest of his assessment is twaddle.

Apparently the reason they didn't use planes is that it is easy enough to get hundreds of ordinary Americans to commit an act of fanaticism and never breathe a word about it for the rest of their lives, but it would be monstrously difficult to convince a handful of fanatics to commit an act of fanaticism.

What I love about No-Planers is their total disconnect with reality.

They establish a separate reality wherein physics doesn't work and (in this case) the US Government or elements therein performed flawlessly by anticipating every contingency...

...except for framing Iraqi's, Pakistanis, or Iranians as the hijackers, or at least some of the hijackers, but for some reason let the Egyptian and Saudi hijackers be identified.

Oh, and then forgetting to plant WMD's to find in Iraq so we could have CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, and Fox News reporters stand in front of the facility on live TV and tell the world how the US saved them from Saddam.

But other than that it was a masterpiece...:thumbsup:

I really miss when Cracker Jack boxes contained an actual little toy. Any one else feel the same?

I liked the plastic cowboy.

O...M...G...!!!! That was an MFM hard Drive...

Let me guess, it was about the same size as an Apple ][+ double height 5¼" FDD?

There's more ... if they didn't use planes then the rescue workers would fail to find ordinary plane parts in the wreckage. Yet they did.

If they can be threatened/corrupted into planting fake parts why can't they be threatened/corrupted into not revealing parts related to remote control?

The latter sounds an awful lot easier. What a crock.

The whole thing is a massive logic fail. Let's don't forget that the reason yankee says he knows it was missiles is because the damage couldn't have been done by a plane. So he's effectively proposing a conspiracy that imposed a fake that couldn't have worked as one; this is the kind of conspiracy that would only be logical to someone who needs to see one, and any dumb-ass conspiracy is better than none at all.

From that article:

Okay....

Importantly, this document only lists one thing that could go wrong if they don't use planes. There are, in fact, MANY things that could go wrong:

2) The people who did the CG artistry would show the world how they did it. If they couldn't take home the actual work files, they could re-create them if they are really that talented. (And, many in the industry are freakin' show-offs, you know!)

3) The staff of the TV production companies could alert everyone else that they were instructed to rehearse, then fake the disaster. There are thousands upon thousands of them, you know.

4) The timing of releasing the faked footage would be extremely tight, for something that needs to be rushed out in perfect visual order. Workflows and pipelines would need to be extremely refined and optimized across many departments for something like that to happen. A LOT could go wrong in that chain, to throw the whole thing off.

5) They would need to insert fake plane parts into the wreckage without being noticed, after the buildings came down, for clean up crew to find; adding another complication.

6) What if the volunteer staff of the clean up crew starts finding missile fragments? You have to clean up the mess, to remove all of those, before you have people cleaning up the mess!

7) You have to fake the identities of ALL of the passengers who were killed, and hire actors to play their distraught friends, family members, and co-workers. Without arousing any suspicion.

Etc. I think others on this thread could come up with even more.

This makes no sense to me.

Why would the perps care if any passengers survived, to tell the world what they saw?! They saw their plane being hijacked... which is exactly the story the perps wanted to convey!


The REAL problem with using planes is that the passengers might protest, and take the hijackers down before the plane reaches their target... which did happen to one of them, in fact.

But, that was only after the first three crashed into their targets. Before that, it was plausible for the passengers to think that the hijackers weren't on a suicide mission.

You're trying to tell me that planes colliding into buildings couldn't possibly cause that amount of damage to buildings?!

Nope. The two circled pieces of cladding below expose that lie.

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

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

Citation please.

For perspective, at this timestamp can be seen how quickly a JASSM turns.

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

Actually, your paraphrasing skills are lacking.

I arrived at cruise missiles as the most likely suspect based on the physical evidence that indicates something very small and not very massive struck at the far left of both towers, but as it traveled to the right, it became much bigger and much more massive.

The logic fail happens when you fine people ignore the physical evidence, in favor of what you saw on television.

So it's like the controlled demolition theory, which seems to imagine some bundles of dynamite sticks hidden in closets around the skyscrapers
like in a Warner Brothers cartoon.

:jaw-dropp

JASSM turning

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

failed to prove any video was fake - end of thread at the second post
 

Prove it is not. You failed to prove the videos are fake and now think the thin wing of a cruise missile can gouge the WTC shell, like the 767 did.

The missile has a tiny kinetic energy of 17 pounds of TNT, the 767 had 2,093 pounds of TNT. The wings of the 767 are more massive than the whole cruise missile. There was no explosion from explosives at impact. I suspect you were not in combat to experience explosions from explosives.

Your fantasy fails due to physics, you don't do physics.

I know. The idea that a jet wing could change direction, and size and density is absurd. Obviously something that was smaller and less dense in some places than it was in others, struck from the side.

I didn't say they are. He did. I simply asked for a citation in support of his claim, and provided an example of a JASSM turning sharply to the right.

And? How does that change the logic fail? You're still proposing a conspiracy that used a fake that, according to your "physical evidence," could never have worked as a fake. You're trying too hard to be the Fearless Internet Detective and proposing a conspiracy that could never have passed even the most elementary detection. Surely people who had the god-like powers you attribute to them of faking all the videos, even live, to show something that wasn't there could have faked the photos to show the correct damage to perpetuate the pretense? Then they wouldn't have had to worry about Scooby and you kids ripping the mask off.

So you think it grows in mass? Pretend you know something about physics, tell me how this occurs?

Oh but it does all of that as it transfers its KE to the building. The wing disintegrates and releases the mass of the fuel, just like Axxman300 showed us in his screen shots. Learn physics before posting nonsense like this.

My favorite Beatle would have to be Ringo. Who's yours, gang?

George, no question.

yankee451 don't need no stinkin' physics! He just needs to post the same 2 photos endlessly.

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).