Your "oops" is a Flap Track. Then again this whole thread is your oops.

Well yes, that's how wings work: thin at the tips and getting wider toward the body as needed for avionics. Avionics is the gadgetry inside the wings that help the plane fly. We stopped using magical elves after WWI.

Please tell us how this was faked 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

WRT, the engine allegedly hit here-well, they ARE kinda' big.

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

So this big engine punched not one, but two holes?

Layer masks.

Remember, his footage was not shown "live." He is a pro. Editing his shot would only take a few minutes.

He rehearsed his shot and fabricated a 2D CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background, so as to have it ready to go from the same perspective as he would capture the shock and awe explosion.

He captured footage of the undamaged towers from the same perspective.

Using layer masks he used footage of the undamaged tower as a curtain that hid the real means used to cut the hole.

By the time the fireball erupted, the hole was already cut, but hidden behind the mask layer.

The CGI plane enters the frame a split second before the fireball erupts through the real hole (still hidden behind the mask layer).

The Plane layer is just another layer on top of the mask layer.

After the plane layer melts like butter into the mask layer of the undamaged tower (accompanied by drawn-on smoke), the mask layer is removed to reveal the fireball erupting through the hole.

Easy peasy.

I wouldn't put much stock in Steve's photo interpretation skills, which more often than not have proved to be hilariously misguided, to be polite.. My personal favorite is the one which Steve mistakes a ******* tree for blast damage:



Good times, right Steve?

:dl:

I already did. The wingtip image shown is much more massive than the flimsy aluminum sheeting at the far left, but this massive wingtip couldn't even sever the aluminum sheeting at the far left. It was only big enough and massive enough to "pinch" the aluminum sheeting.

For context, the movie Avatar, widely considered to be a breakthrough in realistic computer animation, came out eight years after 9/11.

I remember. Like you, I am often wrong. Unlike you I admit it when I'm wrong. I am also often not wrong. I notice that makes you uncomfortable, which is why I assume you must reach for the solace of my past errors.

A totally different animal compared to the old school layering they used in 2001.

The footage was on the news within a four hours of the crash. The CGI back then took weeks for workable images. And any film tech can take that footage and see it is altered...which this footage is not.

Not only do the wings on an airliner like the 767-200 become wider longitudinally as you get closer to the fuselage, they also get "thicker" as the chord increases close to the fuselage. The inner parts of the wings are also more heavily constructed as they they are built to take the major strains.

1. The strain of the engine mounts. When jet engines are running at full power for takeoff, the amount of force exerted by the thrust of the engine against the wing is enormous, and

2, The strain of the the main undercarriage. This needs to be built strong enough to withstand impact of the whole 120,000 kg weight of the aircraft as the wheels touch the ground with a horizontal speed of about 140 kts, and vertical speed of 120 fpm

There are also three flap tracks in each wing (the 4th flap track is right against the fuselage)

Please. The video layering would be child's play for a pro.

3. And when they collide with steel buildings, they take a hard right turn.

What are "they"?

They would have to have done all this CGI layering live... in real time... while the world watched.

I was thousands of miles away in NZ watching the breaking news on CNN when I saw the second plane hit the South Tower. People in the streets of NY saw it at the same time I did - how do you explain this?

Please show me the error of my ways.

The OP is not looking for any explanations. He KNOWS what happened and nobody can take it from him. Maybe one day some progress in the mental medicine will help him... We are all wasting our time on this thread.

Wrong. No it's not. You tripped over the doormat on the way out the door right there.

Just because a 767 wing looks consistently rugged from root to tip does not mean it is. Wing strength varies significantly along its length, and also depends on the fixtures it has connected and that it contains.

The inner wing is very strong and rigid - it will carry the load of the aircraft as it lands. But the outer wing is quite flexible and contains only fuel tanks and some flap running gear.

Aircraft wingtips for the 767 of 2001 were quite light construction, and were easily replaceable. They contained only wiring and navigation lights and aerials, and bolted onto the end of the main wing frame. They contained no load-bearing frame themselves. Their prime purpose was to cover off the end of the wing and make it somewhat aerodynamic.

But why am I telling you this? You aren't going to listen. :rolleyes:

... and over and over again...

It appears to me reading Steve's words that he simply doesn't understand the physics of the event... He appears to be ignorant of the mass distribution of the wing and it's contents - motors, landing gear, tanks pumps, & frame etc. He seems to not understand the way the structure would respond the the forces of the plane's parts impacting the building's parts.

A tank of fuel is quite dense and traveling at the speed of the plane contains enormous (quantifiable) kinetic energy. While the frame of the tower was strong it was primary an axial load bearing structure and not design for the massive lateral forces applied by the plane. It was also not a homogeneous mass/structure... but was composed of individual structural and no structural items and of course large simply air. Buildings are 95% air. However even rapidly moving "air" can be enormously powerful. So thinking of the plane as a flimsy aluminum frame is to fail to understand the forces involved in the impact. The columns were staggered panelized structures with lateral spandrel connecting them with floor plates at every floor level. We observed some massive parts of the planes penetrating through the building between the floor plates and punching through the perimeter on the opposite side of the building.

To understand what you are observing your perception must be informed by technical knowledge otherwise you understanding is like a child's. The more informed one is the more accurate is their understanding of what they observe. An analogy might be the difference in understanding observing clouds by a meteorologist who has training in fluid dynamics etc. and the average person whose understanding might be limited to knowing that clouds are basically water.

I don't see Steve demonstrating the depth of understanding of the technical issues to inform his "thinking" and theories he expounds. This seems to be a common attribute of many truthers whose thinking seems to be driven by a "political" agenda.

No the Aluminum steel composites will break where they are connected to the main Bulkhead forcing the wings to fold inward against the fuselages main Bulkhead to which they are attached. This would occur both at the Pentagon and at the towers.
The wings are only as strong as the connections to the Fuselages some disconnection and inward drag would be expected in the penitration event given the General physics.
What you are seeing is only the disunion of the planes structure as expected on Impact. This breaking of the main connection of wing to Fusalage connection is expected and logical. It causes wingtip inward dragging and is expected in the physics at the towers and and at the Pentagon.
Unless you can show that such an event would not likely occur in the event then you will have to accept the Causally Link between the failure if the wing to Fusalage joint, and the observations of damage.
The Burden of proof is on your Theory, and I would bet my life you can't falsify wing disunification with Fusalage as the causing factor in the damage you Question.

I am confused about the timing of the destruction of the plane and its contents. Presumably the impact of the nose would cause velocity decrease as well as crushing or the nose etc. It probably had enough kinetic energy to punch through the facade.

I am not sure I understand why the wings structures would fold back. Intuitive to my thinking is the plane's entire front profile would impact the building. If the impact slowed the fuselage why would the wings fold back? If anything they might maintain their velocity as the fuselage is crushed???

What is the structural design where the wings are? I would think (but I don't know) that wings are not simply bolted the the fuselage.

Please explain.

Why would they? They were well paid for their silence, and loyal to the cause. Sheesh.

crises actors? This is pure fantasy.

If I recall the story correctly, having been alerted by news of the first crash, tens of thousands of people for miles around had a view of the second crash. What they actually saw was a fusillade of cruise missiles, arriving from multiple directions, striking with inch-perfect precision to carve a plane-shaped hole in the tower. None of them remember this because they were hypnotized by the doctored mainstream media footage into rejecting the evidence of their own eyes and believing instead that the faked videos of a plane making a plane-shaped hole were real. All photos and videos they took showing no plane have been suppressed by ... No, I forget. Maybe that was hypnotism too. Or magic.

Yankee451 alone is immune to this hypnotism.

Actually, no. You didn't see any crash live. As explained in the OP, none of the "live" shots show the crash. You saw what you thought was a plane flying behind the towers, and an explosion coming from the opposite side. The crash was hidden from the "live" footage. Those videos that do show a plane sliding like butter into the building, were not shown live.

Keep ignoring the evidence, and I'll keep reminding you.

In the posts you won't read, I state clearly that if I'm wrong, then there is a better explanation for the damage evidence that leads me to my conclusions. Alas, no skeptics can offer a better explanation. They resort to ridicule and redirection.

I don't doubt it.

Thousands of people in NY watched it happen with their own eyes.

Repeating again since it didn't sink in the last time.

As stated in the link above, it takes specialized machinery and very high pressure to cut steel with water, but to use it as a reason to believe an aluminum wing can do so too, smacks of desperation. We're comparing apples to bananas here, but even so the reason a water jet can do such a thing is due to its focusing all its energy on a tiny area, like a bullet might do. With enough velocity a bullet will puncture steel because like the water jet, the energy of the projectile is focused on a very small point, with the mass and velocity of the bullet (or column of water) overcoming the mass of the steel at the point of impact.

So tell me, how is a water jet, which focuses its energy on a tiny impact point, like a 767 which would spread its energy over a wide impact area.

Why? Do you think you deserve the truth to be handed to you on a silver screen, simply because you're clever enough to operate a remote control? If you uncritically swallow what you're being served, you deserve to be lied to.

Yawn. Evolve.

Please don't assume I "swallow uncritically what we are being served". All anyone can do is use their knowledge, training, experience to evaluate what they see, hear, experience, read and so on.

The WTC events were for many, including me a first a mystery. Although I am an architect, have actually worked on those buildings (minor stuff) and been in them many times... I had no frame of reference to understand how they came down.

The first public explanations in the media made little sense to me and didn't match what I observed. I spent a fair amount of time and energy looking for answers to satisfy my curiosity. I even attended 911 truth "events" where numerous presentations were made for a while. I thought that AE911T should have made a huge effort to reach out to the engineers of the towers and the engineering community before advancing their CD theory... and trying to get others to doubt anything that didn't come from a "truther source". I even tried to work with AE911T. I learned exactly what they were about and how uninterested they were in actually understanding how they likely came down. I read all the doubting thomases on 911 blogger, Pilotsfor911T and so on. I listened, read, observed and after several years decided that the truth movement showed only ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

I found an online resource with some excellent technical discussions where I learned of a explanation which matched my own hunch about the twins... that they were a vertical avalanche... my description. The meme was called ROOSD and was based on observations and understand of the attributes of the unique structure of the twin towers. What wasn't address and perhaps the last hurdle to understanding is how the collapse was initiated... how was the "ROOSD" driving mass "created" or freed from the structural matrix. This is not something we can observe as it's inside the top of the towers. We can only theorize the steps that led from static and stable to dynamic and unstable. It seems like the considerations would be fire (impact of heat), mech damage and the structural design again. One can "model" a chain of events but one can't prove (or disprove) it is the actual description.

Crisis actors, planted devices, false flags and the like make no sense at all. Some of the "theories" are so over the top they are not worthy of more than a passing consideration... direct energy weapons, hollow towers, mini nukes and CD... including all versions of thermite.

In the end the most basic explanations make the most sense and ring true to me. And this is NOT the NIST explanation... despite their using fire/heat and mech damage as the driver. My sense is NIST ignored how key the structural design was to the collapse of the 3 buildings.

I don't care what you think about my thoughts on the topic. My curiosity and "research" was only to satisfy my curiosity. I am not here to prove, to debunk, to publish, to lecture or make any sort of presentations to influence any one else. I accomplished what I set out to do. I learned a lot from others smarter than me. And I learned nothing from those who lack critical thinking skills and technical background... who seem driven by what I call a political agenda.

Better explanations have been offered up for the entire rainbow of slightly different 9/11 conspiracies. CTs simply do not accept them. They dig their heels in deeper and create even more convoluted and absurd narratives.

I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to just fly actual airplanes into the buildings? Of course not.:rolleyes:

Have you actually calculated the amount of force these airplanes flying at speed would have over their frontal cross-section?

Good stuff. An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Not true. The truth movement stalwarts, whom we're all familiar with, won't touch certain clues either. They have a lot in common with the skeptics.

As I have said numerous times, if planes could do the deed there would be no need for missiles. If planes did do the deed, then the damage evidence would be consistent with it.

Regarding the calculations of the the force of these alleged airplanes, no I haven't, but I have read every one of the official story reports on the matter (which are often cited as proof of something), and notice that neither have they. Anyone who is trying to make a math problem out of this must also calculate the actual shape and structure of the impacting wall columns, which has not been done. So back at you.

Why wouldn't they just crash planes into buildings? Seems like a much simpler solution.

So much this. I designed aluminum and steel parts that were cut with a....waterjet. Our waterjet could cut through 4 inch thick steel. And from what I understand now, there are some that can cut through half a foot of steel. Even after years of working there, I would still just watch that machine and smile. It's pretty awesome.

Yankee.... why have any of the truthers joined a forum like the 911FreeForum and presented their technical arguments? One has Tony Szamboti... and his claims / and thinking have been demonstrated to be flawed. He still clings to his false narrative and fantasy despite being shown he was wrong.

Why is Gage over at 911FF? Or Harrit, David Chandler or John Cole or many of the other what I would call people with pseudo technical arguments all of which have been discussed in detail and shown to hold no water at all.

I don't know why anyone bothers to "debunk" but many seem to think this will change minds or prove something.

For many reasons, not the least of which is mostly hollow aluminum jets cannot do what dense-metal penetrating missiles can do, and if they could do, then there would be no need for dense-metal penetrating missiles. Real planes leave parts that can be tracked. Real planes would mean real bodies, which can be identified. If the plane didn't strike dead center and only clipped a wing, there was no way to contain the crash damage, and much, much, more. Explained by the late Gerard Holmgren, here:
https://911crashtest.org/why-they-didnt-use-planes/

You appear to not understand how a "complex system" can experience a runaway failure.

https://web.mit.edu/2.75/resources/r...ems%20Fail.pdf

Because overt failure requires multiple faults, there is no isolated ‘cause’ of an accident. There are multiple contributors to accidents. Each of these is necessary insufficient in itself to create an accident. Only jointly are these causes sufficient to create an accident. Indeed, it is the linking of these causes together that creates the circumstances required for the accident. Thus, no isolation of the ‘root cause’ of an accident is possible. The evaluations based on such reasoning as ‘root cause’ do not reflect a technical understanding of the nature of failure but rather the social, cultural need to blame specific, localized forces or events for outcome.

So NO the collapse was not caused SOLELY by the plane hitting it.

Do some research on the failures of complex systems.

Buildings structures are complex systems. When they experience a local failure many underlying "failure" modes begin to surface and act synergistically.... and they can in the case of these towers... so go runaway and become total.

Both building stood after they were struck by the planes. But more failures began to manifest and overwhelm the structure.

Who cares about the "official reports"? Care about the explanations which actually describe what happened.

Yankee... I have maintained for a long time.... and in accordance with my crude understanding of runaway failures in complex systems.... that among the KEY contributing factors to the total collapse of these 3 buildings was the structural design.

This is not to say the collapsed BECAUSE of their "flawed" designs. But it is to say that the designs were key factors in the loss of structural integrity leading to total collapse AND "dictating" the form of the collapse in each case.

For example... I will suggest that the Empire State Building would not collapse if struct by a jumbo jet. YES it would sustain massive damage and partial collapse... but not completely collapse to the ground. Why? Because it was a different structural design.

This is something which should have been discussed. Why WAS those towers designed as they were? What was driving the engineering solutions? Was a calculus made relating to runaway collapse from something like a big jet hitting on a high floor? I believe the fuel load of a theoretical plane was not in a consideration.

Are other super talls analyzed for plane strikes? Where are the studies?

read this:

http://www.jflf.org/v/vspfiles/asset...kyscrapers.pdf

How is a water jet, which uses specialized machinery (and often abrasives added to the water) to focus its energy and the mass of the column of water onto the tiniest point possible, like a 767 that would spread its energy and mass over a wide area?

To obtain maximum penetration, bullets, water jets, darts, arrows, etc - focus their energy on a tiny point of impact. Bullets are often jacketed with dense metal to maintain the bullet integrity longer, thereby achieving maximum penetration. For a water jet to work the integrity of the column of water must be maintained, so as to focus the mass and energy of the water onto the tiniest point possible. To achieve this the jeweled nozzle of the water jet must be very close to the material. Too far away and the mass of the column of water is lost, resulting in lost cutting power.

Please explain why you think a water jet is a valid analogy.

O' the IRONY!

This has been done. This has been done. Did you see how much damage was caused? These aren 't people who wanted to contain anything. A plane clipping the WTC and crashing across downtown Manhattan doesn't seem like a problem that would need solving.

You might have missed this part:

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

Jeff Prager states in his book that WTC 1,2,7 were all nuked and no nanothermite was used. Gage says WTC 1,27 were brought down by CD with the use of nanothermite, no nukes. Which one is not telling the truth?

Shouldn't any explanation stand on its own merits? After all these years I have yet to find the one concise alternative explanation that is proven. Even the conspiracy group can't agree with what happened and how.