Again, explain why you think this photograph implies that the wing would have had to pass between the cladding and the columns. I don't see that at all.

How about airplane wing vs. steel cable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavale...disaster_(1998)

Yankee451,

If, as you contend, the WTC towers were not hit by aircraft, then what is your explanation for what happened to the 157 people aboard American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175, and to the aircraft (N334AA and N612UA)?

The preponderance of evidence is the people died and the aircraft were destroyed when they impacted with the towers. If this is not the case, then what happened to the people and the aircraft? You can't simply handwave them away as if they never existed. They all did exist, at least up to September 11, 2001, and then they were no more.

This question is on-topic, because the topic is "How they faked the videos." We have one video of an aircraft impacting the north tower and multiple videos of an aircraft striking the south tower 17 minutes later. The videos and the missing aircraft (and the people aboard them) between provide good evidence that these aircraft hit the towers; ergo, there was nothing to fake.

If you think about it, the choice of aircraft and launch points to guarantee fuel content was genius on the part of Al Qaeda (actual architects and engineers) to achieve the destruction of the Twin Towers. I argue that had the planes impacted on lower floors the buildings would have come down faster.

As demonstrated by 175, which hit later and lower.

Well, that explains your confusion- you don't understand the concept of "evidence," "hypothesis," or "incredulity." The fact is, your whole mountain is based on the molehill of your incredulity that an airplane could have damaged the building the way it did- your "evidence" is nothing more than your inability to grasp or accept what you're looking at in photographs. You literally do not have anything else. And every other thing you think is evidence for your "hypothesis" is something that follows from belief in it, rather than leads to it. This is the way creationists do science, among other failures in critical thought. In fact, it's the way we got into the Iraq war to begin with- our leaders believing what they needed to be true rather than what they could demonstrate to be. So- you got that going for you, a methodology that makes you about as truthful as Ken Ham or Dubya.

But you're good for a laugh- I predict this thread will go down in the same sort of dubious history as Christophera's "Realistice" thread, and for exactly the same reasons.

Of course you do. The cladding is still there. However the steel behind the cladding has been gouged out. How is this possible, unless whatever gouged out the steel column (which was BEHIND the cladding), struck the column from the side?

The television jet's wing struck the FACE of the columns.:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...1-48-16-PM.png


But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.

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

Do you need me to explain the construction of the towers again, so that you can understand what you're looking at, and how untenable your position is?

https://i.imgur.com/y7Ty8GT.jpg

Can't see how anything could possibly wind up getting pushed out.

:rolleyes:

If it was pushed out, why does the photograph clearly show it pushed in?

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WTC2_5th_column_from_left_center_
 

Please explain how the column could be gouged, without also gouging the aluminum cladding that covered it.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...cladding-2.png

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

The missile theory looks untenable from that picture.

The aircraft collision picture looks fine. Something large and heavy hit that cladding and then bounced off sideways.

You are assuming that the fact that it bulges out now means that it could not have been hit from the front.

Have you ever seen something with metal cladding being hit from the front?

And why does it look damaged on the outside.

You need to do much better than that.

The impact and subsequent explosion of a great ******* airliner flown into an office tower at 500 MPH.

As opposed to the entire thing being a cover up which everyone else is too stupid to see, aside from a handful of nutbags who believe there weren't any planes involved.

ETA: Why did you ignore this?

Oh, and don't forget this one.

I see. I am very interested in hearing your explanation about how you think the steel column behind the cladding, which is bulged out, could be so damaged by a wing striking perpendicular to the bulged out cladding.

Once again.

This cladding is not severed, even though the cladding that covered the columns to the left and right, are severed. This view is from the center-right. The column to the left of the circled and bulged-out cladding, has been gouged-out, but not severed completely:

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


This the same column, circled below, from a center-left perspective:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...e-1024x768.png

This is a closeup of the same column. Note the gouge behind the still standing cladding.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...cladding-2.png

So you're saying that a wing striking like this:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...Purdue-Gif.gif

...cut through the cladding of all but one column, but still managed to cut through the column behind the still-standing cladding?

I missed it, and I am not required to respond to everyone. Fifth column from the left. The cladding is pushed out.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...leftwing02.png

Are you now saying that the photographs are too difficult to see?

Phtograph? Your claim is that there is a video that is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling on impact.

Let's see it.

And can we confirm that the missile being suggested is the AGM-158, length 4.27 metres, body width 550 mm, wingspan 2.5 metres, claimed accuracy 3 metres CEP?

LOL!!!

You guys kill me. It's not a crime to admit you're wrong.

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.

The best way to hit parallel columns would be from the side, otherwise if you targeted them perpendicularly, you’d at best hit one column and possibly pass between two columns, so any competent missile jockey would have targeted them from the side, and that’s what the damage indicates.

At a shallow oblique trajectory, it would be the wing of the missile that impacted first, which is why the cladding at the far left is only scored and pinched, but not severely damaged like the columns were further to the right.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

Um no. That is a badly done animation. I assume this is the thing you keep bringing up that you call the "Purdue Cartoon".

I don't know what your weird obsession with it is, but please try to forget it.

Again (and try to concentrate) if you claim it is inconsistent with an aircraft impact, we must be talking about what would happen to a real aircraft if it hit a sky scraper, not how a badly done animation would work.

What don't you understand when I say that IF the videos of the 9/11 crashes were real, we would have seen some sign of plane buckling that you describe. It ought to have been there, but it was not. It did not slow down. Wings did not snap forward due to the sudden deceleration. It slid like butter into the tower.

If you think the videos do show the plane buckling due to the deceleration, please point it out.

Can you give a link to the specification, the link I found has them at 24 inches diamater and 20 feet long. I don't this this can be what you mean.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-She...6bcd-missiles/

It is an official scientific animation that represents what you apparently believe. The Purdue Cartoon is used to demonstrate how silly the official story is when compared to the physical damage evidence. If you don't like their cartoon, please consider then using the MIT models, or those from the NIST. The point, which ought to be abundantly evident by now, is that there is no way for the plane wing to gouge out the column without first gouging through the cladding that covered it. The fact that this is what happened though, is proof that it wasn't a plane wing that did it.

Planes are off the table. But the damage is consistent with the lateral impact of cruise missiles.

You are claiming that the video evidence is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling upon impact, you show me this video evidence.

Hmm. Clutching at straws now. Sleep on it.

I have never brought up that animation. I don't even know what or who "Purdue" is.

I have consistently said that the plane would begin to buckle and crumple upon impact.

So by what bizarre process of illogic did you use to come to the conclusion that an animation of a plane not buckling and crumpling as it impacts could possibly represent what I believe?

Again, by what bizarre process of illogic did you conclude that a request for you to confirm the model of the missile which you allege caused that damage is "clutching at straws"?

As I said before, can you please try to focus. Is this the missile you claim caused the damage or not?

You lost me two pages ago.

Every video and photograph available to mankind shows there was no buckling and crumpling upon impact. You however, assume there was buckling and crumpling of the aircraft.

Good for you.

You won't even admit the jet wing couldn't have possibly cut through the steel without first cutting through the cladding. I grow tired of your disingenuous antics.

So it shouldn't be difficult for you to give me an example.

Why can't you?

https://media.giphy.com/media/MVgLEa...72Ne/giphy.gif


https://media.giphy.com/media/mFlAjnOvTSrIc/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/13fOmrLMOA2TzW/giphy.gif

One of these things is not like the other.

Has the column behind been cut through? I can't see that.

From a center-left perspective, you can clearly see that the cladding is severed. Nice try.

As I said before, the whole event is so complex, we may never understand every single detail of it. There are too many variables some of them producing counterintuitive results. We would be able to explain them if we have all the data - what we don't. There are two important aspects you are systematically missing in your ranting about lateral bending of some parts of the building structure.

1) The wing fuel tanks were virtually full and at the moment foreign object became to penetrate inside them, a significant hydraulic effects started to take place. Study the details of the Concorde crash. The forces had to be enormous and we know pressure in fluids acts in all directions. Some of the bending towards the fuselage MAY be the result of this phenomenon.
2) The rotors of the engines were spinning at max revs (we can reasonably assume that) at the moment of impact and they had an enormous amount of rotational energy - which dissipated in an instant in directions perpendicular to the direction of flight. They were capable of causing enormous amount of damage and we know from precedents, pretty close to explosion of a bomb. Again, some of the damage impossible to attribute to the kinetic energy caused by mass moving forward MAY be result of the above.

So, as you see, you are missing stuff in your search for truth. You should concentrate on these instead of developing nonsensical hypothesis that belong more in the category of Sci-Fi than of real life events.

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

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...leftwing02.png
Same picture, I think.

Has the column under the bent out cladding been photoshopped out in the top image?

Yes, it is clearly severed.

Jet-Fuel fireball created by 60,000 pounds of Jet fuel make missile claim FAILED
 

Gee Whiz - the aircraft packed an impact equal to 2093 pounds of TNT, and was concentrated in the shape/mass of the aircraft! NOT a wasteful bast from a small warhead which was not see blowing up.

What created the jet-fuel fireball, a missile can't carry 60,000 pounds of jet fuel!

Big error, adding the insanity of missiles ruins your Anti-War message. The aircraft did the damage seen.

The best part of your fantasy, it is stuck forever in the conspiracy forum. What happen to your study? Why did you fail to prove the videos are fake, and eyewitnesses are paid government agents.

Too bad your missiles can't hold 66,000 pounds of jet fuel. Do you try to make your claims real, or trying to make them fantasy. What created the giant jet-fuel fireball? Duh

The wings are not going to fold forward, they are traveling the same speed as the aircraft, the first part of the jet is fiberglass nose, it is not going to slow down the aircraft much, then the radar, two seats, avionics, and the famous part of the "hollow aircraft. Why would the wings break off forward, the entire plane is going nearly 800 feet per second, the WTC shell can't stop it, parts are going to be ejected out the other side, it is physics, the stuff you don't use. The wings are part of the plane, not some weak part falling off. Yes, you toy plane hits the ground at 10 mph and the wings fall off, but take a look at the videos you claim are fake, that is what a plane going fast does - you have no useful knowledge of aircraft and physics.

I did as you asked. I found repeated posts of a photo showing inward-bending damage, and none of outward buckling or damage, which is what I would expect if multiple missiles had exploded inside the building.
You still do not seem to have explained this apparent anomaly.
Care to try again?
By the way, how many missiles do you think were fired? I assume you have a fairly exact number.

Shall we then consider that your much-circled piece of cladding is not still in place? You wish us to be dumbfounded that it is still there. Only true for certain values of "there".

The views from left and right suggest it's dangling between two columns and somewhat forward of the rest of the cladding. It's not at all clear how it's still attached to anything. The size of the piece hints that it came off the column to its left but maybe the column to its right (assuming that it is in fact a piece of cladding and not, say, the wing of one of those non-existent missiles). Is it perhaps dangling from one remaining point of connection to one side or the other?

At any rate, we can at least say that its location in those photos is not where it started out when the object that did the damage passed by. How it moved from its original position to its photographed position is just guesswork.