The air crash videos Axxman300 posted show planes travelling a lot slower than 500mph. Can you indicate what features of buckling or slowing down you detect in those videos?

Just where do you think the deicers were located on that air plane?
https://www.airspacemag.com/how-thin...icing-6660440/

Just to be clear: these are the videos and photos you claim have been digitally altered, right?
Can you explain why, if there were missiles, the faked images and videos were altered to highlight this, rather than hide it?

Wouldn't, if they were missles, they have to be aimed "up" to hit where the first plane hit the WTC? There aren't a lot of spots in NYC where you could aim "down" to the 80th floor of the WTC. Wouldn't that look different from what we see in the video (where the plane is at least coming in perpendicular if not slightly tilted down)? I may be having a hard time visualizing it though (shocking, I know).

It does not look like a plane. It looks like a missile. It's 14 feet long and has a relatively small wing to body ratio. It's wingspan is roughly half it's length. A small aircraft, say a piper cub, is 24 feet long and 35 feet of wingspan. They look nothing alike. Nobody is confused by the two. And the body of a missile would not look big enough to carry a pilot. They would not be confused between a 14 foot long missile and a 200 foot long Boeing 767.

Nobody is going to confuse a piper cub and a 767. Nobody is going to confuse something much smaller for something much larger. While few people may have known what the AGM-158 looked like, including the people making it since it wasn't even flight tested until 2006, EVERYBODY knows what a 767 looks like.


Also, the general public had seen missiles. The Patriot missile system was all over the news just a few short years before. And various shots of the Tomahawks fired in the 1993 attack.

They look like cruise missiles. In 2001 people knew what cruise missiles looked like
So they don't sound like a 767's engines then.
Invisible formation. So nobody saw.
How many beacons do you infer were spread across a few tens of feet of the building? How did each missile discriminate it's own target designator from the others? Were they discreetly placed in the windows? In that case why did your missiles hit the columns? Presumably all of the missiles arrived at exactly the same instant otherwise their own beacon would have been destroyed by previous impacts. The sky must have got pretty crowded in the last part of the run in, don't you think? A technical tour de force and a spectacular sight, which nobody saw, despite the world's attention being on the towers after the first strike.

There is of course always a more parsimonious explanation, which is that you're wrong.

How many missiles were used in your fantasy lie?


How did the fake the exact jet-fuel fireball you get from 66,000 pounds of jet fuel in the planes used on 9/11?

Why do you make up lies? Lies will not stop wars. Having congress remove funding for war stops war. You need to spend time lobbying congress, not making up lies in a CT debunking forum. We know your claims are false, and too easy to debunk. There are no missiles missing from the USAF - in your fantasy how many USAF people did it? Got any names for the giant fantasy conspiracy theories.

I will admit I am wrong when you show me the video instead of daft evasions like this.

So show me a video that is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling on impact.

Why is it so difficult for you to find it?

If Yankee451 could locate a video where the plane is not acting according to the laws of physics then he would prove his case in a moment.

I can't wait to see it.

Let's do a thought experiment. We have a length of square section steel and a sheet of aluminium, cut and bent so that it forms a snug sleeve around three sides of the full length of the steel.

We put it in a good strong vice with the uncovered side to the back and take a large heavy crowbar and take the strongest whack we can at the front face.

Would we have to sever the aluminium completely in order to do considerable damage on the steel bar inside?

No of course we wouldn't. Same thing applies to the column in question.

This called a Gish Gallop, a failed attempt at you putting the burden of proving your absurd fantasy is false.

You keep asking questions which you can't answer. An aircraft hit the WTC, you deny the truth due to some Quixotic quest for world peace.

I wonder how trump got elected - after looking at the comments on your videos, I realize people are easy to fool and we are dirt dumb stupid sometimes. Not sure why you deny reality, but most who make up despicable theories about the thousand killed by 19 terrorists are doing it for the $$$, you seem to be proud to lie about 9/11 and never consider you might be wrong as you uncaringly mock the murder of thousands.

Don't bring up the wars, that is another top for politics, and I don't need you to make up lies to hate wars.

It is funny the comments on your youtube videos, you have now joined the modern yellow journalism, youtube videos of lies, misleading the clueless. Let us hope your videos don't incite some idiot to go ballistic and take action based on your lies to harm others.

After 19 years you could have earned a degree (a PhD!!!) in engineering and figured out the WTC design would stop a plane going 200 to 250 mph - but you refuse to learn about things related to science, playing the old "common sense" card of woo to make up one of the top ten dumbest claims about 9/11 - missiles is right up there with Judy's Beam Weapon insanity.

The only video I have found which shows an actual impact is the Evan Fairbanks video.

The time from first contact to the building until the entire plane has hit the building is about 5 hundredths of a second.

The time from when the front of the first engine contacts until both wings have entirely contacted is one hundredth of a second.

There is no time for the force of impact to have propogated to the rest of the aircraft in that time so we would not expect to see the wings fold forward or for the fuselage to have started buckling.

All crumpling, buckling and shredding will have happened exactly at the point of impact and nowhere else.

So the "airliner slicing through a building like butter" is an illusion due to the fact that forces cannot propagate back along the aircraft faster than it is flying into a building.

In fact it is not an aircraft slicing through that building, rather 120 tons of debris and aircraft fuel travelling at close to 800 kph.

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-6.png?w=1024

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

Thanks, hadn't seen that one.

So more like one sixth of a second.

Looks like a number of missiles flying in close formation to me ;-).

Yesterday afternoon, while planting bulbs, my son pressed down a bit too hard on the steel bar sticking out of the side of the coring tool he was using to make holes for the bulbs. The 8mm steel bar promptly sheared off, snapping at the base. He was wearing imitation leather boots (he's a vegetarian) with no steel reinforcement. What I need to know is, are his feet harder than steel, or is it the plastic soles of his boots, and if it's the boots, how come he didn't break any toes? I think a more parsimonious explanation is that, as he pressed down on the tool, a cruise missile struck the bar at its base, shearing it off, but he and my wife failed to notice it because they weren't expecting anything like that to happen.

Or, y'know, maybe there's no absolute physical law saying that hard things can only be damaged by harder things. But that's just crazy talk.

Dave

Nope, absolutely no plane flew into WTC2 :rolleyes:

You got to watch those super secret Missles that no one ever sees they break stuff all the time.

The sounds of the plane and everyone's shocked reactions are all part of a video filter.

Did you check for thermite in the shaft?

Same thing happened to me while trying to dig out an old tree trunk. Snapped a thick solid wood axe handle clean in two. I immediately suspected death rays from outer space, but the were no hurricanes loitering around California and nothing dustified, so I chalked it up to a shoddy tool. Next time I'll be sure to check for invisible cruise missiles.

I really do appreciate the knowledge and wisdom on display in these forums.

Nano termites?

Since we all know that the existence of a vaguely-related patent for an unproven invention claim is the best possible proof of the existence of powerful secret government technology at the center of a massive conspiracy, I present you with "Locomotion system and method of controlling a robotic device," which, per truther logic, definitively proves that nanotermites were used on the axe handle in question, and--likely--on both JFK and the twin towers. If that weren't enough, I assume that nanotermites would contain carbon and that there was carbon found in the dust in lower manhattan after 9-11. There was likely carbon in the dust in JFK's convertible too, but of course the FBI never checked! What do you think they were hiding, if not the presence of nanotermites? I rest my case.

Hadn't though of Nanotermites killing JFK, but he did collapse into his own footprint so it must be true.

I like the simplicity of the system. Surely it is being mass-produced somewhere in China already.

Gosh, I don't know. Maybe the laws of physics really do change just because you saw it on television.

Really, then nice Gish Gallop. The burden of proof is on those who think a mostly hollow aluminum jet wing is capable of gouging out a few 1/2 inch plates of steel, but could't cut through the aluminum sheeting that covered the steel. The aluminum is still there! What color is the sky in the skeptics' world.

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

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

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

The facts don't change according to your ability to stomach them emotionally.

The capabilities of the missiles are well documented.

I never claimed otherwise. However if I was wrong it should be easy to explain why the evidence doesn't support my conclusions, and better supports yours. But you don't do that. Maybe I'm not wrong.

And yet until a TV was shoved in their faces, most people said they saw small planes, no planes (bombs), and missiles.

It all boils down to the television show
 

From the look of the responses, the skeptics are only skeptical about that which they don't already agree with. They can't explain how three out of four sides of a column could be cut without cutting the aluminum sheeting that covered those three sides. Conundrum, Skeptics!

Steve, everyone has pointed out that the density of the wing of a 767 varies from the tip to where it mounts to the body due to avionics, engine, and fuel tanks. This is why they paint "No Step" signs on places along the top of the wing which can be damaged by ground crew mistakenly walking on it. The aluminum sheeting you point to is CLEARLY DAMAGED from the impact as it the steel it was mounted to. Aircraft wreckage is visible in all of the photos you've posted. The main hole in the tower is over 25 feet high, almost four times the height of either missile you claim penetrated the building, and none of the structural damage on this side had been blown outward which would be the result of a delayed detonation of 1,000 lbs of high explosive (which nobody heard).

Every point you make has been easily refuted. You fail.

You should look them up sometime. They don't match your claims in any way.

Prove it.

Why television? They may be a limited number of (some possibly confused) eye witnesses of the first impact. Who would be walking the street looking up at the high floors of WTC? A different situation with the second impact.
Virtually the whole NY was looking in that direction from all possible places and angles. And they were pointing their cameras there too. Why out of a several tens of thousand of people only a few, mostly anonymous, individuals saw something else than B767? Why nothing else but B767 has been captured on any of the photos and videos taken?
Please, check if you have taken your regular medication before you answer this question.

Listen to you. If you don't believe me look up the archives of the news reports from the first explosion. I've linked to several accounts of missile reports, which you guys just wave-off, along with all the physical evidence of missile impacts. So no, you have been proven wrong about everything so far. You are in no position to demand anything of anyone.

Okay, so maybe the laws of physics do change just because you saw it on television, AND you assume there would be thousands of witnesses. None of which addresses the impact evidence that makes your assumptions, and the television moot, but such is the logic in Skeptic Land.

I have. And I have explained in detail how they, or something like them, are the only rational explanation for the damage as found.

You haven't looked them up, else you wouldn't be talking smack.

What are their off the shelf, publicly advertised capabilities? Range? Waypoint capablities? Payload/Warhead options?

Not true. The points I have made on this thread crush the plane hugging lunatics who still think the television trumps reality.