Cracked up theory - unable to find proof after all these years
 

Lies, no one does my thinking for my, and I don't do as I am told. You got it wrong, like your claims of fantasy missiles and fake videos.

You spread lies about 9/11 and have no idea you are doing it. You make up nonsense about 9/11 and mock the murder of thousands by terrorists.

You can't explain what happen to flight 11, 175, 93 and 77, and you don't care. You ignore the people on four flights who died instantly, and make up crazy claims of fake videos.

You can't back any of your claims with physics. You have no idea what mass is when it comes to physics, or why a plane which can fly over 500 mph can break into a building.

Prove an aircraft can't break the shell of the WTC. Go ahead present proof. You can't do it. Never will.

Trump likes dumb conspiracy theories, maybe you can get him to support your fantasy mocking the murder of thousands.

wow

Already have. Or are you, like Purdue, insisting the plane fully penetrated the wall?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...MAGED-SFRM.png

Forgive me. I was trying to stop you from hacking up yet another debunked hairball of yours.

Please, you just keep on being you.

You can keep bringing up my mistakes all you like. To admit one's errors builds one's credibility. You can't be right all the time, can you? Well, you can, but you should try it some time. It builds character, in addition to credibility.

Let me explain. Because I have proven I am capable of admitting error in the past, you can be confident that I will continue to do so. I have a long list of errors I have corrected. Why do you think this is a sign of weakness? To me it is a sign of honesty and integrity. I am genuinely interested in the truth. If I am exposed to new information that forces me to rethink my hypothesis, I do so. I have been at it for ten years.

If I am wrong, please demonstrate where, and I will correct the record and move on with a newfound understanding of the truth. You guys haven't evolved one bit in what, 19 years? Sheesh.

Specifically your entire theory is stupid.

So, starting with the pinched cladding at the far left of the impact hole for example:

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

Do you think it's stupid of me to point out that,

1. The object that struck the cladding was much smaller and far less massive than a jet's wing, or
2. that the Purdue video can't be "scientific" based on the simple fact that the jet's wing obviously did not penetrate the wall, as depicted in their cartoon?

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

If you think that's stupid, you must believe the television show overrides the physical evidence. Please explain.

Not because you have a long list of errors you've corrected, it's because of the short one of you being right.

Might want to work on that one.

Yes. Explained in detail in this thread.

The lightly damaged cladding and the progressively worse-damaged steel columns, and the inward blasting hole on the ninth column from the left of both towers. Almost identical damage that is entirely inconsistent with the head on impact of a jet, but is entirely consistent with the lateral impact of small, dense projectiles.

If I am incorrect in my assessment, then it should be no sweat for this swarm of skeptics to pick apart the evidence that leads to my conclusions, but alas, all they can do is question my sanity, motives and intelligence.

I started my investigation at the same place most of us did; believing in Osama bin Laden and his scary box cutter wielding Arab henchmen, who overcame a trillion dollar defense system and gave the Great Satan every reason to kick Islamic ass. I bought it all, magic planes included. I take issue with self proclaimed skeptics who accuse me of ignoring evidence that contradicts my conclusions, when it is because I followed the evidence that contradicted my convictions that lead me to where I am today.

If you sincerely want to know what the evidence is that leads me to the conclusion that multiple cruise missiles were launched in broad daylight as a pretext to drum up public support for long planned aggressive wars, please read this post:

Taboo Truths: The Missiles of 9/11

I do. I'm genuinely embarrassed for you as an adult.

We know that the wing impacted there BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE PARTS OF IT IN THE WRECKAGE THROUGH THE BROKEN WINDOWS ON THAT END.

Derp.

As you continue to point out, that steel and it doesn't bend itself and an armor piercing missile would blow outward and not inward.


Purdue's animation is just a general representation of the crash and not meant to be a accurate graphic depiction as their goal was to explain the collapse and the rest of the animation focuses on what happened on the interior where the fatal damage was done.

The physical evidence is consistent with what we saw on TV and the hundreds of thousands of eye witnesses saw.

I must be fascinating to you. I am all you can talk about.

Let me direct you back to the topic at hand, in particular this cladding:

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


Do you agree with Purdue, that the jet wing cut through the tower completely, or do you believe your lying eyes that the cladding isn't even severed, much less the post behind it?

No, you've explained nothing. You post claims and run away.

No, the damage is exclusive to the impact of a 767. The missiles you claim that were used were not operational and barely functional in 2001, and no missile in the US inventory has that much jet fuel.

We have, dozens of times. You wave you hand and ignore the science.

And we question your sanity and intelligence because we have yet to see any.

There's a clear mental break down on display here.

Don't cite yourself as an authority.

Interesting, because according to them it was a scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack.
https://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/0...ffmannWTC.html

""The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow,"

You obviously don't think of it as scientific, or even as accurate.

I don't. I cite the same information we all have access to. This has nothing to do with me, so simmer down. You guys get so angry over a few pictures. Sure, they shatter your tender belief systems, but then everyone has to grow up sometime. That's not my fault.

I don't have to agree or disagree with Purdue. Or you.

N334AA was deliberately flown into WTC 1. This is irrefutable.

Your Photoscaped superimposed scribblings, scrawling and gifs on blurry, cropped images have exactly zero credibility.

If that was the case the evidence would support it. That you're so defensive about it, and refuse to even address the reasons to think otherwise, is a clue as to your mindset.

The photos are there for anyone to see. But none are so blind that won't see, eh?

Neither has any of you. Neither has NIST, neither has Purdue, Wierzbicki, Bezant, et al, Nor FEMA or MIT. Not one of them has done the math to prove a jet's wing could cut through the steel columns.

Hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to. All you base your beliefs on are the television show, and the cud chewing herd you're following.

What are all those red arrows supposed to mean? The cladding is joined together every couple of feet. This is where they will fail. Your arrows show where the join line is and make little sense.

So? Aircraft wings get progressively skinnier towards the tips, so this is entirely consistent with impact by an aircraft.

The front of the aircraft had impacted first, the jets hit before the outer part of the wing.

The entire structure would be buckling, crumpling and shredding with the impact. The wing would not maintain its shape during the impact as you seem to think, so there is no reason to expect columns to be bent away from.the centre of the jet.
So you claim, but a few pictures with arrows drawn on them hardly counts as adequate evidence.

What sort of missile do you think could have produced these marks?

You haven't produced anything that could be considered evidence.

The claims you have produced appears to have been dealt with.

Steve, you are misunderstand the phrase or concept: "the plane penetrated into the building"

The mass of the plane's times the velocity caused a mutual destruction on impact. Not unlike in an auto accident. The momentum of the jet's parts did not disappear on impact... the destroyed parts of the plane including passengers, fuel, water, hydraulic fluid and air penetrated the build... some of it didn't... most of it did. Impacts/collisions of the moving mass of the plane stuff with the static parts of the building absorbed the kinetic energy, destroying or "breaking" the building parts as well as the integrity of the thing(s" which hit them. You seem to refuse to accept this principle. Some stuff (few) was able to pass thru the building because the path mean it didn't hit anything which could stop it.

The nose impact came a tiny fraction of a second before the wings or the tail. That impact instantly caused a re distribution of the static forces in the building around the impact. Same with the wing whose nacelle impacted first followed progressively by the wing structure until finally the wing tips impacted... and the structure and facade had already lost its integrity. You know that the facade was not homogeneous.. but components of various properties, thickness, lengths and so on mechanically fastened together.

If you want to recreate the impacts go build a realistic mock up including floor system and fly a jet loaded with fuel and water into it at 500 mph. I think you'll discover very similar damage. I don't know if an FEA can be done (beyond my expertise for sure). But theoretically it can. I suspect it requires enormous computing power.

There is plenty of evidence that even slower moving water can severely damage steel as has happened at sea many times. You saw how a ping pong ball (air) can destroy a wood in a mutual destruction. Surely you don't expect the "weaker" thing to bounce of the stronger one? It will in a low energy impact. But there will be mutual destruction at some higher level. This is "settled science"... which you seem to reject as "magic".

But the planes did exist. Unless the conspirators have a time travel machine and went back to insert it's records in to history.
same for the occupants of the offices and planes.
Did the conspiracy start decades ago so that the records of all the dead could be added to history?

Information aboutthe victims was provided by their family and friends.
Or are they all part of it too?

You don't seem to be able to comprehend that both things can be simultaneously true.

See how this ping pong ball creates a ping-poing-ball-shaped hole in the paddle while being completely shattered.

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

In the first moments of the impact, however, it's possible for the wing to have suffered the effect that I've postulated, and bent the columns.


Even if that were true, it doesn't say anything about the first instants of the impact.


See, wrong again. But feel free to keep saying no one has offered an explanation, as you have been doing ever since I offered it.

And we're also waiting for an explanation on why he puts so much faith on that picture given that he claims that all photographic and video evidence was faked. It was taken by this guy:

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

I have seen an FEA done on the steel uprights modelling the impacts on them, I will send a link when I get back to my computer.

The uprights are about 35 cm wide, I think, with about 40cm between them, or something of that order. The cladding is about 1cm thick.

So this alleged missile came in at an angle that it damaged the cladding only of four pillars, so it travelled about 3 metres across for 1 cm towards the building. This seems to suggest that it should just have glanced off.

But it has continued and bent each successive pillar even further than the last.

The claim that this damage is consistent with a missile having been fired is dubious to say the least.

It was a theortical simulation, welcome to your missing Jolt Moment, the computer Technology at the time was not capable of factoring in everything some some accommodation had to be made for limited Technology.


You just became the New Tony Sambozzi here.

To even convince anyone your theory is sould is simple, Show that the strength of the softer weaker material steel was strong enough to stop the penitration of the harder stronger Aluminum Steel bulkhead of the aircraft.
Show that the momentum was not sufficient for effective penitration of the A36 Structural steel, by the harder stronger Aluminum Steel?
I will await your attempt-Failure to do so.

Steve, either doesn't understand the mechanics, doesn't believe there was even a plane to the damage or is not serious despite his claims to the contrary.

What is counter intuitive to Steve happens to be what happened in the plane building interaction that day. He refuses to believe his eyes... but not being there does not believe images, vids or eyewitness accounts, nor the physical evidence recovered from the event.

You cannot discuss or debate with someone when you can't stipulate to the facts... and the engineering mechanics.

It is very simple actually check the strength of the A36 Structural steel per inch vs the strength of the Aluminum steel bulkhead of the plane. Knife though Butter.

He hasn't got a clue just living in fairytale land, he hasn't done anything to even attempted to prove himself wrong.

A36 steel vs 150 ton, persquare inch Aluminum steel bulkhead on the plane.
So that's 36000 pounds persquare in structural steel vs 300,000 pounds per square inch Aluminum steel.
Why would anyone need to do a caculations on a knife though butter?
Seeing that the main energy on impact would be transferred though the Main Bulkhead that adds strength and stiffness to the air frame?

Actually the cladding was installed in 12-foot sections with the seams near the floors, explained at this time stamp:

https://youtu.be/FiLa_CyFAIM?t=627

When you're trying to make a math problem out of it, it must include the calculations of the building's construction too. It would require a finite element analysis of the impacting bodies. The wing would behave differently when striking the sharp steel knife-edges of the protruding column sides, or the flat face of the column, set-back from the protruding edges of the column sides, than it would when striking a window.This is why no one has ever done it. Because it will prove that a jet couldn't have possibly caused it. So the propaganda organs like Purdue, NIST, FEMA, MIT, et al, simply ignore the evidence. And their fawning sycophantic skeptics, dutifully follow suit.

Any comment on Robin's point that your magic missiles did more damage as they progressed, rather than losing momentum and doing less damage?

That little crease in the aluminum sheeting was no more than a couple inches wide, and whatever it was that hit it was not massive enough or dense enough to do more than lightly bend it.


That means this wingtip, traveling at 500 miles per hour, was no match for the thin aluminum sheeting that covered the steel column. How thick is the wing tip of a 767?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...0278c1d4_b.jpg

So this wing tip, which was at once so flimsy that it couldn't even cut through aluminum sheeting, suddenly changes direction and becomes much more dense, much bigger, and much more massive, and sharply bends steel columns in a completely different direction than it was traveling.

Furthermore, every video and photo of the "crash" in the public domain, is just as dishonest as the Purdue cartoon is. They ALL show the wingtips sliding like butter into the tower. Nothing fell off. The whole plane slid in, all the way to the horizontal stabilizer, BEFORE the alleged fuel eruption.

The video evidence is not consistent with the physical evidence. None of the official reports from NIST, Purdue, MIT, FEMA, etc. are either.

Unfortunately for the official story faithful, the fact that all of these official organs are all singing the same tune, does not change the evidence that proves they're wrong. Ignoring the evidence doesn't change it, but it does expose the dishonesty of the party doing the ignoring.

Sure. Thank you for the question, this is the best part.

Whatever caused the north tower gash started here, a projectile of some kind struck the face of this column hard enough to pinch the aluminum cladding that covered the steel, popping out the bottom at the seam.* It was very thin, much thinner than the wing tip of a 767 and it wasn't very dense, as evidenced by the fact that the steel behind it isn't damaged.

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

Considering the uniform construction between the left wing and the right, they should have left similarly-sized gashes - but that's not the case. On the left there's a little pinch but on the right there's a much wider gash. So what could cause a pinch on one side but crush the cladding on the other?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ngTipright.jpg

Compare again to the left:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...maged-SFRM.png

So we have a big difference between the sizes of the imprints left by the wing tips of the "jet," and whatever it was that wasn't dense enough to do more than pinch the cladding on the far left, but as it moved right it became MORE dense, as can be seen by the sliced cladding just to the right of it (columns 151 and 150).

Moving to the right the bends and twists to the columns become more pronounced.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...m-the-side.png

So what projectile is at once more dense and smaller in some places than it is in others? Whatever it was it was traveling at an oblique trajectory of say 10-15 degrees from parallel to the face of the towers:

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

As a reminder, a swept back wing, even if it could do such a thing, would have struck the columns on the opposite edges, to what the damage evidence shows:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...triking-ri.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ide-dents1.jpg

There are very few things that can explain this damage. Only one that I can find. The damage to the cladding was caused by the impact of a small and lightweight missile wing, hence the light damage. Moving to the right, the fuselage of the missile, presumably fiberglass and aluminum, began to impact the columns, causing worse damage to the aluminum sheeting, as the denser materials within the fuselage of the missile began to impact the columns, the protruding steel sides of the columns begin to bend to the right. And finally as the dense metal, 900 lb. warhead begins to impact, the whole columns are flattened and sharply bent to the right, before the warhead was deflected and then detonated in front of the 9th column.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...3/Approach.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...e-shatters.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rst-strike.gif

Wayne Coste, well-known truther (and often identified by fellow Truthers as a "plant" or "disinformation agent", for Wayne will (sometimes) go where the evidence leads) has a presentation somewhere where he shows where the momentum of the large plane went:

The towers started to sway laterally quite significantly immediately following the plane impact, and in the direction of the plane trajectory, and Wayne computed that the momentum of the swaying building was, within reasonable error margins, equal to a 767 with 10,000 gallons of fuel at the speed "officially" clocked for the 767s that impacted them.
(I think NIST did the same calculation, didn't they?)

"Missiles" do not explain this momentum transfer, do not even begin to. Missiles themselves, on account of being so very much lighter but hardly any faster than 767s just don't have enough momentum, and if the explosions of their explosive payloads (which have net sum zero momentum) were the cause, that would require that a significant proportion of the missiles mass was propelled away from the impacted sides in the opposite direction at hypersonic speeds - and that would eat up completely the explosive energy and leave too little to break any steel. In other words: Physically impossible.

So I wonder how come the towers swayed after the alleged missile impacts. If someone were so nice to quote Mr. Yankee's response, thanks.

The "sway" was based on the television show. The title of this thread is "How they faked the videos." Fake video is fake video. The damage evidence I have been discussing trumps the fake videos, which some people think included a building "sway." All the official story witnesses, all the "amateur" videos, all the flight paths, all the flight recorders in the world, don't change the evidence that proves they are all BS.

O' the irony.

The physical evidence Jeff refers to is that which supports the plane crash story, which of course does not change the evidence that proves there was no plane crash. What Jeff continually does is defer to authority, the same authority that insists planes were used (despite the evidence to the contrary), the same authority that broadcast the fraudulent videos, the same authorities that provided the fraudulent flight paths, the same authorities that have been invading the world ever since.

Even the "first responders" have been busted for 9/11 corruption, but that doesn't stop Jeff from continuing to point to to the authorities (otherwise known as the 'most likely suspects') as if that somehow changes the evidence in the impact holes.

Can't wait.

FAILED to prove fake videos
 

oops, you failed because we saw Flight 11, and Flight 175 break the shell of the WTC. I doubt you can state the thickness of the steel columns where the planes entered.

I know for a fact you have failed to account for the energy of impacts, equal to 2093 pounds of TNT for Flight 175, enough energy to break the shell designed to stop 184 pounds of TNT impact from a jet. Math is required, not wild fantasy speculation based on paranoia and hate.


Flight 11 hit at 490 mph, with an impact equal to 1300 pounds of TNT, 7 times more than design.
Flight 175 hit at 590 mph, an impact equal to 2093 pounds of TNT, 11 times more than design.

What is the thickness of the steel? Why do fantasy version of 9/11 alway use butter as an analogy. The dumbest analogy, for the most idiotic claims.

Ironically you use missiles to do the damage, but the planes had more energy than the missiles. You failed to make a valid point and failed to prove the videos and vision of hundreds of people was faked.

Right, hundreds of NYC people were paid to lie about 9/11 and seeing flight 175 break the shell of the WTC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-z...ature=emb_logo

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

You don't have a practical knowledge of physics, you have no idea what you are talking about as you make up silly lies about 9/11. Why do you apologize for terrorists who murdered thousands on 9/11 by making up lies and blaming ourselves?

The videos stand as evidence, you failed to make a valid point, failed to explain how they were faked. You presented a wild baseless fantasy of fake videos and fake witnesses.

FAILED to interview eye witnesses to flight 175's impact! FAILED

FAILED to stay on topic! FAILED

You are aware that it did not strike at a perfect 90 degree angle relative to the side of the building, right? The forward momentum of the plane was not directed perfectly inward.