You haven't read the article, have you?

https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

That makes no sense with your earlier claim that armor piercing was required. Wouldn't your new claim defeat this purpose?

Where did you see that? I say the missiles are designed for penetrating concrete bunkers, not armor.

You better study up on Pyrophoric Metals Aluminum can be used in Amour pearcing projectiles, but Tungsten works better.
The Aluminum steel main Bulkhead of the aircraft should cut though the perimeter columns like a hot knife though butter.

Here:

You also said it when you talked about JASSMs, since they have armor piercing warheads. Why would you use a concrete buster to hit structural steel anyway?

Are you seriously suggesting that a single missile, striking at a shallow angle, could have severed all the exterior columns that were observed to be severed?

Dense metal penetrating warheads refer to bunker busters, which are typically kinetic warheads that detonate (or not) after they have penetrated through the concrete. Armor piercing warheads are typically fitted with a shaped charge for penetration, or with a steel rod in the case of a kinetic warhead, neither of which appear to have been used on the WTC.

As for "why" - I can only assume because JASSMS were not in inventory, providing plausible deniability, they were of the right size and had the capacity to cause the damage they desired, they are stealthy, precise and look like planes. This was surely a practiced maneuver. They knew exactly what to expect from their missiles.

No.

Then you'll still need multiple missiles flying in tight formation to damage the columns as observed in the time frame observed.

Dense metal penetrating warheads though, are not exclusive to bunker busters, hence the confusion in your post. No need for AP to have charges, just dense metal like DU. Case in point is your talking about JASSM, which are not bunker busters.

Loonies don't scare me. People taking them seriously do.

No tight formation needed. They didn't all need to impact simultaneously. Sequentially would suffice. It was all hidden behind the mask layer.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...st-archive.png

From eyewitnesses?

Besides, JASSM did not enter service until 2009 and does not have the accuracy required by your fantasy.

This is priceless!

You can't be seriously suggesting that thousands of witnesses mistook AGM-158 missiles for Boeing 757/767 airliners?

https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

Many people reported seeing and hearing missiles at both Shanksville and the WTC. Anyone who wasn't sure what they saw had a TV shoved in their face. But the TV, and your incredulity, don't change the impact evidence that indicates small projectiles that were at once more massive and dense in some places than they were in other places, struck from the side.

How could you hide it from the thousands of people who actually watched it with their own eyes in new York?

https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

FTFY

And yet miraculously, not one of them managed to get any of them on video. Hmmm!

At and not one of the thousands of people in NYC that day, within direct line-of-sight of the WTC, saw any such thing.

Hmmm, again!


The impact evidence shows no such thing.

Hmm. Now's your chance to explain how that massive wingtip only managed to dent aluminum sheeting before it took a hard turn to the right, increased in size substantially, and struck and sharply bent steel columns in a completely different direction than the alleged wing was traveling. Then maybe you can "fix" Purdue's misinterpretation of this same evidence. According to their cartoon, the wingtip penetrated fully.

This has already been explained to you... multiple times!

Here is one of them

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post12939799

In short, the wingtips are NOT massive. Compared with the rest of the wing superstructure, they are relatively weak, as in, physically smaller, of lighter construction with less hard points.

What you have done is simply ignore or handwave away the explanations, possibly because you have zero idea about aircraft construction. Some of us here are, or have been Aeronautical Engineers (I am one of those who have 20 years experience and a degree in this field).

Go away and do a course in Aeronautical Engineering, you might learn something that will inform your harebrained opinions.

Yankee's threads are comedy gold, especially when he gets to the missiles.

https://media.giphy.com/media/KXDc2uq6AfmWk/giphy.gif

Basic physics might be a more realistice starting point.

There's no circle involved in saying that missiles would have been reported to the authorities until you complete the circle by saying the authorities to whom the missiles would have been reported are the same folks who launched them. IOW, the only one engaging in a circular argument here is you.

So you are just making **** up then?

One last question then I’m out.

Yankee, what evidence would you accept that would prove you wrong? Seriously, is there any level of evidence?

If nothing then go get some help.

Hay, yankee541, do you have an answer this question?

Seriously? This is what you are going with?

So did CNN launch missiles? MSNBC? Fox News? NYPD? Wapo? NYT?

No-one reported seeing missiles to any news media for one, very simple reason. There weren't any missiles!

I think the conspiracy theorists' view of the world is posterized. Everything is in blocks. Authorities are all one shade, bad guys another, and so forth. The idea that some authorities are not other authorities is unfathomably complex.

That's an apt profile for no-planers. Stealing it.

It amazes me, even when confronted irrefutable facts, they just argue those facts are in indeed refutable because of [insane theory], or simply ignore the people who bring them up. Like it or not, the existence of those four great ******* airliners and the thousands of people who saw them with their own eyes is irrefutable.

Right Steve?

:)

Its the same with structures such as building and aeroplanes.

Yankee thingks aeroplanes are of equal solidity all over, like a wooden cross - the wings are equally at strong all the way along their length and equally as strong as the fuselage. Anyone trying to convince him otherwise is dismissed as a sheeple or a shill (or both).

No, that's not it.

The real reason has nothing to do with aircraft construction or any other technical field.

Who believes in conspiracies? New research offers a theory

Well, this thread has been useful for me. I've been looking for somewhere to practice my tennis shots and have now learned that soft rubber and felt can't smash much harder glass (which takes diamond to cut it!). So I'm off to the greenhouse to bounce a few groundstrokes off it. Might take a cricket ball along too. Leather's softer than glass, right?

What are cruise missiles wings made of? Something super-hard and hefty, I imagine, so that the wing can score a deep wound into the side of an aluminium clad steel framed building as it rakes across about 60 feet of the wall at a steep angle before the core impacts and makes a bigger hole (and then continues through, punching out on the East side and finally hitting the ground somewhere beyond the East river). I wonder where all the other missile penetrators ended up. How many do you suppose there were in total?

I wonder at what point the bad guys realised it would have been infinitely easier and cheaper to just use a plane. They must be kicking themselves.

When your theory violates the known Laws of physics you are the one that needs to explain why the universe took a U Turn into the crazy Zone.

They aren't laughing with you, they're laughing at you.

Yankee... You are obviously an intelligent person. You had doubts about the official accounts of 9/11. Nothing wrong with that. My hunch is your "quest" went awry when you didn't seek out competent technical discussions of the destruction of the towers. It seems as if underlying your entire view is that officials ALWAYS lie and lie thoroughly and totally to conceal a nefarious agenda.

I can understand those who don't trust the media for accuracy... we are constantly spun to... we are barraged with advertising and PR. We're flooded with all sorts of material which purports to be accurate.

However, there are resources where people with strong technical backgrounds have drilled down into these building collapses. They have no political agenda... but who doesn't have a political world view? Don't trust NIST... there are many other sources/resources who have explained 9/11 without resorting to FX or bizarre conspiracies. Reality follows the laws of physics and science.

If you want good sound explanations for the details... they are on the www. Be a critical thinker. Show some humility and study so that you can follow the arguments.

Your theories are so outrageous that it is not worth the effort to debate or debunk them. They are self debunking and there is nothing to be learned from your materials. Sorry.

That could do real damage. Leather shoes are harder than pants or ass fat; they might punch a hole into the facade.

You know, in Colorado last winter there were a whole lot of trees knocked down. The official story is that this was done by snow. That's right, "they" expect us to believe that snow broke wood. I'm calling ********. It must have been missiles.

OMG, you are falling for the dark side. ;)

Basic physics is what proves the jet videos are fake. Apparently "skeptic" is an ironic name, along the same lines as "9/11 Truth Movement" is.

But we're not comparing them to the rest of the wing. They are very massive when compared to the flimsy aluminum sheeting. They could only lightly damage that sheeting before taking a hard turn to the right and becoming much bigger and much more massive as they sharply bent the more massive and less brittle steel.

Basic High School physics is what shows they are not faked.

To come to the conclusion that missiles did the damage to the WTC and the Pentagon and created the Shanksville impact crater, against the overwhelming, irrefutable evidence from multiple witness observations and expert technical and scientific analysis that it was in fact airliners that did so, combined with the total lack of any video and any eye witnesses who claimed to have seen missiles hit the buildings, requires a level of cognitive dissonance bordering on wilful ignorance.

Yankee... what do you think would happen if a 2' diameter balloon filled with air slammed into a twin tower facade column?

No damage?
Some damage?
Significant damage?

I appreciate your analogies. Thanks. They have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Thanks for the feedback. If my conclusions are wrong, please provide a better explanation for the sharply bent steel columns and the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x634.jpg

Translation: I don't know.

Nope. The meaning was clear. A 2 foot air-filled balloon is nothing like a 767. Like the majority of the comments on this forum, his was irrelevant.