If there's an expert on this forum concerning irrelevancy it would be you, but projecting your failures on others isn't becoming.

Aw shucks, then another comment comes to prove me right. Again. And here I am focusing on the lightly damaged cladding and the sharply bent steel.

Chaotic damage caused by a great ******* airliner crashing into a building.

No, YOU are not comparing them. I am.

It does not matter how massive they are in relation to what they hit, as much as it matters how fast they were going

That is not what happened.


The exterior walls and facades of the WTC were not single, solid structures, they were assembled from individual pieces. It was the connections between the pieces that failed when the planes hit them, not the column and facade pieces themselves.


And if you refuse to believe that speed can allow a light, weak object to damage a stronger heavier object, then watch

(this is time-linked to bypass the physics and technical stuff because you wouldn't understand any of it)

https://youtu.be/I9zBGgpzl0I?t=305

It's from Purdue, so Yankee and his ilk will reject it out of hand. :rolleyes:

So chaotic practically the same damage can be seen in both towers. Lightly damaged aluminum sheeting at the far left, followed by progressively worse damage, sharply bent steel box columns in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling, and an inward-blasting hole on the ninth column from the left, which was nowhere near where the alleged engine impacted.

This damage supports my conclusions nicely, but that of the skeptics, not so much. Hence the teeth gnashing and hand waving by the misnamed skeptics.

I'm surprised to read this. You're right of course, the exterior walls were not single, solid structures.

But your claim that it was the connections that failed is easily disproved by simply examining the evidence we all have at our disposal.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...1-1024x617.png

Wall panel seams highlighted below:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo.../07/Seams7.png

Which only means your conclusion is totally worthless opinion from someone who doesn't understand basic high energy physics of plane crashes and is unable to answer simple questions on your theories.
Debunked next crazyness please this is 19 years boring.

If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?

Because airliners are designed for slicing through...air. Missiles are designed to penetrate harder stuff. The evidence supports my conclusion, not yours.

Using a photograph taken from below and to the right, how did you differentiate between parts bent inwards and parts bent to the right?

Also could you be a bit more specific about which steel columns you believe are bent to the right? You do love your slogan about the plane wing "taking a sharp turn to the right" but I don't seem to be seeing whatever you think you're seeing.

I'd also be curious to know whether you have considered the accuracy that would have been required to make a missile hit exactly the right spot to carve a wing-shaped groove across the face of the building. If it was raking across at a very steep angle then mere inches error to the left or right would have resulted in a "wing" impression which was several feet too long or too short. Is such precision even possible? Was it possible in 2001?

The same simple questions cannot be answered by you in support of your theory, whatever that is. The lateral bends to the steel and the lightly damaged cladding are consistent with the lateral impact of cruise missiles, not the head on impact of a jet. If you could turn to physics to support your conclusion you would. But you don't. What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. But it isn't. Why is that?

Hehe, the inevitable denial that the columns are bend to the right, rears it's head.

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

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

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...-left-side.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...nter-right.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...enter-left.jpg

I didn't ask about what supports your conclusion, I asked If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?

How did the attack's planners manage to persuade their masters that it was smarter to fire a fusillade of cruise missiles at Manhattan's tallest buildings rather than just crash planes? It sounds insane. Not figuratively insane; literally mad. What reassurance did they offer? Nobody will notice? We can suppress all the photos and videos? And what reason did they give? That planes were no good because they wouldn't make the right sort of holes? But the whole plan was to make *exactly* the kind of holes planes would make. So clearly the sane option was to use planes. What sort of loony would propose this plan and what sort of loony would let them try?

You mean, IF airliners were designed for penetrating hardened targets (like missiles ARE), then why wouldn't they have produced the same damage? Well IF that was the case (it ISN'T), then I guess to be able to create the same damage they would have to have impacted at the same angle of attack, speed, and trajectory. Which they didn't.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...flight-175.png

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo.../approach1.png

Maybe they considered using a weapon that was capable of causing the damage, knowing that the majority of the cud-chewing herd will think whatever the television tells them to think.

Your photos seem to indicate one particular steel column bent in the direction the plane was going when it struck the tower. Nothing very surprising there.

If you propose it was actually hit by a cruise missile, what direction was it travelling in? The same, or steeply raking from the side?

Not what I mean at all.

Have you considered that wouldn't be a sufficiently persuasive argument to make other than a dribbling imbecile give it the go-ahead?

Have you got an argument that actual grownups might swallow?

Something like this:

https://youtu.be/zXE9u33pRTA

https://youtu.be/E0Rf_sS42U8

https://youtu.be/5_a1foRId6M

Only that the lightly damaged cladding at the far left, followed by the progressively worse damaged steel columns, sharply bent in a completely different direction than the aluminum wing of a 767 would have been traveling, have got you reduced to attacking my intelligence, as if that somehow changes the damage evidence.

Then please explain how the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting at the far left of both impact holes, could possibly have been caused by a wingtip like this impacting at 500 plus miles per hour:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...0278c1d4_b.jpg

Yes, it impacted at 500 plus miles an hour

So if the column was bent by a missile flying in from the left at a steep angle, why is it bent inward so much too? Makes no sense.

Such things are relative I guess; it makes no sense but it's not in the same league as a "plan" which involves shooting a fusillade of missiles at one of Manhattan's tallest buildings, waiting to give everyone time to gather to look then firing another fusillade at the neighbouring building, before declaring that it was actually two planes and assuming nobody would notice and nobody would be filming it.

They're not bent in a completely different direction. And it's interesting that you think I'm attacking *your* intelligence when in fact I'm saying how stupid the people who attempted such a plan would have to be.

Seriously, can you imagine any possible presentation of this hare-brained plot which would result in the leaders saying "Yup, that could work" rather than "What *exactly* do we do about the ten thousand people who see the missiles?"?

Either that's some seriously strong aluminum sheeting, or something a lot smaller than a 767 wing hit here.

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

Your incredulity is noted. Multiple trajectories indicate multiple projectiles.

Unfortunately the facts don't support your beliefs. The people who did this knew full well that most of us won't believe anything that doesn't agree with the T.V. They aren't stupid.

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

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rner-first.png

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


It isn't a matter of what you find believable, it is a matter of what the facts support.

"The truth doesn't change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally." ~ Flanner O'Connor

You are ******* insane. Get help!

Unless this is one giant Poe whivh is the only charitable explanation for it all.

yankee451,

Next time it snows go outside and throw a snowball at a window in your house. Do it with little force, some force, lots of force. Report back.

You could be right. Alas, the evidence supports my conclusions, not yours.

First, you explain to me how a 767 that spreads its mass and momentum over a wide area, is like a snowball. Then you explain to me how a pane of glass is like the steel columns of the WTC.

Completely missed the point. Just go throw the snowballs, dude.

Nope, I completely got the point. A snowball thrown against a pane of glass is nothing like a 767 slicing through parallel steel box columns. Dude.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

But your thinking the impact damage looks a bit fishy does not make it impossible. And having rejected what thousands upon thousands of people saw with their own eyes, you have substituted an impossible attack with non-existent weapons and a hand wave about some kind of cover up operation which itself is quite clearly absurd and not remotely plausible.

Still you keep batting away the obvious: what did the proposers of this lunacy say when their superiors said "why don't we just use planes"?

If I was caught lying in court, all of my testimony would be considered suspect. Purdue's Scientific Cartoon depicted the jet wing slicing completely through the steel. How could they have missed this evidence?

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...2-1024x629.png

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...d-1024x576.png

Actually it is. Soft object hits hard object at speed.

Go throw. Dood.

No. The evidence doesn't change. Any explanation that also doesn't include an explanation for the dented cladding, which I contend is proof enough that it wasn't caused by a jet wing, and the sharply bent steel, is what you're referring to as hand waving.

I have explained ad nausea that if jets could do that, they probably would have used them. But because they can't do that, they chose to use what could do it. Log that in.

You first. Throw a snowball against a steel box column. Really hard.

The ignorance on this board is breathtaking.

The Twin Towers were not "Hardened Targets".

What about the eyewitnesses? People who saw the second plane. Locals, tourists, folk living miles away who had a view of Manhattan. Why do they think they saw a plane? Why do they *not* think they saw multiple missiles? How were they brainwashed so quickly, thoroughly and permanently? Have you ever heard of a brainwashing system which could do that? Anything even remotely like it? Any research which hinted such a thing might even hypothetically be developable?

Therefore, the bunker busters wouldn't need to use gravity to punch through concrete, and could instead be used to bend steel columns sharply.

What about them?

:D

And this is why you fail. You contend that the villains deliberately selected weapons to fake plane impact damage based on their expectation that the damage caused would not resemble plane damage. Can you see the flaw there?

When we eliminate the impossible what remains is that you're not as good at analysing plane crashes as you think. And that's all.

They saw the plane. Not your fantasy.

I'm not failing. The reactions are a clue that I'm spot on.

Prior to the "live" footage of 175, most of the reports were that anything BUT a large jet struck. Only one person who happened to be an executive for CNN reported seeing a large jet. Everyone else reported seeing no planes (bombs) missiles, or small planes. So I guess they were all fantasizing.

Why are you talking about TV reports? I'm talking about eyewitnesses.

How were they all brainwashed so that till this day they think they saw a plane?