You didn't answer his question.

A lie so darn big no one believes it, the fake video one
 

You got two things wrong, and are projecting again.

Your lie of fake videos is too darn BIG, no one believes it.

Where is the evidence? in the bit bucket!

And yet no one is here believing your gigantic lies, go figure.

There wasn't a question. Had there been, the answer would have been the same. All the "witnesses" and "deaths" and pilots" and videos and photos, and bereaved family members you want to trot out don't change the damage evidence which makes them all irrelevant.

Heh, consider the audience. Skeptic is a sort of tongue in cheek term, huh?

The damage evidence is consistent and exclusive to the impact of a 767 at high speed. Your inability and or unwillingness to understand this is your mental problem.

And your theories are so ill informed that they're just silly.

And yet none of you will touch the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. The truth hurts.

Sorry for the cliche, but:

"You can lead horse to the water but you can make it drink..."

Some horses can't even be led to water.

Obviously.

As a hypothetical, a CT believed once in a mad theory and obsessed over it.

Eventually, after much hardship and grief, the CT's family staged an intervention. Part of the result of said intervention was that the said CT would no longer indulge in such fantasies. Nor engage in such activities on the internet.

Said CT, after a brief hiatus, then covertly resumed such activities even more extremely.

What would you make of such behaviour? How should said CT's nearest and dearest respond to such a breach of such an agreement?

My PDF has 1,150 hits this month. Was one of them you, Steve? You're name is on page 23.

Shucks, now you kinda have to look at it.

Don't forget, Ace Baker said it was impossible to fake the [LIVE] NBC Chopper4 shot... so he claimed it wasn't live.

Most importantly you should focus on the engine that easily ripped through the building and flew out the corner section where there was no steel beam on that floor (p. 61). Think. How did the engine get to where it landed, still smoking hot, after hitting the building at 50 Murray St. and shedding other parts across its trajectory?

The only possible answer is that a 767 hit the WTC, just like people saw and heard ...and afterward smelled.

Finally, consider that at least 73 of the passengers on the two planes were identified by DNA from recovered remains (p. 5)... not counting 4 of the terrorists identified by DNA (p.8). Your "planted" and "fake" responses come too easily. Your best evidence seems to be bent metal in a chaotic crash. Start over and consider planes. Holmgren and Baker were musicians. Maybe listen to their music.

And that's a handwave.

Wasn't a question? Everything and everyone on that list raises literally hundreds of questions, all of which fly directly in the face of no-planer lunacy.

Given your track record, It wouldn't be surprising when the horse turns out to be an aardvark.

I've had multiple concussiuons through the years but even that doesn't make your fantasy construct any more believable.

Nice bit of evidences that would mean something to anyone with half a brain.

You would need an actual argument for that, not just some pictures with arrows drawn all over it.

You have no evidence.

Name the people involved in making the fake videos.

Name the people who put the fake videos on the air.

Name the people in charge of suppressing the truth.

You're a hick who's never been to Manhattan and then your intellectual capacity declines from there.

There seems a strange paradox here.

According to Yankee, all the news videos, still pictures, eyewitness accounts, amateur videos, and expert analyses, are clever and complicated fakes. An enormous conspiracy of fakery has occurred right under our very noses. Our faith in everything ought to be shaken.

And yet, his evidence is a scant few pictures, including, if I'm not mistaken, some from the same sources condemned as unreliable, and the only reason we have to believe that they are not doctored is.....faith?

^
Bingo.

But there's a huge problem here. We have a lot of evidence two jet aircraft hit the towers (which I admit you don't accept): eyewitnesses, TV footage, DNA from the scene that matches with missing passengers, bereaved families, kids who grew up without a mother and/father, parents mourning their dead children, life insurance payouts to beneficiaries of the deceased, bits and pieces that match with the missing aircraft. If you're saying that aircraft did not impact the tower, you have to explain away all this evidence. You simply can't ignore it because it looks like to you the holes in the towers don't match up with your idea of what the holes should look like.

Only after you've satisfactorily explained what happened to the 236 missing people and the four missing aircraft can you get around to drawing up elaborate hypotheses about how the damage was done to the towers.

And don't come back to me with the line "well, those are all just media lies." 9/11 was a huge event and the media is (more accurately, are) not a monolithic entity. There were thousands, if not millions, of individual stories files by thousands of individual reporters all over the world. Is every single one of these reporters in on the scam? The idea that a shadowy organization could co-ordinate such a media misinformation campaign over twenty years without having a single whistle-blower coming forward strains credulity to the breaking point.

^

And Bingo was his name-o.

That's because it is nonsensical not logical and Irrelevant.
A plane being composed of Aluminum covering an Aluminium steel bulkhead and wing spars that are strong enough to support the landing gear on take off and landing would easily punch though the thin steel Columns.
That makes your opinion not evidence worthless, because it is just your uneducated opinion.

The fantasy of magical planes that cut through steel, bore through concrete, and burrow into the ground, ends when one examines the evidence with an open mind.

The fantasy of missiles which didn't exist and weren't seen and fail to explain all the other evidence of planes and their passengers does not appear to be a rational substitute.

A mind that open is called a TBI by medical professionals.

When should we expect you to start doing this? The third Tuesday of the month?

Might want to study up on kinetic energy.

19 years of no physics? Enough time to earn a PhD or two
 

Oops, touching the evidence proves your claims are nonsesene at best.


So true, and autobiographical.


Knowledge of physics would kill this nonsense. Physics! - why have you banned it.


An "open mind" in this case, like an open marriage and the wife left.

There used to be a series on the TV called 'Time Team' it was an arcehology show.

In a few episodes they excavated crashed WW2 aircraft. One that I remember was a Douglas A-26 Invader. It flew in to the ground at full throttle after it collided with another A-26 at low altitude over England.
Another was a B-17 that went in nose first at high speed.

Both aircraft were destroyed on impact and the remains burrowed deep in to the ground. Parts from the A-26 were over 20 feet down in hard clay soil.
Why wouldn't a huge airliner at full throttle burrow in to the ground?

1. Not all steel is created equal.

2. Concrete fractures with the popper amount of force.

3. Air craft, especially large aircraft will burrow into the ground at the end of a high speed dive.

None of this is speculation and there are thousands of examples of these things happening.

Fun story, in 2000 a guy jumped off the Stratosphere Hotel in Las Vegas. He landed upright in a sitting position 1,100 feet below. The impact combined with the angle caused his spine to be driven into the concrete sidewalk and his body had to be jack-hammered out.

Physics is fun.

Along with trigonometry and both negate his beliefs.

I jumped off the Stratosphere a couple of weeks ago. But I used a harness. It was kind of amazing.

I think a big problem that Steve has is not understanding the strength properties of the steel plate in the columns on the 94th to the 98th floors. It was 1/2" thick.

That plate being hit by a large jet at 500mph would fail in an instant.

Steel they were... but not intended to resist the lateral forces represented by the place. Don't be fooled by the OAL dimensions of the boxes... the plates up there were pretty thin.

I don’t think this has been posted yet, so here is an extremely detailed breakdown and analysis of the physics of the collision of the planes with the twin towers that was prepared by experts at MIT: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

There’s also at least two metabunk threads discussing this topic:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how...-4#post-216889

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/loo...l-facade.9397/

Nothing new under the sun. And trutherland has only become stupider and more intellectually stagnant as time has gone on, as yankee451 ably demonstrates.

I wouldn't be surprised if his injuries were fatal.

Ships in the Bering Sea rupture their hulls by running into ice. The fastest these ships generally travel in ice is about 8 knots per hour (less than 10 mph.) The thickness of the hulls is usually not more than 5/8" thick-which is THICKER than the steel in the columns.

I'm pretty sure that Steve suffers from the simplistic misconception that when objects made of two different materials collide, harder or stronger material "wins", and only the weaker or softer material is damaged. In the real world, it just doesn't work that way, especially the impact happens at a high velocity. I realize I've made this point many times, but I live in Colorado, where, in many areas of the mountains, snow avalanches are a frequent occurrence. These commonly break trees, sometimes trees that are several inches in diameter. Yes, a mass of unconsolidated snow, moving at high velocity (but considerably lower velocity than the planes on 9/11 were moving), can snap off a thick, strong tree. I don't find anything the least bit remarkable about aluminum planes moving at several hundred miles per hour breaking steel beams.

N334AA went into WTC 1 at approximately 494 MPH with 92 people aboard.
N612UA went into WTC 2 at approximately 586 MPH with 65 people aboard.
N644AA went into The Pentagon at approximately 527 MPH with 64 People aboard.
N591UA went into the ground at approximately 563 MPH with 44 people aboard.

Two questions for Steve - What, in your learned opinion, should've happened to these planes upon their impacts?

What happened to the 265 people aboard the planes? Their families might like to know.

Fire a length of aircraft grade aluminum lengthways at 800 kph towards a length of 2cm thick construction grade steel held sideways and the aluminium would definitely win.

And this is not true, your "evidence" has been dealt with over and over.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bzq4envlul...acts.jpg?raw=1

and and no-planers can't even be led to facts!