Merged No Planer calls for scientific study / Missiles of 9/11

Captain_Swoop said:
You misunderstand me.
One of his claims is that columns were cut by the impact of the missile, not by explosives in the missile warhead.
Apparently a missile flew in to the tower at a shallow angle ehich cut the part of the hole where the aircraft wing went through the front if the building.
Click to expand...

Oh, you're right, I do remember that now. Well, in that case, wouldn't the missile be made out of steel, and not that namby-pamby soft aluminum stuff? ;)
 
Craig4 said:
Why do you persist in this when your own evidence shows that two planes impacted the buildings?
Click to expand...

It's not "my" evidence, it is THE evidence and it certainly does NOT show that two planes impacted the buildings, it indicates multiple projectiles struck from multiple trajectories, eliminating a plane of any kind.
 
yankee451 said:
It's not "my" evidence, it is THE evidence and it certainly does NOT show that two planes impacted the buildings, it indicates multiple projectiles struck from multiple trajectories, eliminating a plane of any kind.
Click to expand...

Apart from all those people who saw the aircraft and filmed them, and photographed them. Not to mention all the people who failed to see any missiles.
Plus that you haven't seen any missiles, or parts from missiles.
 
yankee451 said:
It's not "my" evidence, it is THE evidence and it certainly does NOT show that two planes impacted the buildings, it indicates multiple projectiles struck from multiple trajectories, eliminating a plane of any kind.
Click to expand...

Just for clarity: that 'evidence' consists of one photograph of metal cladding bent inwards which you insist on misinterpreting as being bent to the right. Yes?
 
yankee451 said:
It's not "my" evidence, it is THE evidence and it certainly does NOT show that two planes impacted the buildings, it indicates multiple projectiles struck from multiple trajectories, eliminating a plane of any kind.
Click to expand...

You have no evidence for multiple projectiles, a silly claim mocking the deaths of Passengers on Flight 11, and Flight 175 which caused the massive damage due to kinetic energy equal to 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT. You ignore physics and push idiotic claims of missiles; failure to comprehend physics has you making up wild claims.

You have contacted the FBI right? lol
 
yankee451 said:
It's not "my" evidence, it is THE evidence and it certainly does NOT show that two planes impacted the buildings, it indicates multiple projectiles struck from multiple trajectories, eliminating a plane of any kind.
Click to expand...


Apparently, you've fabricated that tall-tale and to prove my point ask American Airlines what happened to American 11 and United Airlines what happened to United 175.

Just to let you know that the aircraft in the following photo is not a cruise missile.


http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/gallery/files/2011/09/wtc26.jpg
 
yankee451 said:
It's not "my" evidence, it is THE evidence and it certainly does NOT show that two planes impacted the buildings, it indicates multiple projectiles struck from multiple trajectories, eliminating a plane of any kind.
Click to expand...


LOL

Keep on keepin' on. Who knows? One day you people might get an ear in the Oval Office. Trump is a purveyor of all things impossible. So you never know.

While we're waiting on him, could you give a detailed account of 9/11 that includes ALL the events of the day and ties them better than reality?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What are the missiles that supposedly cut through the columns made from?
Click to expand...


Aluminum.


Why would a huge, heavy, fast aircraft be any less capable than the little missiles?
Click to expand...


Because a large aircraft can cause much more destruction to the steel structure of a building than warheads from bombs and missiles.

The cruise missile attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, produced this result. 13 cruise missiles were used in the attack.

Photo

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/19/article-2697993-1FC714F100000578-266_634x433.jpg


Multiple bomb strikes produced this result on the Chinese embassy.

http://www.paulmidler.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/a.jpg


Notice the steel structure standing within a huge bomb crater after the 1993 bombing of WTC 1?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/WTC_1993_ATF_Commons.jpg
 
beachnut said:
You have no evidence for multiple projectiles, a silly claim mocking the deaths of Passengers on Flight 11, and Flight 175 which caused the massive damage due to kinetic energy equal to 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT. You ignore physics and push idiotic claims of missiles; failure to comprehend physics has you making up wild claims.

You have contacted the FBI right? lol
Click to expand...

Contacted the FBI, lol!

You crack me up.

The evidence of missile use is there for anyone to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiLa_CyFAIM
 
Craig4 said:
Now, maybe, if you have one, you should show a video without a plane flying into the building. It's odd that you keep showin videos of planes flying into buildings to prove a plane didn't fly into a building.
Click to expand...

One of his fanboys there seems to be claiming that it can't have been a plane, because there was no plane shaped outline for a pilot to fly through. The logic is undeniable.

There is no apparent outline in the shape of a 767 jet that is visible from the exterior of the Towers. It follows then that a pilot would have to not only hit the towers with a razor thin margin of error, but he had to do so flying hundreds of mph through an outline he could not even see, and do it twice on the first try.
Click to expand...
 
threadworm said:
One of his fanboys there seems to be claiming that it can't have been a plane, because there was no plane shaped outline for a pilot to fly through. The logic is undeniable.
Click to expand...

Gosh. Yes. In order for the planes to hit exactly where they did, they would need to have been flown so as to hit exactly where they did.

Quite remarkable.
 
yankee451 said:
Contacted the FBI, lol!

You crack me up.

The evidence of missile use is there for anyone to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiLa_CyFAIM
Click to expand...

That is evidence for an insane claim based on anti-science BS. A video mocking the murder of the Passengers on Flight 11 and Flight 175. The missile fantasy is sick, a product of hate and ignornace of science. There is dumber stuff than your missile theory; it is the people who believe your missile theory. wow
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
It's not "my" evidence, it is THE evidence and it certainly does NOT show that two planes impacted the buildings, it indicates multiple projectiles struck from multiple trajectories, eliminating a plane of any kind.
Click to expand...


No one saw multiple projectiles strike the WTC buildings from multiple trajectories, which is evident. You have proven to us that you accept disinformation and misinformation without doing homework to understand that what you have been presenting is false.


I see that you took the bait on that obviously flawed video as well. This aircraft is difinitely not a cruise missile.


United 175

https://mypinkhalfofthedrainpipe.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/wtc2-ua175.jpg


This is what cruise missiles look like.


Cruise Missiles

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...px-Tomahawk_Block_IV_cruise_missile_-crop.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/ALCMCruiseMissile.JPG


And this is an example how easy it is to dupe a Truther.


Hoaxed cruise missile photo

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaM...__2816_29_CHEMTRAILS_KILL_20120625_135045.jpg


Actual cruise missile photo

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaM...02.jpg__28768_C3_97474_29_20120625_135239.jpg


The clincher. The photos that made the Truth movement a laughing stock.


Global Hawk Photos

https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/globalhawk-aa.jpg?w=604


Just a few examples how Truthers have made a mockery of themselves over the years and what you have done was to post another silly video that underlined my case about Truthers.
 
Last edited:
skyeagle409 said:
Are you serious?!

United 175 just happened to strike the EXACT same location where bolts were removed and done so in a crowded building without direct access to the steel structure???

No wonder the Truth movement is a joke.
Click to expand...

Yup. He is absolutely serious. His claim is that missiles were fired and impacted the WTC such that the created the pattern of a 757/767 on purpose. How this level of precision could be achieved? Yankee is evasive on that. How this swarm of missiles arrived without anyone noticing a missile swarm? Yankee is shy on that too. Concurrent with all of that, the planes must perforce have been holograms. Projected from somewhere by unknown entities.

Having thus bamboozled everyone, "they" set off the invisible mini-nukes to demolish the WTC. These "mini-nukes" were built into the WTC structure at the construction stage decades ago in anticipation of 911.

Now, When one lists the mad claims, it becomes apparent that said claims are flat out bonkers.

I put it to you that the only recourse at this point is flat out mockery of the proponent of such abject nonsense.
 
And I further put to you that one must be cautious.

Stay within the MA at all cost. Else infractions will fly.

It may be tempting to go at the wingnut of your choice. Do not do it.
 
abaddon said:
Yup. He is absolutely serious. His claim is that missiles were fired and impacted the WTC such that the created the pattern of a 757/767 on purpose. How this level of precision could be achieved? Yankee is evasive on that. How this swarm of missiles arrived without anyone noticing a missile swarm? Yankee is shy on that too. Concurrent with all of that, the planes must perforce have been holograms. Projected from somewhere by unknown entities.

Having thus bamboozled everyone, "they" set off the invisible mini-nukes to demolish the WTC. These "mini-nukes" were built into the WTC structure at the construction stage decades ago in anticipation of 911.

Now, When one lists the mad claims, it becomes apparent that said claims are flat out bonkers.

I put it to you that the only recourse at this point is flat out mockery of the proponent of such abject nonsense.
Click to expand...


What a minute.

What?

He claims multiple missiles were fired to.....create a plane outline?

You.....sorry....he can't be serious!?
 
Don't forget that the buildings were hollow, no floors at all, no walls, no occupants and that the dust and paper seen flying around had been pre packed in to the hollow columns at the time of construction.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
Yup. He is absolutely serious. His claim is that missiles were fired and impacted the WTC such that the created the pattern of a 757/767 on purpose. How this level of precision could be achieved? Yankee is evasive on that. How this swarm of missiles arrived without anyone noticing a missile swarm? Yankee is shy on that too. Concurrent with all of that, the planes must perforce have been holograms. Projected from somewhere by unknown entities.

Having thus bamboozled everyone, "they" set off the invisible mini-nukes to demolish the WTC. These "mini-nukes" were built into the WTC structure at the construction stage decades ago in anticipation of 911.

Now, When one lists the mad claims, it becomes apparent that said claims are flat out bonkers.

I put it to you that the only recourse at this point is flat out mockery of the proponent of such abject nonsense.
Click to expand...

Actually, the bolded isn't quite true. Yankee has made no secret of his preferred method of bamboozlement. Namely, vis-a-vis his thread on the plane debris that was "obviously" planted by policemen and beaten with hammers on-site to give the appearance of being from a wreck, his belief is that some people with snazzy uniforms basically just told everyone, "You saw two planes collide with the towers," and no one at all argued to the contrary. TV (or to use his derogatory term, "teevee") streams were edited live, and all recordings edited after-the-fact - including ones that were forgotten even by those who recorded them.
 
yankee451 said:
It's not "my" evidence, it is THE evidence and it certainly does NOT show that two planes impacted the buildings, it indicates multiple projectiles struck from multiple trajectories, eliminating a plane of any kind.
Click to expand...


Post photos and videos that depict multiple projectile strikes prior to the impact of United 175. Failure to do so will be a clear indication to all that you deliberately fabricated that tall tale.
 
abaddon said:
That's his claim. A fleet of missiles hit the two towers and were so precisely targeted as to create the shape of a jet impact.
Click to expand...

That's utterly flabergasting.

I've read Yankee's posts and knew them to be out there but I didn't know he was looking to enter Pluto's orbit.

I would never have imagined anyone would think up such a thing let alone think it a viable plan.
 
cantonear1968 said:
That's utterly flabergasting.

I've read Yankee's posts and knew them to be out there but I didn't know he was looking to enter Pluto's orbit.

I would never have imagined anyone would think up such a thing let alone think it a viable plan.
Click to expand...

You can add to the delusion by pointing out his abuse of people who witnessed the event in any fashion as it unfolded, not only on TV but actually with their own eyes, whilst at the same time not witnessing it himself at all.
 
cantonear1968 said:
That's utterly flabergasting.

I've read Yankee's posts and knew them to be out there but I didn't know he was looking to enter Pluto's orbit.

I would never have imagined anyone would think up such a thing let alone think it a viable plan.
Click to expand...

He would have us believe the same basic technique was also used to gouge another plane-shaped hole in the ground at the Shanksville crash site: Two cruise missiles flew in from opposite directions and, with pinpoint accuracy, gouged trenches exactly the length of 757 wings before exploding right where the fuselage should have struck. Not quite clear how one of the missiles managed to weave between the treetops as it flew though a forest on its run in but I'm sure there's a simple explanation.
 
cantonear1968 said:
That's utterly flabergasting.

I've read Yankee's posts and knew them to be out there but I didn't know he was looking to enter Pluto's orbit.

I would never have imagined anyone would think up such a thing let alone think it a viable plan.
Click to expand...

It's even more flabergasting when you consider the missile type he proposes was used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM

In 1999, powered flight tests of the missile began. These were successful, and production of the JASSM began in December 2001. The weapon began operational testing and evaluation in 2002. Late that year, two missiles failed tests and the project was delayed for three months before completing development in April 2003. Two more launches failed, this time as a result of launcher and engine problems. In July 2007, a $68 million program to improve JASSM reliability and recertify the missile was approved by the Pentagon.[4] A decision on whether to continue with the program was deferred until Spring 2008.[5] Lockheed agreed to fix the missiles at its own cost and has tightened up its manufacturing processes.
Click to expand...

Yet, on September 11, 2001... they performed perfectly.

MAGIC!
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
He would have us believe the same basic technique was also used to gouge another plane-shaped hole in the ground at the Shanksville crash site: Two cruise missiles flew in from opposite directions and, with pinpoint accuracy, gouged trenches exactly the length of 757 wings before exploding right where the fuselage should have struck. Not quite clear how one of the missiles managed to weave between the treetops as it flew though a forest on its run in but I'm sure there's a simple explanation.
Click to expand...

Then there's the amazing third "rogue" missile that managed to just set fire to some trees without extensively damaging them.
 
Thank you all for your responses. I was simply stunned by this thought process. Though maybe not appropriately applicable I was reminded of Ryan Mackey's Irreducible Delusion. I honestly don't know where one goes with something like thinking missiles could be used to make the outline of a plane. Maybe more appropriate is a JREFer's sig line that you cannot reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into in the first place.

Amazing
 
yankee451 said:
It's not "my" evidence, it is THE evidence and it certainly does NOT show that two planes impacted the buildings, it indicates multiple projectiles struck from multiple trajectories, eliminating a plane of any kind.
Click to expand...

So, was this dream drug induced? :boggled:
 
yankee451 said:
It's not "my" evidence, it is THE evidence and it certainly does NOT show that two planes impacted the buildings, it indicates multiple projectiles struck from multiple trajectories, eliminating a plane of any kind.
Click to expand...

Evidently it was a cloaked Klingon Bird of Prey with a holoprojector and photon torpedos, because....
Nobody saw it.

Evidently they had travelled back in time using the same method as Captain Kirk in Star Trek IV and intended to prevent the establishment of the United Federation of Planets.
It's all in a five and three quarter hour internet documentary about how the Klingons did it.

But seriously now, it was hijacked airliners. Flying is not difficult.
Three basic principles to flight are: Aviate. Navigate. Communicate.
They certainly could aviate and navigate and they didn't need to communicate.

Landing requires skill, crashing doesn't.
 
Airfix said:
Evidently it was a cloaked Klingon Bird of Prey with a holoprojector and photon torpedos, because....
Nobody saw it.

Evidently they had travelled back in time using the same method as Captain Kirk in Star Trek IV and intended to prevent the establishment of the United Federation of Planets.
It's all in a five and three quarter hour internet documentary about how the Klingons did it.

But seriously now, it was hijacked airliners. Flying is not difficult.
Three basic principles to flight are: Aviate. Navigate. Communicate.
They certainly could aviate and navigate and they didn't need to communicate.

Landing requires skill, crashing doesn't.
Click to expand...



Well, Truthers do seem to think that future tech such as Star Tek tech that does not exist in the real world was somehow used on 9/11 (cloaked missiles, holographic projections). They also seem to feel the quickest way between two points is a circle
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom