9/11: How they Faked the Videos - Page 6

yankee451 · 2nd January 2020, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

The JASSM has a wingspan of 2.7m, meaning that the body of the missile could pass through a window, leaving only the flimsy (compared to an airliner) alloy wings to damage the columns. So, each missile would need to strike a column exactly head-on and you'd need one missile per column. To cause the observed damage you'd need a swarm of them, but they'd have to strike at different times to avoid colliding with each other while in flight.

You haven't thought this through, have you? Do over!

You haven't read the article, have you?

Quote:

The best way to hit parallel columns would be from the side, otherwise if you targeted them perpendicularly, you’d at best hit one column and possibly pass between two columns, so any competent missile jockey would have targeted them from the side, and that’s what the damage indicates.

At a shallow oblique trajectory, it would be the wing of the missile that impacted first, which is why the cladding at the far left is only scored and pinched, but not severely damaged like the columns were further to the right.

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

carlitos · 2nd January 2020, 07:41 AM

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

Disbelief · 2nd January 2020, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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?

yankee451 · 2nd January 2020, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Disbelief

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.

Crazy Chainsaw · 2nd January 2020, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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.

Disbelief · 2nd January 2020, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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

Here:

Originally Posted by yankee451

For many reasons, not the least of which is mostly hollow aluminum jets cannot do what dense-metal penetrating missiles can do, and if they could do, then there would be no need for dense-metal penetrating missiles.

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?

GlennB · 2nd January 2020, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by yankee451

You haven't read the article, have you?

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

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?

yankee451 · 2nd January 2020, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Disbelief

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?

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.

yankee451 · 2nd January 2020, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

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?

No.

GlennB · 2nd January 2020, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by yankee451

No.

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

Disbelief · 2nd January 2020, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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.

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.

Dr.Sid · 2nd January 2020, 10:37 AM

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

yankee451 · 2nd January 2020, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

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

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

yankee451 · 2nd January 2020, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Disbelief

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.

abaddon · 2nd January 2020, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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

From eyewitnesses?

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

smartcooky · 2nd January 2020, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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.

This is priceless!

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

yankee451 · 2nd January 2020, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by abaddon

From eyewitnesses?

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

Quote:

AGM-86D missile warheads are about 14 inches wide and weigh 1200 lbs, they are big, powerful missiles that have been around for decades.

The smaller AGM-158 looks like a plane and in 2001 no one had ever seen one before, but if someone had seen one it could easily have been mistaken for a small, white plane. JASSMs were being produced for testing and for the Pilot Production models in 2001, but they were not in the military’s inventory at the time. Official production didn’t begin until December of 2001, giving the authorities plausible deniability, but JASSMs used off-the-shelf technology from other tried and true missile systems so there is no question the technology was there. They look like planes, they are stealthy, they can fly in formation, and with planted targeting beacons, their margin of error would be next to zero. If the hole wasn’t cut by cruise missiles such as the JASSM, it was something very similar.

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

yankee451 · 2nd January 2020, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

This is priceless!

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

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.

Captain_Swoop · 2nd January 2020, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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

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

yankee451 · 2nd January 2020, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

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

Quote:

Most people immediately discount missiles because they assume thousands of people would have seen them, and would have reported them to the authorities. This is a circular argument because if missiles were used, then they would have been launched by the authorities the witnesses would have reported them to. There may well have been thousands of witnesses but why would the authorities tell us about them, when they were selling us planes? Even so, early-on some witnesses did report seeing and hearing missiles, as well as no planes, small planes and big planes; but only one of these options can account for the damage.

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

smartcooky · 2nd January 2020, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

Many people reported seeing and hearing what they thought were missiles at both Shanksville and the WTC.

FTFY

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

Originally Posted by yankee451

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.

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.

yankee451 · 2nd January 2020, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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.

smartcooky · 2nd January 2020, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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.

Axxman300 · 2nd January 2020, 01:38 PM

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

GlennB · 2nd January 2020, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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

Basic physics might be a more realistice starting point.

turingtest · 2nd January 2020, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

Quote:

Quote:
Most people immediately discount missiles because they assume thousands of people would have seen them, and would have reported them to the authorities. This is a circular argument because if missiles were used, then they would have been launched by the authorities the witnesses would have reported them to. There may well have been thousands of witnesses but why would the authorities tell us about them, when they were selling us planes? Even so, early-on some witnesses did report seeing and hearing missiles, as well as no planes, small planes and big planes; but only one of these options can account for the damage.

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

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.

Captain_Swoop · 2nd January 2020, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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

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

Norman Alexander · 2nd January 2020, 04:57 PM

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.

Blue Mountain · 2nd January 2020, 06:40 PM

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

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

A question for yankee541.

American Airlines Flight 11 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 7:45 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 81 passengers and 11 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

United Airlines Flight 175 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 8:14 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 56 passengers and 9 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

American Airlines Flight 77 departed Washington Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Virginia, at 8:20 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 58 passengers and 8 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

United Airlines Flight 93 departed Newark International Airport in New Jersey 8:42 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 33 passengers and 7 crew, bound for San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

Pray tell, in an era where thousands of flights depart and arrive successfully every day, what happened to the 236 people and four aircraft involved with these flights?

smartcooky · 2nd January 2020, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

Quote:

Most people immediately discount missiles because they assume thousands of people would have seen them, and would have reported them to the authorities. This is a circular argument because if missiles were used, then they would have been launched by the authorities the witnesses would have reported them to. There may well have been thousands of witnesses but why would the authorities tell us about them, when they were selling us planes? Even so, early-on some witnesses did report seeing and hearing missiles, as well as no planes, small planes and big planes; but only one of these options can account for the damage.

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

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!

bruto · 2nd January 2020, 07:00 PM

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.

TJM · 2nd January 2020, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

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?

smartcooky · 2nd January 2020, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

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.

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).

Roger Ramjets · 3rd January 2020, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

What you have done is simply ignore or handwave away the explanations, possibly because you have zero idea about aircraft construction.

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

Quote:

"Our results clearly showed that the strongest predictor of conspiracy belief was a constellation of personality characteristics collectively referred to as 'schizotypy,' Hart said.

Hart's study also showed that conspiracists had distinct cognitive tendencies: they were more likely than nonbelievers to judge nonsensical statements as profound (a tendency known as "BS receptivity").

In turn, they were more likely to say that nonhuman objects -- triangle shapes moving around on a computer screen -- were acting intentionally.

"These people tend to be more suspicious, untrusting, eccentric, needing to feel special, with a tendency to regard the world as an inherently dangerous place," Hart said. "They are also more likely to detect meaningful patterns where they might not exist.

GlennB · 3rd January 2020, 12:48 AM

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?

Jack by the hedge · 3rd January 2020, 05:02 AM

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.

Crazy Chainsaw · 3rd January 2020, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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.

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.

Garrison · 3rd January 2020, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by yankee451

I like jokes. That's why I'm here.

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

JSanderO · 3rd January 2020, 06:11 AM

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.

carlitos · 3rd January 2020, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

They must be kicking themselves.

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

2nd January 2020, 07:24 AM	#201
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by GlennB The JASSM has a wingspan of 2.7m, meaning that the body of the missile could pass through a window, leaving only the flimsy (compared to an airliner) alloy wings to damage the columns. So, each missile would need to strike a column exactly head-on and you'd need one missile per column. To cause the observed damage you'd need a swarm of them, but they'd have to strike at different times to avoid colliding with each other while in flight. You haven't thought this through, have you? Do over! You haven't read the article, have you? Quote: The best way to hit parallel columns would be from the side, otherwise if you targeted them perpendicularly, you’d at best hit one column and possibly pass between two columns, so any competent missile jockey would have targeted them from the side, and that’s what the damage indicates. At a shallow oblique trajectory, it would be the wing of the missile that impacted first, which is why the cladding at the far left is only scored and pinched, but not severely damaged like the columns were further to the right. https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

2nd January 2020, 07:49 AM	#203
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,833	Originally Posted by yankee451 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?
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,833	__________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

2nd January 2020, 08:01 AM	#204
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by Disbelief 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.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

2nd January 2020, 08:54 AM	#206
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,833	Originally Posted by yankee451 Where did you see that? I say the missiles are designed for penetrating concrete bunkers, not armor. Here: Originally Posted by yankee451 For many reasons, not the least of which is mostly hollow aluminum jets cannot do what dense-metal penetrating missiles can do, and if they could do, then there would be no need for dense-metal penetrating missiles. 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?
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,833	__________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

2nd January 2020, 09:16 AM	#207
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Usk, Wales Posts: 26,531	Originally Posted by yankee451 You haven't read the article, have you? https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/ 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?
	__________________ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

2nd January 2020, 08:49 AM	#205
Crazy Chainsaw Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,465	Originally Posted by yankee451 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.

2nd January 2020, 09:23 AM	#208
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by Disbelief 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? 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.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org Last edited by yankee451; 2nd January 2020 at 09:25 AM.

2nd January 2020, 09:24 AM	#209
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by GlennB 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? No.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

2nd January 2020, 09:36 AM	#210
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Usk, Wales Posts: 26,531	Originally Posted by yankee451 No. Then you'll still need multiple missiles flying in tight formation to damage the columns as observed in the time frame observed.
	__________________ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

2nd January 2020, 09:37 AM	#211
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,833	Originally Posted by yankee451 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. 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.
Disbelief Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,833	__________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

2nd January 2020, 10:37 AM	#212
Dr.Sid Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic Posts: 3,214	Loonies don't scare me. People taking them seriously do.

2nd January 2020, 11:14 AM	#213
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by GlennB Then you'll still need multiple missiles flying in tight formation to damage the columns as observed in the time frame observed. No tight formation needed. They didn't all need to impact simultaneously. Sequentially would suffice. It was all hidden behind the mask layer.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

2nd January 2020, 11:16 AM	#214
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by Disbelief 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.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

2nd January 2020, 11:32 AM	#215
abaddon Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Republic of Ireland Posts: 21,471	Originally Posted by yankee451 No tight formation needed. They didn't all need to impact simultaneously. Sequentially would suffice. It was all hidden behind the mask layer. From eyewitnesses? Besides, JASSM did not enter service until 2009 and does not have the accuracy required by your fantasy.
	__________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes...

2nd January 2020, 11:34 AM	#216
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,173	Originally Posted by yankee451 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. This is priceless! You can't be seriously suggesting that thousands of witnesses mistook AGM-158 missiles for Boeing 757/767 airliners? This image is correctly scaled!
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 2nd January 2020 at 11:35 AM.

2nd January 2020, 11:35 AM	#217
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by abaddon From eyewitnesses? Besides, JASSM did not enter service until 2009 and does not have the accuracy required by your fantasy. Quote: AGM-86D missile warheads are about 14 inches wide and weigh 1200 lbs, they are big, powerful missiles that have been around for decades. The smaller AGM-158 looks like a plane and in 2001 no one had ever seen one before, but if someone had seen one it could easily have been mistaken for a small, white plane. JASSMs were being produced for testing and for the Pilot Production models in 2001, but they were not in the military’s inventory at the time. Official production didn’t begin until December of 2001, giving the authorities plausible deniability, but JASSMs used off-the-shelf technology from other tried and true missile systems so there is no question the technology was there. They look like planes, they are stealthy, they can fly in formation, and with planted targeting beacons, their margin of error would be next to zero. If the hole wasn’t cut by cruise missiles such as the JASSM, it was something very similar. https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

2nd January 2020, 12:02 PM	#218
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by smartcooky This is priceless! You can't be seriously suggesting that thousands of witnesses mistook AGM-158 missiles for Boeing 757/767 airliners? 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.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

2nd January 2020, 12:05 PM	#219
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 32,657	Originally Posted by yankee451 No tight formation needed. They didn't all need to impact simultaneously. Sequentially would suffice. It was all hidden behind the mask layer. How could you hide it from the thousands of people who actually watched it with their own eyes in new York?

2nd January 2020, 12:38 PM	#220
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop How could you hide it from the thousands of people who actually watched it with their own eyes in new York? Quote: Most people immediately discount missiles because they assume thousands of people would have seen them, and would have reported them to the authorities. This is a circular argument because if missiles were used, then they would have been launched by the authorities the witnesses would have reported them to. There may well have been thousands of witnesses but why would the authorities tell us about them, when they were selling us planes? Even so, early-on some witnesses did report seeing and hearing missiles, as well as no planes, small planes and big planes; but only one of these options can account for the damage. https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

2nd January 2020, 01:01 PM	#221
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,173	Originally Posted by yankee451 Many people reported seeing and hearing what they thought were missiles at both Shanksville and the WTC. FTFY And yet miraculously, not one of them managed to get any of them on video. Hmmm! Originally Posted by yankee451 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. 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.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

2nd January 2020, 01:16 PM	#222
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by smartcooky 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.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

2nd January 2020, 01:34 PM	#223
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,173	Originally Posted by yankee451 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.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 2nd January 2020 at 01:35 PM.

2nd January 2020, 01:38 PM	#224
Axxman300 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Central California Coast Posts: 4,953	Yankee's threads are comedy gold, especially when he gets to the missiles.
	__________________ Disingenuous Piranha

2nd January 2020, 02:22 PM	#225
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Usk, Wales Posts: 26,531	Originally Posted by smartcooky Go away and do a course in Aeronautical Engineering, you might learn something that will inform your harebrained opinions. Basic physics might be a more realistice starting point.
	__________________ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

2nd January 2020, 04:52 PM	#226
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,735	Originally Posted by yankee451 Quote: Quote: Most people immediately discount missiles because they assume thousands of people would have seen them, and would have reported them to the authorities. This is a circular argument because if missiles were used, then they would have been launched by the authorities the witnesses would have reported them to. There may well have been thousands of witnesses but why would the authorities tell us about them, when they were selling us planes? Even so, early-on some witnesses did report seeing and hearing missiles, as well as no planes, small planes and big planes; but only one of these options can account for the damage. https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/ 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.
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

2nd January 2020, 04:53 PM	#227
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 32,657	Originally Posted by yankee451 https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/ So you are just making **** up then?

2nd January 2020, 04:57 PM	#228
Norman Alexander Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Gundungurra Posts: 9,135	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.
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

2nd January 2020, 06:40 PM	#229
Blue Mountain Resident Skeptical Hobbit Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg Posts: 6,518	Hay, yankee541, do you have an answer this question? Originally Posted by Blue Mountain A question for yankee541. American Airlines Flight 11 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 7:45 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 81 passengers and 11 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination. United Airlines Flight 175 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 8:14 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 56 passengers and 9 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination. American Airlines Flight 77 departed Washington Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Virginia, at 8:20 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 58 passengers and 8 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination. United Airlines Flight 93 departed Newark International Airport in New Jersey 8:42 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 33 passengers and 7 crew, bound for San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination. Pray tell, in an era where thousands of flights depart and arrive successfully every day, what happened to the 236 people and four aircraft involved with these flights?
	__________________ The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French) Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.

2nd January 2020, 06:46 PM	#230
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,173	Originally Posted by yankee451 Quote: Most people immediately discount missiles because they assume thousands of people would have seen them, and would have reported them to the authorities. This is a circular argument because if missiles were used, then they would have been launched by the authorities the witnesses would have reported them to. There may well have been thousands of witnesses but why would the authorities tell us about them, when they were selling us planes? Even so, early-on some witnesses did report seeing and hearing missiles, as well as no planes, small planes and big planes; but only one of these options can account for the damage. https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/ 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 want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

2nd January 2020, 07:00 PM	#231
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 28,208	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.
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

2nd January 2020, 08:10 PM	#232
TJM Potsing Whiled Runk Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 21,661	Originally Posted by bruto 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?
	__________________ Laughing my ass off as Trump's brown shirts are rounded up, one by one.

2nd January 2020, 08:15 PM	#233
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,173	Originally Posted by bruto 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. 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).
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 2nd January 2020 at 08:27 PM.

3rd January 2020, 12:43 AM	#234
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5,374	Originally Posted by smartcooky What you have done is simply ignore or handwave away the explanations, possibly because you have zero idea about aircraft construction. 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 Quote: "Our results clearly showed that the strongest predictor of conspiracy belief was a constellation of personality characteristics collectively referred to as 'schizotypy,' Hart said. Hart's study also showed that conspiracists had distinct cognitive tendencies: they were more likely than nonbelievers to judge nonsensical statements as profound (a tendency known as "BS receptivity"). In turn, they were more likely to say that nonhuman objects -- triangle shapes moving around on a computer screen -- were acting intentionally. "These people tend to be more suspicious, untrusting, eccentric, needing to feel special, with a tendency to regard the world as an inherently dangerous place," Hart said. "They are also more likely to detect meaningful patterns where they might not exist.
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

3rd January 2020, 12:48 AM	#235
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Usk, Wales Posts: 26,531	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?
	__________________ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

3rd January 2020, 05:02 AM	#236
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,978	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.