9/11: How they Faked the Videos - Page 7

CORed · 3rd January 2020, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

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?

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

bknight · 3rd January 2020, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by CORed

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

OMG, you are falling for the dark side.

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by GlennB

Basic physics might be a more realistice starting point.

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

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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.

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

smartcooky · 4th January 2020, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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

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

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

JSanderO · 4th January 2020, 12:46 PM

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

No damage?
Some damage?
Significant damage?

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by JSanderO

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

No damage?
Some damage?
Significant damage?

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

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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

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

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

Axxman300 · 4th January 2020, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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

Translation: I don't know.

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Translation: I don't know.

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

BStrong · 4th January 2020, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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

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

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

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.

TJM · 4th January 2020, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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

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

smartcooky · 4th January 2020, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

But we're not comparing them to the rest of the wing.

No, YOU are not comparing them. I am.

Originally Posted by yankee451

They are very massive when compared to the flimsy aluminium sheeting.

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

Originally Posted by yankee451

They could only lightly damage that sheeting before taking a hard turn to the right and becoming much bigger and much more massive as they sharply bent the more massive and less brittle steel.

That is not what happened.

Originally Posted by yankee451

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

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

SpitfireIX · 4th January 2020, 02:42 PM

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

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

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

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.

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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.

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.

Wall panel seams highlighted below:

Crazy Chainsaw · 4th January 2020, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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.

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.

TJM · 4th January 2020, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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.

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

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

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.

Jack by the hedge · 4th January 2020, 03:51 PM

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?

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

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.

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?

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

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?

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

TJM · 4th January 2020, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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

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?

Jack by the hedge · 4th January 2020, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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

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?

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

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?

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.

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

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?

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.

Jack by the hedge · 4th January 2020, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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

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?

TJM · 4th January 2020, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

You mean,<evasive BS snipped>

Not what I mean at all.

Jack by the hedge · 4th January 2020, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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.

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?

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

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?

Something like this:

https://youtu.be/zXE9u33pRTA

https://youtu.be/E0Rf_sS42U8

https://youtu.be/5_a1foRId6M

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

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?

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.

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Not what I mean at all.

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:

Captain_Swoop · 4th January 2020, 04:33 PM

Yes, it impacted at 500 plus miles an hour

Jack by the hedge · 4th January 2020, 04:38 PM

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.

Jack by the hedge · 4th January 2020, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by yankee451

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.

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?"?

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Yes, it impacted at 500 plus miles an hour

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

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

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.

Your incredulity is noted. Multiple trajectories indicate multiple projectiles.

yankee451 · 4th January 2020, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

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?"?

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

Captain_Swoop · 4th January 2020, 05:28 PM

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

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

4th January 2020, 12:21 PM	#243
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by GlennB Basic physics might be a more realistice starting point. Basic physics is what proves the jet videos are fake. Apparently "skeptic" is an ironic name, along the same lines as "9/11 Truth Movement" is.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

4th January 2020, 12:27 PM	#244
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by smartcooky 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. But we're not comparing them to the rest of the wing. They are very massive when compared to the flimsy aluminum sheeting. They could only lightly damage that sheeting before taking a hard turn to the right and becoming much bigger and much more massive as they sharply bent the more massive and less brittle steel.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

4th January 2020, 12:38 PM	#245
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,261	Originally Posted by yankee451 Basic physics is what proves the jet videos are fake. Apparently "skeptic" is an ironic name, along the same lines as "9/11 Truth Movement" is. Basic High School physics is what shows they are not faked. To come to the conclusion that missiles did the damage to the WTC and the Pentagon and created the Shanksville impact crater, against the overwhelming, irrefutable evidence from multiple witness observations and expert technical and scientific analysis that it was in fact airliners that did so, combined with the total lack of any video and any eye witnesses who claimed to have seen missiles hit the buildings, requires a level of cognitive dissonance bordering on wilful ignorance.
	__________________ 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! !

4th January 2020, 12:46 PM	#246
JSanderO Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: nyc Posts: 3,092	Yankee... what do you think would happen if a 2' diameter balloon filled with air slammed into a twin tower facade column? No damage? Some damage? Significant damage?
	__________________ So many idiots and so little time.

4th January 2020, 01:08 PM	#247
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by JSanderO Yankee... what do you think would happen if a 2' diameter balloon filled with air slammed into a twin tower facade column? No damage? Some damage? Significant damage? I appreciate your analogies. Thanks. They have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

3rd January 2020, 11:28 AM	#241
CORed Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Central City, Colorado, USA Posts: 10,146	Originally Posted by GlennB 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? You know, in Colorado last winter there were a whole lot of trees knocked down. The official story is that this was done by snow. That's right, "they" expect us to believe that snow broke wood. I'm calling ********. It must have been missiles.

3rd January 2020, 01:41 PM	#242
bknight Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 2,382	Originally Posted by CORed You know, in Colorado last winter there were a whole lot of trees knocked down. The official story is that this was done by snow. That's right, "they" expect us to believe that snow broke wood. I'm calling ********. It must have been missiles. OMG, you are falling for the dark side.

4th January 2020, 01:11 PM	#248
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by smartcooky Basic High School physics is what shows they are not faked. To come to the conclusion that missiles did the damage to the WTC and the Pentagon and created the Shanksville impact crater, against the overwhelming, irrefutable evidence from multiple witness observations and expert technical and scientific analysis that it was in fact airliners that did so, combined with the total lack of any video and any eye witnesses who claimed to have seen missiles hit the buildings, requires a level of cognitive dissonance bordering on wilful ignorance. Thanks for the feedback. If my conclusions are wrong, please provide a better explanation for the sharply bent steel columns and the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

4th January 2020, 01:19 PM	#249
Axxman300 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Central California Coast Posts: 4,961	Originally Posted by yankee451 I appreciate your analogies. Thanks. They have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Translation: I don't know.
	__________________ Disingenuous Piranha

4th January 2020, 01:31 PM	#250
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by Axxman300 Translation: I don't know. Nope. The meaning was clear. A 2 foot air-filled balloon is nothing like a 767. Like the majority of the comments on this forum, his was irrelevant.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

4th January 2020, 01:40 PM	#251
BStrong Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: San Francisco Posts: 13,087	Originally Posted by yankee451 Nope. The meaning was clear. A 2 foot air-filled balloon is nothing like a 767. Like the majority of the comments on this forum, his was irrelevant. If there's an expert on this forum concerning irrelevancy it would be you, but projecting your failures on others isn't becoming.
	__________________ Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

4th January 2020, 01:44 PM	#252
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by BStrong 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.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

4th January 2020, 01:48 PM	#253
TJM Potsing Whiled Runk Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 21,665	Originally Posted by yankee451 Thanks for the feedback. If my conclusions are wrong, please provide a better explanation for the sharply bent steel columns and the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting. Chaotic damage caused by a great ******* airliner crashing into a building.
	__________________ Laughing my ass off as Trump's brown shirts are rounded up, one by one.

4th January 2020, 01:49 PM	#254
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,261	Originally Posted by yankee451 But we're not comparing them to the rest of the wing. No, YOU are not comparing them. I am. Originally Posted by yankee451 They are very massive when compared to the flimsy aluminium sheeting. It does not matter how massive they are in relation to what they hit, as much as it matters how fast they were going Originally Posted by yankee451 They could only lightly damage that sheeting before taking a hard turn to the right and becoming much bigger and much more massive as they sharply bent the more massive and less brittle steel. That is not what happened. Originally Posted by yankee451 If my conclusions are wrong, please provide a better explanation for the sharply bent steel columns and the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting. 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
	__________________ 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; 4th January 2020 at 02:00 PM.

4th January 2020, 02:42 PM	#255
SpitfireIX Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Location: Niceville, Florida, USA Posts: 5,130	It's from Purdue, so Yankee and his ilk will reject it out of hand.
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

4th January 2020, 02:48 PM	#256
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by AJM8125 Chaotic damage caused by a great ******* airliner crashing into a building. 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.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

4th January 2020, 03:02 PM	#257
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by smartcooky 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. 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. Wall panel seams highlighted below:
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org Last edited by yankee451; 4th January 2020 at 03:09 PM.

4th January 2020, 03:03 PM	#258
Crazy Chainsaw Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,465	Originally Posted by yankee451 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. 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.

4th January 2020, 03:04 PM	#259
TJM Potsing Whiled Runk Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 21,665	Originally Posted by yankee451 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. If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?
	__________________ Laughing my ass off as Trump's brown shirts are rounded up, one by one.

4th January 2020, 03:49 PM	#260
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by AJM8125 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.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

4th January 2020, 03:51 PM	#261
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,988	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?

4th January 2020, 03:53 PM	#262
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw 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. 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?
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

4th January 2020, 03:57 PM	#263
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge 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? Hehe, the inevitable denial that the columns are bend to the right, rears it's head.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

4th January 2020, 04:00 PM	#264
TJM Potsing Whiled Runk Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 21,665	Originally Posted by yankee451 Because airliners are designed for slicing through...air. Missiles are designed to penetrate harder stuff. The evidence supports my conclusion, not yours. 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?
	__________________ Laughing my ass off as Trump's brown shirts are rounded up, one by one.

4th January 2020, 04:03 PM	#265
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,988	Originally Posted by yankee451 Because airliners are designed for slicing through...air. Missiles are designed to penetrate harder stuff. The evidence supports my conclusion, not yours. 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?

4th January 2020, 04:08 PM	#266
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by AJM8125 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? 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.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

4th January 2020, 04:10 PM	#267
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge 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? 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.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

4th January 2020, 04:14 PM	#268
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,988	Originally Posted by yankee451 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 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?

4th January 2020, 04:17 PM	#269
TJM Potsing Whiled Runk Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 21,665	Originally Posted by yankee451 You mean,<evasive BS snipped> Not what I mean at all.
	__________________ Laughing my ass off as Trump's brown shirts are rounded up, one by one.

4th January 2020, 04:19 PM	#270
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,988	Originally Posted by yankee451 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. 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?

4th January 2020, 04:24 PM	#271
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge 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? Something like this: https://youtu.be/zXE9u33pRTA https://youtu.be/E0Rf_sS42U8 https://youtu.be/5_a1foRId6M
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

4th January 2020, 04:27 PM	#272
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge 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? 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.
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

4th January 2020, 04:29 PM	#273
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	Originally Posted by AJM8125 Not what I mean at all. 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:
yankee451 Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 2,774	__________________ www.yankee451.com www.911crashtest.org

4th January 2020, 04:33 PM	#274
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Pither 12/20 Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 32,858	Yes, it impacted at 500 plus miles an hour

4th January 2020, 04:38 PM	#275
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,988	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.