911 WTC Steel vs 757 airliner! Who will win?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Apr 15, 2013.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Sterett was hit by a much smaller, single-engined airfrat. Destroyers are a little more heavily armored than transports.

    There are wing prints on both sides of the hole. Those wings were much more fragile than those of a B25.

    FAIL.
     
  2. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What? No wing marks, no luggage, seats, bodies? Where's the plane? Just a neat little round hole? Clearly a cruise missile. Let me guess, no video? How convenient..

    /truthermode

    hehe, koko changes history to fit his 9/11 conspiracy. No flakes of paint hit Challenger. No Kamikaze planes hit ships in WWII, must have been airborne torpedo's. You know you're on the delusional end of the crazy wagon when you have to start editing history to make your stupid theories less ridiculous.
     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,574
    Likes Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    113
    thats rust at the waterline, there are:

    NO WING PRINTS

    NO TAIL PRINTS

    NO WING DENTS

    NO TAIL DENTS

    proves once again that there is no reason to believe that there should be a plane print on the wtc.

    So that said prove that the alleged planes were capable of entering into the wtc all the way out to the wingtip and then explain why the tail section would not have done the same, otherwise your whole premise falls right on its ass.
     
  4. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So? I did not call that a wing print.

    Totally not true. There are two of them. Directly under that round plate parallel with the end of the ladder on the right is an indentation about six inches high and a little longer than a man's arm. To the left, almost exactly the same distance above the water line, about even with the man's shoulder is another crease within an area about five by five feet that is clearly stove in.

    No, the tail did not hit at full speed. A lot of the energy was expended just piercing that armored hull and there is clearly a bulkhead inside the hole. Why would the tail have hit it at all?

    They were observed to have done so. The WTC was not a fortress. DeMartini himself stated that a 707 could have penetrated the perimeter columns. They were lighter in construction that the Sterett, and just bolted together and were hit by many times the weight of aircraft that DeMartini said they could take.
     
  5. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    'Electricity is not a form of energy'-Kokomojojo
     
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,574
    Likes Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Totally true!

    all that training and you do not know the difference between parallel and perpendicular? LOL

    those arent wing prints thats where they paint was blemished from the hstab.

    so energy is expended by piecing the armor but not when the wtc starts to fall, interesting dichotomy.

    usually the tail of a plane is attached to the plane and where they plane goes the tail usually follows you know. I realize this is really difficult stuff for those with all that training.

    so you are claiming that all the bolts broke.

    and how does that construction result in reduced ability to repel a plane.

    technical explanation if you are capable

    the wings never made it through the ship so show how you think they should have gone through the wtc.
     
  7. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What on earth is that about?

    Dude, the wings would have hit first with a lot more impact. You are not thinking.

    There was no new source of energy from the aircraft once the aircraft had penetrated either the ships or the towers. As each floor of the towers failed, there was additionalo energy available to do the work of breaking the next floor. The debris was an increasing supply of potential energy. This is not rocket science.

    Some times they break off. Anyone who has seen more than three crash scenes knows this. The best seat in an airliner, in terms of crash survival, is the last row of Coach Class.

    Bolted joints fail more easily than a contiguous sheet of steel.

    A 757 is a hell of a lot bigger and faster than a Zero.
     
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,574
    Likes Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really?

    How much more is a "lot" more? Like a "jiggaLot" more?

    Yeh Im thinking, I am trying to have a debate here but you keep posting all that worthless meaningless drivel like "lot".

    Really? So explosions do not count then right.

    Do you know what happened inside those buildings? If you do let nist know because they dont either.

    depends on how they are bolted more generalities since you obviously do not know that is the case in the wtc.

    well I dont care how big or fast a 757 is, you cant fly through a mountain so another one of your meaningless assertions.
     
  9. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Combat weight of the Zero was 5313 pounds.

    [QUOTE[For the current discussion, no.Really? So explosions do not count then right.

    We do know that no demolition charges went off, because there were no related phenomena obsrved.

    Well, DUH! There is no place into which to shove the outside of a mountain.

    The buildings were largely hollow, you know. That was the whole purpose in making them, to provide vast empty spaces with roofs and protective walls to keep out the rain and wind and cold.
     
  10. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,665
    Likes Received:
    3,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can always tell a truther by their inability to tell the difference between a building and a mountain.
     
  11. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think that is part of why there are so few actual pilots among the twoofers.

    Well, that and the fact that, in their vast headspace, controlled flight into terrain does not occur.

    God forbid that I should ever get on an airplane with a twoofy pilot.
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,574
    Likes Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yeh I was thinking thats why there are so few engineers and qualified people among the troughers.

    - - - Updated - - -

    you can always tell a trougher because of their inability to tell the difference between an explosion and CGI beer farts.
     
  13. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You got that bass ackwards. Little Dickie Gage is way outside his job discriotion.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Again, bass ackwards. You expect demolition charges to be far less loud than they actually are.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,574
    Likes Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    113
    at least he comes up with mostly correct answers unlike all these self proclaimed expert troughers who cant get even the simplest concepts correct
     
  15. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, he doesn't. According to the principles of physics that little Dickie has demonstrated, verinage is impossible.
     
  16. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can always tell a shill by their inability to to discuss anything rationally without resorting to ridicule, or by their inability to admit when they're wrong, and by the way they dodge a point when they don't have a bullet point to read from. Great gig, getting paid to defend a lie. Sweet deal. You all must use heavy meds to sleep at night.
     
  17. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you STILL whining about 'shills' fraud?

    If you can't PROVE it,move on...
     
  18. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bring a rational argument, if you have one. I just showed you that far lighter aircraft than a 757 have been known to penetrate steel. You got a problem with that? Got proof that it could not happen?

    "But.... DA JOOS!" doesn't work as evidence.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,574
    Likes Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    113
    partially penetrate steel
     
  20. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Betty that hit the Hinsdale penetrated all the way to the engine room.

    Of course, it does not matter that much, in the long run, since most of the damage done to the towers involve breaking thye connections between perimeter columns. Thus, either way, there is no reason for anyone to expect the aircraft to bounce off.
     
  21. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,665
    Likes Received:
    3,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You want me to rationally discuss the difference between a building and a mountain?
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,574
    Likes Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    113
    baloney, show me one situation where the whole plane went in. well except 911, on 911 they could have flown one into norad.
     
  23. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fact that something has not happened before is not, in itself, proof that it is impossible. The Hinsdale incident is proof that it is possible, as is the B-25 incident at the ESB. Bear in mind that the ESB was a much more crash-resistant target, and the B-25 a much lighter aircraft. Thus, the detached empanage of the B-25 is meaningless for this argument.

    The left wing of the Betty did penetrate the hull of the Hinsdale. Thus, we have no reason to expect the wings of the 757 not to penetrate the WTC. Once the fuselage and wings had penetrated, there was no reason to expect any other part of the 757 not to enter the hole as well. The hole in the towers was bigger than the cross-section of the fuselage of either plane.
     
  24. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, by your own definition - You are a shill.
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,574
    Likes Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    113

    did the whole plane go in, in any of those situations. that is the question, its a yes or no.

    the correct answer is no.

    can certain parts of a plane go in, its yes or no, the answer is yes.

    does anyone have any reason to believe that a whole plane goes in, in any situation without complete supporting evidence, the answer is no.
     

Share This Page