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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can always tell a truther by their inability to tell the difference between a building and a mountain.
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.
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.
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.
at least he comes up with mostly correct answers unlike all these self proclaimed expert troughers who cant get even the simplest concepts correct
No, he doesn't. According to the principles of physics that little Dickie has demonstrated, verinage is impossible.
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.
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.
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.
baloney, show me one situation where the whole plane went in. well except 911, on 911 they could have flown one into norad.
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.
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.
