Do the Crash Physics Prove No Planes?

[spooked911]

some dangerous people have written articles saying that no planes could have hit the WTC because the planes and the holes violate the laws of physics:

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=79

http://crashphysics.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-no-planes-could-have-struck-towers.html

Is there something wrong with these analyses?

[vincent_vega_lives]

1. clearly this analysis has serious issues

When you sit in a passenger jet and look out the window to the wings, what do you see ? A light aluminium structure which is segmented into panels and movable flaps. Hardly a cutting blade or battering ram, except against light materials.

He is forgetting the wing fuel tanks. Liquid fuel is very heavy.

The WTC was constructed of heavy construction steel, built to withstand hurricanes. We are asked to believe that such flimsy aluminium wings sliced through this structure decisively enough to make a cartoon type shape of themselves. Steel cutting blades are generally made from cobalt or tungsten and are either sharpened to precision or toothed.

Take any material and accelerate it fast enough and it can be surprising what it can penetrate, even without "precision sharpening or toothing".

What you can't have is a striking object destroying itself against the same object that its decisively punching through.

The examples he gives are idiotic. Small masses and very low velocities. When you get up to mass of tons at velocities of 100's of feet per second materials start to behave very differently.

What is impossible is for the plane to punch neatly through the building leaving a cartoon type shape of itself and *then* disintegrate into nothing. If this were possible we'd find the following examples in everyday life.

Again idiotic examples. He should look into kinetic energy penetrators used against tanks. They do just that. (Nothing disintegrates into 'nothing' BTW, as the planes that hit the towers certainly did NOT)

[jberryhill]

3. You aren't kidding....

Take any material and accelerate it fast enough and it can be surprising what it can penetrate, even without "precision sharpening or toothing"

Wood through brick:



Wood through concrete

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. Still looks like wood to me?

and once the wood hit something solid it lost it's momentum.

[vincent_vega_lives]

6. Yes and an 767 is a simple homogenous structure

like a block of wood. :eyes:

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. I didn't post the examples

n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

8. As usual you miss the point

Holmgren claims that aluminum could never penetrate steel. I made the point that with velocity, materials can and do act in ways you would not expect to see, and jberryhill posted pictures showing wood penetrating brick.

You implied that yes but the wood "still looks like wood", implying that it didn't disintegrate like a complex structure like an airframe would, and still retain it's momentum.

The former metaphor is specific and accurate to that extent, yours is not.

Good effort though. :applause:

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

9. That is a disingenuous comparison.

The examples that you have provided are a very poor comparison, as wood is 'solid' (i.e., very little air contained within its structure) and an airplane is 'hollow' (i.e., very much air contained within a thin membrane).

Also the wood in your examples has penetrated masonry (bricks are basically sand, water and concrete baked together, I worked in a brick plant and as a bricklayer in the '80's) , which is nowhere near as strong as forged metals.

Show me a pop/beer can punched through even a 1/8 inch thick steel, I'll even allow for a full, unopened can, not merely an empty one.

This topic reminds me of a 'karate expert' that I went to school with. He would bring short, 3/4 inch thick boards to school and make a big deal of breaking them with his hand. I offered to pay him $20 to break one of his own boards, provided that I set the board on the blocks. I simply turned his board 90 degrees so that he would hit it perpendicular to the grain instead of parallel to it. Guess what, he never did get the $20, as he couldn't break the board even when he tried with his foot.

[jberryhill]

12. Is this more genuous?

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center

J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 131, Issue 10, pp. 1066-1072 (October 2005)

Mohammed R. Karim1 and Michelle S. Hoo Fatt2
1Graduate Student, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Univ. of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-3903.
2Associate Professor, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Univ. of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-3903 (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected]

(Accepted 1 December 2004)

A numerical simulation of the aircraft impact into the exterior columns of the World Trade Center (WTC) was done using LS-DYNA. For simplification, the fuselage was modeled as a thin-walled cylinder, the wings were modeled as box beams with a fuel pocket, and the engines were represented as rigid cylinders. The exterior columns of the WTC were represented as box beams. Actual masses, material properties and dimensions of the Boeing 767 aircraft and the exterior columns of the WTC were used in this analysis. It was found that about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft was used to damage columns. The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130 m/s. It was also found that a Boeing 767 traveling at top speed would not penetrate exterior columns of the WTC if the columns were thicker than 20 mm.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

17. No, as it is merely proof of imagination.

If computer modelling is so precise when rendering complex interactions, Why is that car makers still smash real cars against real objects for safety testing?

[greyl]

19. They rely very heavily on computer simulations.

You speak as if they only crash cars.
Cars are cheap enough to do real world tests with, especially when ensuring safety and preventing lawsuits.

[jberryhill]

78. okay, then watch an airplane wing go through concrete...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4664242626206288868&q=plane+crash&hl=en

watch the wing tip on the view of the right side of the plane during impact.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

79. Nice try but NO cigar.

The wing part that you are saying is "going through" concrete is actually a piece that has broken off and is being flung forward, past the edge of the barrier.

Narrator: "Only the tips of the wings escaped total destruction."

[jberryhill]

80. Yes, that's what the narrator says

The wing tips do escape total destruction.

The rest of the wings are destroyed while cutting the very visible line through the concrete. If you can't see the concrete being sliced, then I just don't know how to help you there.

[CB_Brooklyn]

83. if you think the concrete is being "sliced"

then you need new eyeglasses.

Besides, the fighter jet didn't make a cartoon cutout of itself in the concrete like the CGI did in the south tower.

Sorry, but aluminum airplanes don't smoothly glide through beams of structural steel and slabs of steel reinforced concrete like it glides through the air.

If the crash was real, the fuel-filled wings would have exploded on impact in a fireball, the tail would have snapped off, the fuselage would have crushed and/or twisted, pieces of plane parts would have fallen down, etc. It certainly would NOT have glided through the building as if the building wasn't even there.

[vincent_vega_lives]

14. How 'bout plastic?

EM guns come in two varieties, continual (or linear) accelerators called rail guns, and pulse accelerators, called coil guns. Essentially two electrically charged rails, rail guns use the repulsive effect of the two magnetic fields created by the charged rails to continuously accelerate a conductive billet (called an armature) down the barrel. Because the rail gun is accelerating the armature, a non-metallic (plastic or ceramic) projectile can be used as the actual penetrator.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_TankGun,,00.html

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

18. From your link.

Coil guns, as the name implies, are made up of a series of individual EM coils wrapped around a non-conductive barrel. The coil gun accelerates the projectile, which in this case must be made of a ferromagnetic (affected by magnetic fields) but non-magnatizable metal, by energizing the coils individually to attract the projectile to the center of each coil. As the projectile is pulled into the center of each coi,l the electrical current is cut and the next coil in the sequence is energized, accelerating the projectile down the barrel. Both types of EM cannon offer significant improvements in KE over current expanding gas weapons but, the technologies needed to move these weapons from the laboratory onto the battlefield may not become available for a while.

It would seem that you're example does not measure up, but thanks for playing. Vanessa is waiting in the Green Room with some wonderful parting gifts for you though.

[vincent_vega_lives]

20. No Shit it isnt in production

Doesn't measure up to what? The DoD acquisitions? The physics are valid in the lab, just using rail guns as an example.

The point still stands or are you just proving you are in over yer head? Do you even grasp the point?

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

21. I won't bother to hold my breath waiting....

for that picture of the can shot through the plate steel by your Railgun, seeing as there is no way to get one to make an attempt with, yet. I ask for a picture of can shot through plate steel and you provide a link to a weapon that has only been used under very controlled conditions.

Your "plastic/ceramic" projectiles only count if they are hollow or liquid filled, not solid objects, as airliners are not solid objects meant to penetrate hard targets.

So could you please either provide the picture/video that was requested or at least stop with the misdirection.

Hocus Pocus, change that Focus.

[vincent_vega_lives]

22. Please bother

So then I take it you agree with this then?

The WTC was constructed of heavy construction steel, built to withstand hurricanes. We are asked to believe that such flimsy aluminum wings sliced through this structure decisively enough to make a cartoon type shape of themselves. Steel cutting blades are generally made from cobalt or tungsten and are either sharpened to precision or toothed.

If unsharpened, untoothed aluminium wings, with moveable panels could slice through construction steel like this, then blades for cutting steel would be a whole lot cheaper and less demanding of precision manufacture than what they are. This alone is enough to show that the 767 type shape in the wall, including an almost exact fit for the wings is an absurdity.

:eyes:

Mr Holgrum is not arguing tin cans, he is arguing that "unsharpened, untoothed aluminium wings" cannot "slice cartoon like" through "construction steel". They should have disintegrated against the wall of the tower I assume, so I assume even he thinks the "empty beer can" fuselage should have penetrated I guess.

If so, then the wreckage can't just disappear into effectively nothing.

I have no idea where he gets this idea from. As the aircraft body is crushed, it continues to retain it's 70 ton mass and momentum. I can't believe anyone with a clue would argue that the plane should have either bounced off or gone through the building undamaged, as in his asinine examples offered?

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

23. Airliner vs. light tier

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa1420/photo.shtml

Airliner: 0 --- Light Tier: 1

I know that it isn't really a good comparison to the WTC towers, seeing how the metal (possibly Adamantium, as it sliced through the plane like a giant version of Wolverine's claws) structure here is only meant to hold the weight of several lights, not withstand hurricane force winds while supporting several thousand tons of additional materials, i.e. people, office equipment, etc.

Photos 3&7 show a nice profile view of the plane and the pole that cut into the fuselage. Photos 8&9 show the pole has indeed cut halfway through the plane.

[vincent_vega_lives]

26. Now you've proved you don't know what your talking about

did you even read the discription?

The aircraft crashed on landing in Little Rock, Arkansas during a thunderstorm. Winds just before the accident were reported from 040 at 10, gusts to 76 knots. The aircraft overran the runway, and collided with an approach light tier, breaking the fuselage into three pieces.

[spooked911]

28. You still haven't given an example where this is wrong.

"What you can't have is a striking object destroying itself against the same object that its decisively punching through."


Also, I don't see where kinetic energy penetrators disintegrate after they penetrate.

[spooked911]

36. I'd still like an example of any object disintegrating as it collides with another object

anmd produces a silhouette entry hole.

Besides the WTC crashes of course.

[spooked911]

37. I'd still like an example of any object disintegrating as it collides with another object

and the striking object produces a silhouette entry hole.

Besides the WTC crashes of course.

[spooked911]

40. I'd still like an example of any object disintegrating as it collides with another object

and the striking object produces a silhouette entry hole.

Besides the WTC crashes of course.

[vincent_vega_lives]

43. Funny

but the entry hole is hardly a "sihouette" of a 767.

[spooked911]

45. It was pretty darn close

I'd still like an example of any object disintegrating as it collides with another object-- and the striking object produces a rough "silhouette" entry hole.

[vincent_vega_lives]

52. So now we go from

"producing a sillouette hole" to "pretty darn close"? What would you expect? A 15' diameter circle?

[jberryhill]

81. Hollow Point Bullets

Do just that.

Bullet hole on the outside - fragmentation and major tissue disruption on the inside.

[vincent_vega_lives]

42. Look up 'depleted uranium penetrator' and 'pyrophoric'

It's wrong because you are using the word "destroy" wrong. The plane did not dissapear.

[spooked911]

46. Where did the plane go, if it didn't disappear?

In any case, a highly reactive metal such as DU that burns up when exposed to air is not comparable to conventional structural materials, such as the aluminum that makes up a plane. The DU example is not unlike a form of penetrating explosive.

[vincent_vega_lives]

48. Mostly in the fucking building obviously

Some passed through and landed in the street. It don't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Holy Shit.

DU does not burn up when exposed to air. DU is not a penetrating explosive. But why am I surprised?

[spooked911]

49. Isn't the idea that DU is "pyrophoric" and burns when exposed to air?

that is what wikipedia said-- and they never lie. :)

[vincent_vega_lives]

51. I've said it before, I'll say it again

You have issues with reading comprehension.

On impact with a hard target, such as an armoured vehicle, the nose of the rod fractures in such a way that it remains sharp. The impact and subsequent release of heat energy causes it to disintegrate to dust and burn when it reaches air because of its pyrophoric properties (compare to ferrocerium). After a disintegrated DU penetrator reaches the interior of an armored vehicle, it explodes, often igniting ammunition and fuel, incinerating the crew, and causing the vehicle to explode.

I belive the quote was that "nothing can disintergrate AND still penetrate an object".

[spooked911]

53. Here is the actual quote from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
On impact with a hard target, such as an armoured vehicle, the nose of the rod fractures in such a way that it remains sharp. The impact and subsequent release of heat energy causes it to disintegrate to dust and burn when it reaches air because of its pyrophoric properties (compare to ferrocerium). When a DU penetrator reaches the interior of an armored vehicle, it catches fire, often igniting ammunition and fuel, killing the the crew, and possibly causing the vehicle to explode.

It doesn't say "After a disintegrated DU penetrator...". You ADDED IN THE WORDs "After a disintegrated".

WHY THE HELL ARE YOU ALTERING A QUOTE TO MAKE YOUR POINT????

And in fact, the way you added in that word DRAMATICALLY changed the meaning of the quote-- making it sound like the round disintegrates completely as it penetrates. When in fact, the quote does not say that.

How DARE you accuse me of reading comprehension when you display such intellectual dishonesty!

I do note you didn't dare link to the actual page. Clever.

But the rest of the quote is identical to the Wikipedia entry. That is HIGHLY unethical.

I really never expected such behaviour from someone who says they are interested in the truth.

Finally, a check of the history of the Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Depleted_uranium&action=history
shows that the quote has not been altered significantly in the past week.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

55. What are you referring to please.

The Bold in the snip? Yes I bolded it to bring it to your attention.

"Unethical behaviour" YGTBFKM :eyes:

[spooked911]

75. why didn't you put a link in

and that quote was NOT in wikipedia

[greyl]

58. Bullshit! You've made a simple mistake, I forgive you. vvl did nothing unethical.

Too bad you didn't check your facts before throwing around accusations.

http://www.wiki-mirror.us/index.php/Depleted_uranium



edit: changed gif for clarity

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. WTF????

Are you fucking kidding me?

I suppose those are the dangers of using wiki!

Oh well I thought I was going nuts!

You know, all this over proving a lame point too.

[spooked911]

76. What is this "wiki-mirror" and why would someone use it over

the regular wikipedia?

[vincent_vega_lives]

56. Thats odd.

I added the bold HTML yes. Don't recall adding anything else. Suppose I could have added as a clarification of the previous sentence. But don't recall doing that, could've sworn it was a straight cut and paste.

Though you are lying about it DRAMATICALLY changing the meaning of the quote, which led me to at first believe you changed the text yourself. As the preceding sentence CLEARLY states the projectile disintegrates to dust.

The impact and subsequent release of heat energy causes it to disintegrate to dust and burn when it reaches air because of its pyrophoric properties (compare to ferrocerium).

So it is moot anyway, which is why I am unclear why I would've added it.

Regardless, perhaps I was careless in my use of quotes, and should have been clearer that the addition was added for emphasis.

Bravo sir, you win, no planes could have hit the WTC. :eyes:

Oh BTW...you STILL have issues with reading comprehension.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. VincentVega, come on down!

You're the first contestant in the fast-paced game, "Payback for MirandaPriestly"!

[greyl]

59. See post 58 nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

61. Now it's official

You sir are an @.

I demand a retraction.

[greyl]

62. That would be fair, wouldn't it? nt

[spooked911]

77. Fine, I will retract. However-- you should have provided your source in the first place.

And WHY IS IT that the main Wikipedia has those words deleted anyway?

Also, I didn't expect so many sites would have the same quote as wikipedia but would have that slightly modified version. I find it very odd.

[spooked911]

47. thanks for the example though

[spooked911]

50. Though I should clarify-- I wanted an example where the object

that was smashing through something cleanly was then smashed to tiny bits by the very object it smashed.

Any sort of real world coliision example would be great.

Thanks.

[jberryhill]

82. Bullet Fragmentation

What do I win? An essay on "Compare and contrast an aircraft fuselage with a fragmentation round?" I see quite a few similarities.

http://www.wheelessonline.com/ortho/bullet_fragmentation_a_major_cause_of_tissue_disruption

Bullet fragmentation: a major cause of tissue disruption
Fackler ML. Surinchak JS. Malinowski JA. Bowen RE. Journal of Trauma. 24(1):35-9, 1984 Jan. long, machine-made at Letterman Army Institute of Research) and fragmenting soft-point bullets (5.56 mm, 3.2 gm, 1.7 cm long, commercially made by Hornady Manufacturing Co., Grand Island, NE) were compared when they were fired through soft tissue of the hind legs of five live swine (50 to 70 kg). The swine were anesthetized endotracheally (0.8% halothane) and placed in the supine position with the hind legs extended. Blocks of tissue simulant (10% gelatin at 4 degrees C, molded in blocks 20 X 22 X 47 cm) were placed against the skin at the predicted point of bullet exit. All shots (a fragmenting bullet through one hind leg and a nonfragmenting bullet through the other hind leg of each swine) were fired at a range of 3 m from a rifle with a bullet tract at 90 degrees to the long axis of the swine's body. Bullet velocities ranged from 930 to 990 m/s. Dissections of the bullet tract (through tissue and gelatin) revealed that tissue disruption from the fragmenting bullets was significantly greater (p less than 0.001) than from nonfragmenting bullets. The recovered bullets were weighed. The results showed that the fragmenting bullet lost 59 to 77% of its original weight and the nonfragmenting bullet was the same weight as originally. Recognition of the amount of tissue disruption and identification of bullet fragments in the wounds resulting from the two different bullets should be a useful guide to operating surgeons in selecting the best approach for treatment of gunshot injuries.

[treestar]

63. It may be "surprising what it can penetrate" but what can it

penetrate, reduced to mathematical terms? Surely there is an equation that would apply to this. There would be a constant about how much force and how much mass it takes to penetrate another mass, standing still. So what is that equation?

[KJF]

2. I had a look at the Holmgren thing

It just the usual no-planeism. I know the perimeter columns look "beefy" (over 14 inches thick), but they are completely hollow, the steel in each side would be (off the top of my head) about half an inch thick at the impact levels. There's nothing wierd about the inner portion of the plane's wings severing some of the columns - the fuel is stored in the inner part of the wings, that's what makes them heavy and able to cut through the columns. The outboard portion of all four wings did not sever the columns.

[mirandapriestly]

4. OR

You can just watch the footage. The planes in the footage taken that day are suspicious if not down right blatantly fake or worse, missing entirely. It is overwhelming. Until I watched them I didn't realize how totally fake the whole presentation was. It was a sort of "war of the "worlds" media event and it wasn't even done very well, but well enough, I guess. But no one thinks something like this could happen, so no one questioned it.

[William Seger]

15. You really should get the opinion ...

... of someone familiar with things like resolution, video artifacts, compression artifacts, and even simple stuff like camera angles before jumping to conclusions like that. You don't even need to be an expert to see that the "analysis" done by the "no-planers" is definitely underwhelming.

[TheWraith]

10. A lot of half truth and bald faced lies, there.

While it's true that aluminum is (usually) weaker than steel, his reasoning is completely out the window. (Of course, for a "no plane" person, that's practically a given.) Yes, the planes would have eventually shredded themselves against the steel structure of the towers. But that wouldn't alter their total mass and intertia, which would still have done massive damage. Imagine a tractor-trailer carrying steel rods on a highway at 70 MPH, when the straps break, and the beams go flying. Are the rods no longer dangerous because they're not in a coherent structure?

I'd say more, but this silliness isn't worth wasting that much breath.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Another excellent analogy. n/t

[MervinFerd]

13. Do Calendar Physics prove that Today is Friday?

Maybe.

Hell, just because -all- the experts (and everyone else) says Today is Wednesday, doesn't make it so.

Today is Friday!

Holy Freakin' Jesus on a Boat Trailer! Jetliners hit the buildings. Today is Wednesday.

There is utterly no rational argument here. It is pointless to defend a proposition proved beyond all possible doubt. Anyone claiming the contrary is just not subject to rational argument.

QED.

[William Seger]

16. "Is there something wrong with these analyses?"

Yes: A lack of physics. Physicists argue with math based on accepted theories of physics, not with naked "this is what I imagine" and "that can't be" assertions.

[treestar]

64. Then explain it with physics

The trouble with expertise is that it is useless unless you can communicate it to the non-experts.

[AZCat]

69. Useless?

What a clever way to ignore any explanation that you can't understand, because obviously the problem is with the expert, not with you.

[treestar]

72. If the expert cannot explain it to non-experts, how can he/she

convince them of it?

If it is scientific it can be explained. And without being snarky or condescending.

I think the "experts" are generally self-styled as such. If you understand it, explain it without being a smart ass. Otherwise I will conclude you don't really understand it, and are choosing to believe the official theory as an emotional decision.

[AZCat]

74. That's funny.

I like how you use your own ignorance as a defense.

[mirandapriestly]

24. Planes don't disappear into buildings without any trace

two of them almost identical.

[LARED]

25. Why do you post stuff you know is patently false?

Plane parts were in the street, on roofs of other buildings, jet fuel explosions.......

[spooked911]

27. we've seen a picture of an engine under a canopy

and a tire or two--

all could have been planted.

Haven't seen other significant debris.

Explosion doesn't prove jet fuel.

[LARED]

29. And large sections of fuselage on roofs

All planted?

If the fire ball explosions were not from fuel, what were they from?

Also, if you are going to imply the plane parts were planted, perhaps providing ANY evidence of that would be warranted.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

30. Don't worry the truthers "are just asking questions"

which means Truthiness-seekers can insinuate anything (planted evidence, bribed scientists, eyewitnesses of planes hitting the WTC are CIA plants) without substantiation and ask you to disprove their insinuations. When the 'OCTer' presents evidence, the cycle is then repeated.

[spooked911]

31. I've seen one section of fuselage-- on the roof of WTC5-- may well

have been planted.

Now you're just saying fuel when before you said jet fuel. Fireball could have been from some other fuel in the building.

Evidence of planted parts is how did an eninge end up under a canopy?

How did part of the flight 93 fuselage end up completely stripped of everything and barely look singed?

Etc.

[G Hawes]

32. There are lots more than that

haven't you seen these ones?

[spooked911]

34. I only see remotely plane-like debris in the first two

and even then, it is hardly definitive that those are plane parts

[DoYouEverWonder]

71. Parts have serial numbers

I should not have been difficult to confirm where those parts came from.

Oh course, that would require a real investigation and we can't have that now, can we?

[G Hawes]

73. They are photos taken by a twoofer

who says he was on site, says they are definitely plane parts, and they are posted on twoofer websites, btw.

[LARED]

33. Fireball could have been from some other fuel in the building.

Like what kind? How did it get there? How did not one notice this fuel?

Again, if you're going to imply plane parts were planted you are obligated to provide SOMETHING to base that speculation on.

Do you think a smashed up jet engine was just dropped off in the middle of Manhattan and no one noticed?

[spooked911]

35. there are lots of possible explanations for this-- it is the least of the problems

for this theory.

As far as the engine, I think the engine could have been covered up and then uncovered at the right time. Remember it was under a construction canopy.

Or it was dropped off the back of a van. This is manhattan, people would hardly pay attention-- especially when they are looking at the WTC.

[LARED]

38. If there are lots of explanations, can you provide at least

a single rational one?

[spooked911]

39. fuel-bomb, incendiary missile, etc

[mirandapriestly]

41. Did you say "fireball" Lared?

Why, I believe these nice soldiers are using some sort sort of laser weaponry, and what is that ? Could it be....a fireball?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GB67yyWjFk

[LARED]

65. What makes you think this is a laser?

and what blew up?

Lasers do not explode like an bomb, or a fuel explosion.

[AZCat]

66. You're not going to get an answer, LARED.

That poster is no longer part of our online community.

[LARED]

67. Wow, I'm getting misty thinking of all the times

she implied I'm a shill, Republican. disinfo agent, yadda, yadda, yadda,

[AZCat]

68. Pull yourself together, man!

The GOP/CIA/whoever isn't paying us to be sentimental!

[LARED]

70. Sniff. You're right.. I'll try and focus on "business"

On an only slightly more serious note, I wonder if this is a sign the no-planers wore out their welcome.

[vincent_vega_lives]

44. So this is the latest junk theory?

Some come and go others persist. The "disintegrating spire" was supposed to prove nefarious energy beam weapons of some sort. Anyone still buy that?

Molten steel proves the use of thermite. This one still persists.

The pulverized concrete core was supposed to prove C-4 coated rebar. Is that passe' now?

We've went from the planes needed a "missile pod" to make the crash more dramatic (visible in the pictures of course) to now there were no planes!?! What does that mean for the POD people?

No planes why? Because the wings weren't made of toothed tungsten blades?

"It would be impossible for the planes to crash through the solid steel perimeter columns because..." therefore there WERE NO PLANES. How far the mediocre have fallen.