Holes shaped like planes?

No one made any such assumption.

It is you claiming that such things are blind assumptions.

They were aircraft there is nothing alleged about it. The evidence proves they were boeing aircraft and nothing else. No evidence can be made to suggest they were anything else.

And since they impacted the building your ignorance based calculations of the odds are simply false.

BTW the " breaking " strength is irrelevant when enough velocity is carried.

- - - Updated - - -

You have never provided information.

Stop looking to other people to vindicate your claims and provide some evidence or imformation rather than the vague feelings you have consistently posted so far.

Either support your claims or admit you have nothing

 

You have nothing ...... "irrelevant" ..... right?!?!?!?

 

I have the facts.

You have accusations without any.

The burden is on you to provide some and you never have

 

is this to be counted as one of your "facts"
really?

 

It is not MY fact it is an irrefutable fact of reality.

 

so this goes along with the claim that at 590 mph
an airliner would have soooo much energy because of its speed,
that the breaking strength of the WTC wall would be irrelevant.
is that what you think?

 

It's not a guess,it's what happened

Now who's guessing?

 

"its what happened" an assumption based on the defective
data that has been spewed fourth by the propaganda machine.

do tell, if "FLT11" & "FLT175" were real, then what happened
to their Flight Data Recorders? boxes designed to survive
a crash, but in this case not even a recognizable piece of one
survived to be identified. whats up with that?

The "loyal opposition" will not even address the fact
that since the alleged airliner hits to the towers could not
possibly have been perfectly perpendicular to the plane
of the wall, there would be serious asymmetrical forces to
deal with. does anyone want a real debate here or simply
an opportunity to call "truthers" wrong by making unfounded
assumptions.? what shall we have here?

 

AN object with enough velocity will crash through anything regardless of how strong or solid.'

The the case of 911 the velocity and mass of the aircraft was such that the impact was no mystery and the crash was not mysterious.

You cannot demonstarte any evidence to the contrary

- - - Updated - - -

It is solid and accurate data which you have failed to refute.

BTW questions are not evidence try presenting some evidence

 

You can see the plane's shape on the side of the buildings,you can see where the engines went in,you can see where the wingtips and vertical stabilizer hit,but didn't go in,and you can see the dihedral of the 767's wings.

That kind of information trumps your whining about me having a 'closed mind'

But I do agree,let the random readers look and come to their own conclusions,my hope is they'll have sense enough to know a 767 hit

 

They were NOT 'hollow on the inside',and they were more than aluminum shells

 

You demonstrate
not the strength of your case
but the state of your bias on this subject.

 

'It's what happened' is NO assumption..It's a FACT
And FDR and the CVR are NOT indestructable,certianly not with tons of rubble crushing them

There was only ONE force at play...forward momentum

 

looks rather hollow to me.

 

With the modifier of the resulting action upon the alleged aircraft
by striking a wall in a not perfectly perpendicular manner.

Not only that, but given the intense stress of penetrating a wall, why should the engines have remained attached to the wings?

The whole thing is a farce,
I've been shown the "pumpkin through a car door" video
and my response to this is that pumpkins do not have wings.
can you understand the differences?

 

It isn't FINISHED either,geeze!

 

I have no bias the fact, evidence and science simply proves you wrong and the burden is on you to prove otherwise with evidence

 

Doesn't matter if they stayed attached or NOT,they would have kept going in the direction of the plane


And the pumkin wasn't supposed to have 'wings',it was merely an example of a mass structurally weaker going through a stonger object

 

So you believe that the wings, even if detached from the airliner, would still have penetrated the wall? right?

also, may I cite the Myth Busters bit of shooting a ping-pong ball
through the paddle and also, upon penetration, the ball was completely destroyed and the act of penetration had used up its energy in that the
pieces of the ball fell down a very short distance from the paddle.
The airliner, if it was a case of a structurally weaker object penetrating a stronger object would have used up all of its energy just penetrating the wall and shredding the aircraft, but in the case of "FLT11" & "FLT175" the aircraft allegedly had sufficient energy to continue on inside the building until none of the aircraft was visible in the hole in the side of the tower.
damn good trick, don't you think?

 

I said nothing about the whole of the wings detaching,we were speaking of the engines.

Are you keeping up?

And the airliner WAS completly destroyed

 

a major question here is
was the airliner ( alleged airliner )
destroyed before or after it penetrated the wall?
and should it have kept its shape while penetrating
the WTC wall?

 

Yes,and why not?

 

genericBob's answer to this is because it wasn't probable. There is no math or engineering behind his answer. He's been provided FEAs to show that what happened is possible yet chooses to push this evidence aside based on the glaring, yet obvious "fact" that they are cartoons and that ANYONE can create cartoons to show whatever they want.

He has been asked that it these are cartoons (and thus faked FEAs), then someone from the thruther engineering community should have been able to show that they were faked based on producing their own FEAs. 13+ years and how many thousands of dollars donated from truthers to their deities and their respective organizations and not one person cam come up with this.

 

Where is the source data for these cartoons?
simple request .... where is it?

 

Simple answer:Ask them.