And your point is what?
Kamikaze's used explosives. How does that compare to the WTC planes in regards to the official theory?
And your point is what?
Kamikaze's used explosives. How does that compare to the WTC planes in regards to the official theory?
You're assuming the explosives go off on contact with the ship and that's what makes the hole the aircraft then goes through.Kamikaze's used explosives. How does that compare to the WTC planes in regards to the official theory?
You're assuming the explosives go off on contact with the ship and that's what makes the hole the aircraft then goes through.
Many accounts of kamikazes have the aircraft penetrating into the ship first, then the bomb going off. Most bombs used against ships were armour piercing or semi-armour piercing types, since a general purpose bomb going off as soon as it contacted the metal hull or deck of a ship wouldn't cause nearly as much damage as one going off inside the hull. Preferrably deep inside the hull.
Kamikaze's used explosives. How does that compare to the WTC planes in regards to the official theory?
So your trying to say the aircraft that his the WTC were packed with explosives?
You're assuming all kamikazes carried bombs. This is incorrect. You're also still assuming it's the bomb which makes the hole, not the aircraft. Also incorrect, as I pointed out earlier.No I'm not comparing explosive loaded kamikaze planes with the planes that hit the WTC. That would be the op.
You're assuming all kamikazes carried bombs. This is incorrect. You're also still assuming it's the bomb which makes the hole, not the aircraft. Also incorrect, as I pointed out earlier.
LC are you not 'getting' this because you really don't get it, or do you act like this any time something comes up that may not suggest some deep dark conspiracy on 911?
Not getting what? Yet another lame attempt from the debunkers trying to explain what happened to the WTC by asserting some ridiculous comparison? What's the matter did you run out of highway overpasses?
What's so ridiculous about higway overpasses? Your the people who said no steel structure was brought down by fire other than the WTC. Im sorry we pointed out that you were wrong.Not getting what? Yet another lame attempt from the debunkers trying to explain what happened to the WTC by asserting some ridiculous comparison? What's the matter did you run out of highway overpasses?
The point was to show planes can crash through objects much more robust than they are.
Thanks AZcat for proving to us that Kamikazes were a false flag op!
And which assumptions would those be? Please list them.I'm not making assumtions any more then you are.
Three explosions rocked the troop-laden transport as the kamikaze's bombs exploded deep inside her and tore the engine room apart
And which assumptions would those be? Please list them.
I note you have also failed to acknowledge the point I made earlier about the bombs carried by kamikazes going off after the aircraft had penetrated the hull of a U.S. ship.
From the OP (emphasis added):
It's a self-serving debunker assumption that a plane alone caused the hole without any explosives. An assumption not based on any factual information or history in regards to kamikaze attacks.
It's a self-serving debunker assumption that a plane alone caused the hole without any explosives. An assumption not based on any factual information or history in regards to kamikaze attacks.