And a car, to those of us who know what we're talking about...

Anyway, "Sam_Fan" writes:

I'm an idiot? Harsh.

Harsh? Maybe, but apparently true: You obviously can't even read simple declarative sentences with any degree of understanding. (Or is English perhaps not your native language?)

"Thus the plane smashed right through the exterior."

Actually, no. There was no metallic confetti produced as one might expect when the aluminum fuselage struck the steel exterior.

Actually, numbskull, here's why one might NOT necessarily expect any "metallic confetti produced" -- the very next sentence before "Thus the plane smashed..." (and the reason that one starts with a 'thus'): "This is why they can make these buildings with every exterior wall consisting mostly of window".

Read that again: EVERY EXTERIOR WALL CONSISTING MOSTLY OF WINDOW.

Windows are made of glass. They DON'T make "confetti" out of metal aeroplanes. (Is there actually any reason to assume that even steel walls would? I doubt it, if for nothing else then because the idea comes from such an obvious maroon as you.)

On this site you'll see some pics of what we expect to see when a plane strikes a wall like this: [link|http://www.911-strike.com/missing-confetti.htm|http://www.911-strik...sing-confetti.htm]

Oh, yippiee -- YAN conspiracy-theory site, it seems (from what little I had the energy to read, before being overwhelmed by the cliché-ness of it all). Yeah, sure we'll believe that.

Hey, BTW, wasn't that the *Pentagon* your conspiracy-theory site discussed -- while Jay's reply was about the construction of the WTC towers?

No fucking wonder you seem to be talking total gibberish; it's because you ARE!

Instead of "smash[ing] right through the exterior" what we see when examining the video is a plane entering a steel building like a hot knife through butter.

Those two expressions -- "smashing right through", and "like a hot knife through butter" -- are pretty much synonymous, dimwit.

But, hey, welcome here, "Sam"!