>>13159326>Why do you think there was no damage?Ignoring all other context, my best guess is that despite the video footage from camcorders being wholly authentic, the aircraft themselves were likely to at least some degree fake. Putting it simply at least. Not saying that something solid did not hit the façade of the towers, but it is unlikely that it was a real airliner.
The only thing that could fit the job as far as I can tell would be those holographic devices attached to aerial platforms such as those developed by San Diego laboratories. On that note, contractors that were called on for the cleanup operations and into the investigations were those that specialized in optical holography and the development of directed energy weapons.
Otherwise, an airliner would have simply shattered on impact and ruptured the fuel tanks, dumping some of the kerosene through the windows as the tanks are being ruptured. The only components of an aircraft that could really deal any damage would be the engine blocks and their cores.
I just don't see any other plausible explanation considering the data. Extra equipment wouldn't be able to explain impossible physics, video fakery would be impossible due to the quantity of independent camcorder clips and their contents, northwood documents wouldn't explain the impossible physics or lack of any apparent collisions in the videos either nor the precision of the flight path.
Furthermore, consider the lack of any crash evidence, flight data recorders, or debris. You clearly see the building swallowing what appears to be an airliner, and then those buildings along with their contents turned into fine dust that went up into an atmosphere.
