Actually, it's not the aircraft itself, but the wingtips if I've understood this correctly.

I wasn't really shooting for specificity, unless you don't consider the wingtips to be part of the aircraft.

How does that follow? Source? This is critical to your entire point, so you need to back this up.

70 stories up in the air is "high altitude"? I've been on cliffs and mouintains way higher than that, and the turbulence up in the air wasn't very impressive.

Ok, I'm just going to point out that this is why normal, rational people think you guys are fucking lunatics. You asked me for a source on "it's windy on top of buildings" and "air moving in one direction affects air moving in a different direction." Like, really? If someone tells you that grass is green do you ask them to cite where they got their information?

I'm very interested in how this just cancels out the wake turbulence that the wings have already created.

Because the air being displaced by, you know, hitting a concrete and steel wall has to go somewhere, and a portion of that includes back into the eddies created by the plane?

Look at this . A much lesser plane crashing, and you can instantly see the vortexes in the smoke.

And even with that tiny plane you can see that there is no vortex, just roiling smoke that's sort of curving. Probably because said plane hit the ground.

Listen, slick. You conspiracy nuts should learn basic fluid dynamics before commenting on stuff like this, for one, but more importantly you need to be working on solidifying your own hypothesis and presenting it, rather than trying to pretend like airflow in a fucking explosion is somehow linearly scalable or even indicative of anything one way or another. I'd suggest starting on how the shadow government (or lizard people or whatever) managed to convince a large number of eyewitnesses (and their video cameras) that a plane was actually there.