Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

Kid Eager said:
I've said it before: your force arrows are going in the wrong direction. The net force vector is *into* the building, not away from it. Reverse the direction of the arrows and you will see why the pillar deformations curve towards the point of impact.
Click to expand...

You're confused because you haven't watched the video.
 
yankee451 said:
And yet the damage allegedly caused by said plane indicates something else entirely, and from a different direction.

See, now's your chance to explain how the damage evidence is consistent with the story you don't question.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. The wholes in all of the structures and the ground at Shanksville are the exact sizes and shapes they need to be to have been made by anything other than the hijacked aircraft. No explosive device known to military science can make those sorts of hole nor fireballs.
 
yankee451 said:
How is the damage evidence consistent with a jet impact?
Click to expand...
The length of the gashes match approximately the length of an airliner wing. They were not strong enough to cut the full length. The wing tips are very fragile, usually.
How does jet fuel add density to aluminum sheeting formed into the shape of an airfoil?
How does jet fuel affect the modulus of elasticity of aluminum?
Click to expand...

Fuel has mass. That mass gave the sheet aluminum some kinetic force oon impact. Aluminum does not shatter easily when pressed down over its wholwe surface.
 
yankee451 said:
And yet the damage allegedly caused by said plane indicates something else entirely, and from a different direction.

See, now's your chance to explain how the damage evidence is consistent with the story you don't question.
Click to expand...

Nothing is alleged, your own video shows what happened.
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
The length of the gashes match approximately the length of an airliner wing. They were not strong enough to cut the full length. The wing tips are very fragile, usually.


Fuel has mass. That mass gave the sheet aluminum some kinetic force oon impact. Aluminum does not shatter easily when pressed down over its wholwe surface.
Click to expand...
ok, I watched the video, well most of it. I skipped the bits about 911 truths crazy ideas because you dont have to convince me that they crazy ideas. Its funny how you try to gain for yourself some kind of credibility by admonishing the other completely crazy ideas. But you are yourself entrering the land of cookoo.

For example:

- missing floors and furniture, really? I mean seriously? People did work in the building you know. It wasnt harry potter and the missing platform 9 and 3/4
- Removed bolts? Reeeeaaaallly?!!?
- Sloped back wings should show a different impact site?! Nah, becuase of the kinetic energy involved the slight angle of the wing would make no difference to speak of.


Look, its simples.

** There is video showing a plane hit, leaving the plane shaped hole. **

And

- Your ideas require that the plane would have to have been flown exactly into a specific location in the towers where the floors and bolts that were removed. You were talking about specific locations where the bolts were removed.

- Why bother removing the floors and bolts. Enough damage would have been caused anyway for the terrorists to achieve their goals. (and as we can see did more damage than they probably expected)

Your ideas are as silly as the dustification or the complete video hoax, or the no planers. Its completely ridiculous.

0/10 for the film. Its a joke.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
It certainly is relevant. Did you see the slow-motion video of the steel being sliced by the hollow, wing shaped cutting blade? No?

Want to take your best shot as to why steel cutting blades are not shaped like airfoils?
Click to expand...

Pop quiz: Which is more hollow, the wing or the steel columns?
 
yankee451 said:
You're confused because you haven't watched the video.
Click to expand...

I've quoted your exact post and explained why it's wrong:

Kid Eager said:
I've said it before: your force arrows are going in the wrong direction. The net force vector is *into* the building, not away from it. Reverse the direction of the arrows and you will see why the pillar deformations curve towards the point of impact.
Click to expand...


Where's the confusion?

Your diagrams shows that you have got your understanding of force and motion being the opposite of what does occur.

You repeat the mistake in the video.

Confusion? Yes, but not by me.
 
Last edited:
Kid Eager said:
I've quoted your exact post and explained why it's wrong:




Where's the confusion?

Your diagrams shows that you have got your understanding of force and motion being the opposite of what does occur.

You repeat the mistake in the video.

Confusion? Yes, but not by me.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

Here's a still shot of the video you won't watch accompanied by a snippet from the transcript you won't read

767 wings are swept-back about 30 degrees which would mean they would strike in a wedge motion, with the wings sawing from the inside out, from fuselage to wing-tips. The fuselage would strike first, and then would come the wings at the wing roots, followed by the engines and finally the wing tips. Had this happened the damage would reflect it – but it doesn’t.
Click to expand...

animated-MIT-approach1.gif


Some people think a real jet was modified to be able to slice into the building, but this directional damage proves that’s not the case too. Had there been a real, heavily reinforced jet that was at once dense enough to slice steel yet somehow light enough to fly, all the steel would bend SOUTH, in the direction of travel of the jet. In such a case, the wing damage would bend away from the center hole – the right wing would wedge the columns to the right and the left wing would wedge the columns to the left.
Click to expand...

screenshot-of-direction-of-travel-of-the-plane.png
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
You lost me. What hair are you trying to split, exactly?
Click to expand...
You don't do reality. You do lies about 911.

Radar data proves it was a 767, you don't do reality. Your family told you it was fiction, you keep doing it.

The dumbest part of your video, you debunk yourself showing Flight 11 impact the WTC. Radar backs the footage up. oops
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
You're confused because you haven't watched the video.
Click to expand...

I cant get videos. What`s it OF, anyway?
We all saw, live on tv, the jets crashing into the buildings.
What`s the argument here, anyway? What`s the debate? What`s the alternative theory that rules out what we saw live on tv was not real?
What was it?...doctored up live tv? Like we were all duped by a plot, and what we saw that day was computer generated?
 
yankee451 said:
Sigh.

Here's a still shot of the video you won't watch accompanied by a snippet from the transcript you won't read



[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/animated-MIT-approach1.gif[/qimg]



[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/screenshot-of-direction-of-travel-of-the-plane.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

and yet again, you are exactly wrong. The sequence of impact is not the same thing as the direction of the resulting forces. You keep repeating this mistake.
 
Last edited:
Kid Eager said:
and yet again, you are exactly wrong. The sequence of impact is not the same thing as the direction of the resulting forces. You keep repeating this mistake.
Click to expand...

You keep speaking as if you're some kind of authority but you're not really saying anything.

Would you like to borrow the model so you can demonstrate what you mean?
 
Iamme said:
I cant get videos. What`s it OF, anyway?
We all saw, live on tv, the jets crashing into the buildings.
What`s the argument here, anyway? What`s the debate? What`s the alternative theory that rules out what we saw live on tv was not real?
What was it?...doctored up live tv? Like we were all duped by a plot, and what we saw that day was computer generated?
Click to expand...

The transcript is linked in the OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom