Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[DGM]

Oh brother.

The bent and twisted columns are ample evidence of multiple projectiles in east-west trajectories, not one large one in a north-south trajectory. But besides, a Boeing 767 couldn't cause the damage, else you'd be able to point to said proof, or attempt to provide your own.

Good luck.

Multiple projectiles that not one person saw. You do know people live in NYC?

 

[yankee451]

Multiple projectiles that not one person saw. You do know people live in NYC?

Another genius comment.

"Someone had fired missiles at the World Trade Center's north tower from atop the nearby Woolworth Building."

WNBC News

"...we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of the Woolworth Building."

Port Authority Police Officer
WNBC News

"They're shooting at the Trade Center from the Woolworth Building."

Radio Dispatch
NY Daily News

"The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building."

WTC Police Channel 07
Mercury News

"Woolworth Building! They're firing missiles from Woolworth Building!"

Police Channel
Portland Inymedia


"...there was a missile launch at the Woolworth building."

Police Officer, 09:18AM
Mailgate News

"...the police had a report that a missile had been fired at the World Trade Center from the Woolworth building."

Alan Reiss, WTC Police Desk
9-11 Commission Hearing

" There was a 'swooshing' sound, then an explosion, and it sounded really low. It was if someone, one or two floors above me, had launched a shoulder-fired missile."

Lance Cpl. Alan Reifenberg
Marine Corps News

As we pulled ‘round the corner, we stopped the rig, and a cop walked over to us and said, `I saw them shoot a missile launcher off that building, you guys better be careful up there.’

NYC Fireman
Mr.Bellers Neighborhood

So if we follow the trajectories of the bent and twisted columns to see where they came from, the path takes them right past the Woolworth building.

Next!

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Now's your chance to explain how the damage evidence is consistent with a Jet. You can even use math, but you won't, 'cause you can't.

You are cherry picking the evidence and ignoring all the video and plane ejecta. And because you are an intellectual coward you have me on ignore because I keep bringing this up.

The math of the impact energy of the plane has been presented but you dismiss it with a hand wave.

The math of the ejecta has been presented to you but you put me on ignore rather than address it.

Over 20 different videos from a range of distances and angles have been repeatedly presented to you but ignored.

Instead you are pointing to perceived inconsistencies in a chaotic impact event.

That's not science but religion.

 

[DGM]

Another genius comment.



So if we follow the trajectories of the bent and twisted columns to see where they came from, the path takes them right past the Woolworth building.

Next!

Nice quotes.

I heard it was a freight train. Hundreds of people said they heard one.

Try harder next time.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

There has never been any such proof, never. No one has performed an analysis to prove a jet could do what we were told. Zip. Zero. Nada. Every single one of them threw in the towel.

Why do you keep misrepresenting the truth?

The Purdue FEA simulation did just that. Why do you keep misrepresenting the truth?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You are cherry picking the evidence and ignoring all the video and plane ejecta. And because you are an intellectual coward you have me on ignore because I keep bringing this up.

The math of the impact energy of the plane has been presented but you dismiss it with a hand wave.

The math of the ejecta has been presented to you but you put me on ignore rather than address it.

Over 20 different videos from a range of distances and angles have been repeatedly presented to you but ignored.

Instead you are pointing to perceived inconsistencies in a chaotic impact event.

That's not science but religion.

In a thread which desperately needs more substance, use of the ignore function doesn't help. So, have a free quote.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Also, I really would still like to see a substantive answer to this:

The image accompanying this shows highlighted seams of damaged columns where the sections which the aircraft would have struck have been carried away but the neighbouring section which the aircraft would not have struck remains in place.

Now that looks to me as if a horizontal impact close to the joint caused the joint to fail rather than bending the whole column as a unit. So far so not very surprising.

Can you explain in more detail which aspect of this you find unexpected?

 

[Slowvehicle]

There has never been any such proof, never. No one has performed an analysis to prove a jet could do what we were told. Zip. Zero. Nada. Every single one of them threw in the towel.

Why do you keep misrepresenting the truth?

Is it your contention that every one of the witnesses that witnessed the airplanes doing the damage to the towers is consistently and continually misrepresenting the truth?

Speaking of "throwing in the towel", you have been offered several opportunities to participate in demonstrating that a 767 could, in fact, cause the damage that a 767 was, in fact, observed to cause. Why do you continue to ignore the question?

 

[yankee451]

Nice quotes.

I heard it was a freight train. Hundreds of people said they heard one.

Try harder next time.

So sayeth he who cannot produce anything other than fraudulent video and hearsay to support his beliefs.

You claimed not one person saw multiple missiles. I proved you wrong with many reports. On top of that the damage evidence discussed in my video would take them right past the Woolworth building.

So I have provided eye witness accounts that match the damage evidence exactly. Don't you wish the damage evidence supported your argument?

Try harder next time.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Oh brother.

The bent and twisted columns are ample evidence of multiple projectiles in east-west trajectories, not one large one in a north-south trajectory. But besides, a Boeing 767 couldn't cause the damage, else you'd be able to point to said proof, or attempt to provide your own.

Good luck.

How odd that thousands of people observed two 767s, in fact, doing the damage that is, oddly enough, attributed to the two 767s that were observed to do the damage; while not one person saw a single JASSM (never mind the inventory issue, or the anachronism issue), not to mention somehow missing a swarm of 56 perfectly timed JASSMs...

 

[DGM]

So sayeth he who cannot produce anything other than fraudulent video and hearsay to support his beliefs.

You claimed not one person saw multiple missiles. I proved you wrong with many reports. On top of that the damage evidence discussed in my video would take them right past the Woolworth building.

So I have provided eye witness accounts that match the damage evidence exactly. Don't you wish the damage evidence supported your argument?

Try harder next time.

What about the trains? You haven't accounted for them yet.

Nicholas Borrillo -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) on 23rd floor of North Tower:
Then we heard a rumble. We heard it and we felt the whole building shake. It was like being on a train, being in an earthquake. A train is more like it, because with the train you hear the rumbling, and it kind of like moved you around in the hall.

Paul Curran -- Fire Patrolman (F.D.N.Y.) North Tower:
I went back and stood right in front of Eight World Trade Center right by the customs house, and the north tower was set right next to it. Not that much time went by, and all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet.

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) T]he ground started shaking like a train was coming. You looked up, and I guess -- I don't know, it was one that came down first or two? Which one?

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47] At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118] You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.

http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

Try again.

 

[ozeco41]

... Presently, the imperial foot-pound is more empirically understood here in the US than the metric joule....

Not only in the US of A

Some "mature aged" engineers in AU also affected.

Specifically those engineers who append "41" to their user name.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You claimed not one person saw multiple missiles. I proved you wrong with many reports.

Which one of your reports saw multiple missiles? How many of them are merely re-reporting the same rumour? How many of them once knew a guy whose sister was once served a Kentucky Fried rat?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Another genius comment.



So if we follow the trajectories of the bent and twisted columns to see where they came from, the path takes them right past the Woolworth building.

Next!

Wait:

Are you actually pretending that JASSMs were fired "from the Woolworth Building"?

 

[fess]

Oh brother.

The bent and twisted columns are ample evidence of multiple projectiles in east-west trajectories, not one large one in a north-south trajectory. But besides, a Boeing 767 couldn't cause the damage, else you'd be able to point to said proof, or attempt to provide your own.

Good luck.

Multiple projectiles of what? Missiles? Where are the signs of multiple projectile exploaions? They weren’t in your video, or the Naudet video. And, how were these projectiles smuggled out of inventory? There was however the sound of a very large jet overhead just before the impact.

A 767 couldn’t cause the damage shown? Why?

 

[DGM]

Which one of your reports saw multiple missiles? How many of them are merely re-reporting the same rumour? How many of them once knew a guy whose sister was once served a Kentucky Fried rat?

................why has yankee451 not acknowledged the trains?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

How odd that thousands of people observed two 767s, in fact, doing the damage that is, oddly enough, attributed to the two 767s that were observed to do the damage; while not one person saw a single JASSM (never mind the inventory issue, or the anachronism issue), not to mention somehow missing a swarm of 56 perfectly timed JASSMs...

...not to mention that the accuracy of the JASSM is not sufficient to strike across the face of the tower at a steep angle with the precision required to make a 767-wing-sized gash. Imagine if one missile had been even a metre off course to the left or right; the wing impression would have been far too long or too short.

 

[yankee451]

The Purdue FEA simulation did just that. Why do you keep misrepresenting the truth?

LOL, that was not an FEA.

As stated in my video showing the "impact" from Purdue's cartoon, they didn't represent the damage. They showed the wings sliding effortlessly into the tower, totally contrary to what the NIST claimed, as well as the visible damage. It's in the video, I'm surprised you missed it.

 

[yankee451]

What about the trains? You haven't accounted for them yet.



http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

Try again.

So you're saying the trains match the damage evidence? Interesting. I've never heard that one. Hologram trains or real ones?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Wait:

Are you actually pretending that JASSMs were fired "from the Woolworth Building"?

Well, the bad guys needed to create 4 wing-sized gashes in the towers, and they certainly don't all point downwards toward nearby buildings, so I'm interested to hear the answer.