Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[yankee451]

Yankee,
You need to fact check your video.. the information about the facade columns is incorrect.
You need to bone up on mechanics
You need to obtain accurate structural information.
Your model is incorrect, your inputs are incorrect.. not completely but fatally to disqualify it. Back to the drawing boards.

Well considering the models were built from the blueprints you're going to have to be specific. Surely you can point to the errors

and most importantly..

You need to listen to criticism especially from scientists and engineers who have looked at the WTC collapses in detail and understand this far better than you.

Name one.

Your thinking is like a broken watch... correct 2x a day. That is there is some good analysis but lots of analysis and statements which are flat out wrong.

You need to leave out the politics and stick the the physics and engineering.

Physics is apolitical... as is engineering... even though physicists and engineers are.

Your politics is interfering with your thinking and poisoning your argument.

Project much?

 

[yankee451]

So are the trains.

When will you present evidence that trumps mine?

When you present some.

 

[Kid Eager]

And yet, unlike you I have provided documents proving the were in production well before 9/11.

The warheads are easily capable and match the sizes of the dents.

Another lie.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Yankee451, since you are a no planer, how do you explain the thousands of eye witnesses in NY and NJ who saw the planes hit the WTC, and the millions who saw it live on tv?


What do you think happened to the people who boarded the planes? They are all dead. What happened to them if you don't think planes hit the towers. Are you a No planer who just waves away the people ever having existed? What about the mourning families? Do you think they are putting on an act?

This. However, I don't expect to see a reasonable answer. Apparently, the burden of proof has shifted (in typical twoofer style).

 

[LSSBB]

Do you have any idea what “post production” means? Not to mention the very strict codes involving the inventory of such weapons. The article you posted does not say the USAF HAD 35 of these post production models; it said the USAF PLANNED to acquire these models. If I remember correctly, that plan failed.

IIRC, at the time they had a small running inventory of pilot units. They had significant accuracy problems they were still overcoming. Of course, that being the case, I am sure TPTB would jump at the chance to risk using them in a precision operation that would expose them to criminal prosecution should one of the units stray of course or fail.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Videos can be faked, and indeed all have been exposed as such, but the damage doesn't lie. People do though.

Citation please?

 

[Hans]

When you present some.

So your tactic is now just denial?

That should work to defeat science....lol

 

[yankee451]

So your tactic is now just denial?

That should work to defeat science....lol

As if you've ever used science to explain anything, ever, lol!

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

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.

Citation please for bolded statement?

 

[yankee451]

This. However, I don't expect to see a reasonable answer. Apparently, the burden of proof has shifted (in typical twoofer style).

Repeating the mantra "thousands of witness saw stuff', doesn't make it so, and the damage evidence says otherwise (you know, that which is detailed in the video you're avoiding like the plague?)

None of you have verified the "thousands of witnesses", but you can sure repeat the fairy tale. Hint: the same media that broadcast cartoon planes striking north-south but causing east-west damage is where the "thousands of witnesses" meme came from.

 

[yankee451]

Citation please for bolded statement?

It's your claim, give us the FEA.

I only pointed out that the Purdue cartoon is inconsistent with the observable damage evidence as well as the NIST report.

 

[Spanx]

Ok Yankee, I can see where your coming from and you have got me hooked

Where do we go from here ?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Unsupported assertion is unsupported

Repeating the mantra "thousands of witness saw stuff', doesn't make it so, and the damage evidence says otherwise (you know, that which is detailed in the video you're avoiding like the plague?)

None of you have verified the "thousands of witnesses", but you can sure repeat the fairy tale. Hint: the same media that broadcast cartoon planes striking north-south but causing east-west damage is where the "thousands of witnesses" meme came from.

You assert that "all" the videos of the second impact "can be faked, and indeed all have been exposed as such" without providing any citation or evidence. Please do so or withdraw the assertion.

Can someone quote me so the intellectual cowards reading can see this too?

 

[DGM]

If it's anything like a Predator, they are almost impossible to hear from any significant distance or with background noise.

The predator is made to be reasonable quite. The JASSM on the other hand doesn't need to be, once you hear it, you're screwed. It's fast and noisy.

 

[yankee451]

Ok Yankee, I can see where your coming from and you have got me hooked

Where do we go from here ?

Well you lot will go back to examining your navels and I'll carry on the good fight.

 

[fess]

And yet, unlike you I have provided documents proving the were in production well before 9/11.

No, you didn't.

The warheads are easily capable and match the sizes of the dents.

No, they weren't.

 

[DGM]

When you present some.

I did. You even responded to the post. I said it produces the same damage as a missile. I'm using the same standards of evidence you use.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

It's your claim, give us the FEA.

I only pointed out that the Purdue cartoon is inconsistent with the observable damage evidence as well as the NIST report.

I googled "purdue fea" and found many references to the FEA. Some of them are pretty technical and detailed.

Are you now asserting that the entire Purdue CS department is run by NWO Garden Gnomes, too?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/behin...on-on-the-2001-world-trade-center-attack/5442
https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/

 

[Slowvehicle]

And yet, unlike you I have provided documents proving the were in production well before 9/11.

The warheads are easily capable and match the sizes of the dents.

And yet, you have utterly failed to even begin to attempt to consider demonstrating that a JASSM (not in limited productin until after the 2006 test flight inaccuracy troubles) can be launched from a static platform. Less than 250 m off the ground. Less than 400 m from the target.

Good thing you have never thought about the size of a JASSM, or the mass...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Or:

Launchers
Missile parts
Ammunition transaction reports
"I did it" claims from crew members
Serial numbers
Video
Audio

ETA: Someone please quote me. I suspect I am one of the legion now on ignore...

QFT
(Although I suspect I am on the sooper-seekrit ignore list, also)