Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[yankee451]

Why? Who do I need to convince?

You gave me a link to the Purdue site as if it was "proof":

links are included:

https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/

It was not.

Give me the links to the Purdue calculations or withdraw the claim that they provided calculations to support their cartoon.

 

[JSanderO]

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

Name one.

The facade columns varied in thickness from 2" inches for the flanges to 1/4" at the top. Have a look at the attached to get an idea of what they were. AND they weren't even the same on one floor because of the stagger pattern.

Your wrong about the number of bolts connection the spandrels. Have a look.

That's 2 for starters

Project much?

No I don't. I don't accept the NIST report because I find errors and flaws in it. I don't accept any presentation which is full of errors as FACT. You can advance a theory... as you did. But others have pulled the rig out from under it by showing numerous factual errors.

 

[Robrob]

You gave me a link to the Purdue site as if it was "proof":

It was not.

Give me the links to the Purdue calculations or withdraw the claim that they provided calculations to support their cartoon.

Why are CT incapable of doing their own research?

 

[fess]

I am not going to engage in of-topic discussions, so you might as well try to answer how a jet striking in a north-south trajectory would cause east-west damage.

As the nose entered the building, the next contact would have been made by the leading edge of the wing root. Because of the swept wing design, the damage would have worked out from there, in an east west direction. All of this happened at over 700 ft/sec.

Your theory states that the damage shown to the building was caused by missiles, (that weren’t in service yet). One of these missiles was fired from a static location, which is not the way they are fired. Where were the other missiles fired from?

 

[DGM]

You gave me a link to the Purdue site as if it was "proof":



It was not.

Give me the links to the Purdue calculations or withdraw the claim that they provided calculations to support their cartoon.

OK, I withdraw. Now what have you gained? No one needs Purdue to prove there were planes.

You still have nothing and I'm out nothing.

Funny how your fail works against you.

 

[yankee451]

Proof?

Let me guess, you just know?

Well if you can't trust the GAO, who can you trust?

 

[DGM]

Link to the Purdue calculations please.

Proof of your Airforce claim?

 

[Robrob]

Well if you can't trust the GAO, who can you trust?

Hand wave noted.

Here's a link. Let us know when you've read it.

 

[DGM]

Well if you can't trust the GAO, who can you trust?

link please?

 

[beachnut]

Fantasy missile was not operational, and radar proves the OP is a delusional lie.

In 1999, powered flight tests of the missile began. These were successful, and production of the JASSM began in December 2001. The weapon began operational testing and evaluation in 2002. Late that year, two missiles failed tests and the project was delayed for three months before completing development in April 2003. Two more launches failed, this time as a result of launcher and engine problems. In July 2007, a $68 million program to improve JASSM reliability and recertify the missile was approved by the Pentagon. A decision on whether to continue with the program was deferred until Spring 2008. Lockheed agreed to fix the missiles at its own cost and has tightened up its manufacturing ...

lol, part 2 debunked before it is done. Now that is self-debunking at its best.

Who is the best debunker for the OP? The author. Wow, JREF best debunker is here.

 

[Robrob]

AGM-158 JASSM Launch
platforms:
B-1 Lancer
B-2 Spirit
B-52 Stratofortress
F-15E Strike Eagle
F-16 Fighting Falcon
F/A-18 Hornet
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
F-35 Lightning II
P-3 Orion

Notice they are all aircraft? Wonder why there are no static mount launchers?

 

[fess]

Come, give me the link to Purdue's calculations. I'm just a simple layperson, too stupid to do math, but you, you're a physicist who can understand it. Point me to their calculations and I'll do my best.

Whoa there big boy, weren’t you not too long ago claiming your mathematical skills were so much better than mine?

 

[Robrob]

Whoa there big boy, weren’t you not too long ago claiming your mathematical skills were so much better than mine?

Well to be fair he was also claiming the missile could cause that damage without the warhead detonating, just before he claimed the damage was indicative of the warhead detonation.

 

[fess]

Oh, my apologies.

This is the most sense I've seen anyone make on this board yet and I'm sorry for brushing you off.

True, the wing is just the sum of it's parts as is the wall it was impacting. The wing section impacting a column would behave entirely differently from a section impacting a window, or a spandrel plate backed by an acre of steel truss-supported concrete floor. But in the second strike videos we see Flt 175 melt like butter into the building as if it wasn't there.

I thought you said the floor sections were removed?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

You gave me a link to the Purdue site as if it was "proof":



It was not.

Give me the links to the Purdue calculations or withdraw the claim that they provided calculations to support their cartoon.

There is no "teh calculations" that you can click a google link and read a little low-complexity bar graph or something.

That's not how the real world works.

The thing called Finite Element Analysis is a massive pile of data fed into a massive computation that poops out a massive pile of numbers. Even if you were presented with "the calculations" it would mean nothing to you. That's why another researcher wrote an interpreter program to generate the animation. From previous research I've done on this topic I can tell you that there were 3 or 4 doctoral theses generated by the project.

We could get Occam's Spoon (again) and feed you the data and it still wouldn't mean anything to you.

 

[yankee451]

OK, I withdraw. Now what have you gained? No one needs Purdue to prove there were planes.

You still have nothing and I'm out nothing.

Funny how your fail works against you.

Okay, finally someone admits what I've been saying all along. So without any "math" to back up the official story, let's examine the evidence for clues as to what really happened.

Here we have the famous plane shaped hole:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/5.png


We can see the left "wingtip" was caused by something much smaller than the right:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/left-side-right-side-comparison.png


The damage begins here with this little "pinch":
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/3-something-pinched-this-aluminum-cladding.png

Moving to the right we can see it get progressively worse, bending this steel column sharply to the right (west):
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/7-causing-left-right-bends-a.png


And the next:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/8-more-bends-a.png


The next column was shattered:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/10-splitting-this-column.png


Popping out the top:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/11-pushing-this-column-forward.png


Is everyone with me so far?

Edited by LashL: 

Changed oversized images to links; please, either resize images for forum-friendly viewing or use links as an alternative so that oversized images don't distort screens and/or make viewing difficult on phones and other portable devices.

 

[Robrob]

You've posted a bunch of pictures with red lines. Eventually I assume you will try and explain what you think they mean?

 

[Slowvehicle]

1 - huh?
2 - Use the NIST figure.
3 - I know, I was hoping you might be able to provide something that DGM could not.

1. You said that I had "claimed victory" and run away. In other words, you told a lie.

2. No. I am asking you for the speed you claim the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to collide with the tower was moving whan it was observed to collide with the tower. If you are going to accept NIST's figure, then you ought to just go whole monkey and accept NISD's conclusion. Since you reject that, I will use the figure you provide. If you cannot provide a figure, why are you here?

3. Until you identify what you consider to be the speed of the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower, at the point it was observed to impact the tower, it is (at best) disingenuous of you to pretend to have the first idea about what I can, and can not, "provide".

...but feel free to keep dodging.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Why? You'd most likely just dismiss them out of hand like you do with all the other evidence. So why should anyone do your legwork for you?

Well?

 

[yankee451]

I thought you said the floor sections were removed?

Yes, some sections obviously were, good point, but let's pretend for a moment they were there...I mean, if there really WAS a plane, the floors HAD to have been there, right? If not Marsh McLennan has some explaining to do, eh?