Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

Loss Leader said:
The floor was supported by the interior core and the exterior, load-bearing cladding. Of course, as you correctly point out, this was an unsustainable situation. The weight on the floor as well as the deformation of the steel due to fire would soon cause it to collapse. I'm surprised you hadn't heard.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of weight concentrated on a small point in the middle of a sixty foot truss system with a very thin layer of concrete over a corrugated floor pan. It's a wonder anything could destroy them if dozens of tons falling dozens of feet didn't snap the few truss seats holding it up, eh? That's some kinda angle iron!

:jaw-dropp
 
DGM said:
That's your fantasy. Do you think no one notices you can't produce a single source?
Click to expand...

I provided three examples. Their articles are the sources, and the claim that Purdue hasn't published the FEA they used for their video can be verified.
 
yankee451 said:
Then produce the link that points to the FEA Purdue used to back up their video. I've provide links, images and videos to back up my argument, please reciprocate.
Click to expand...

No, you produce images and links a claim they do.

We're waiting for that official source was needed to support the fact there was planes.

Tic-Toc.

Even "truthers" think you're a joke. That's why you felt the need to "discredit' the even more absurd in you video. Trying to make your claims look better?
 
This thread is still going?

Has Yankee yet to figure out that a plane shaped hole was caused by... a plane?
 
DGM said:
No, you produce images and links a claim they do.

We're waiting for that official source was needed to support the fact there was planes.

Tic-Toc.
Click to expand...

Strawman much?


DGM said:
Even "truthers" think you're a joke. That's why you felt the need to "discredit' the even more absurd in you video.
Click to expand...

People who believe in fairy tails, whether they be imaginary space weapons, or scary A Rabs with box cutters, and the people who earn livings by selling such stories don't like me much, true.
 
yankee451 said:
Strawman much?
Click to expand...

No. You need to look up what a "strawman" arguement is. :rolleyes:




People who believe in fairy tails, whether they be imaginary space weapons, or scary A Rabs with box cutters, and the people who earn livings by selling such stories don't like me much, true.
Click to expand...

Still no evidence to support what you claim. You know what that is called? A belief.

You really need to step it up or go back to YouTube where you can get someone to believe anything.
 
yankee451 said:
They calculated a model to suit a predetermined conclusion but even then they threw in the towel and admitted they were only guessing.
Click to expand...

Citation, please, for this total fabrication?
No one has proved a jet could breach the wall.
Click to expand...

Totally false.

Several different FEA projects were done by different teams over the years, all of whom agree that an airplane of that size at that speed encountering the columns would strip about of two thirds of the kinetic energy off the total mass of the plane, while the building columns and plane were both destroyed by the impact. Nearly all of the remaining kinetic energy would be absorbed into the core, floors and far side of the building, with the exceptions of any dense objects that might pass through, such as engines and landing gear.
 
yankee451 said:
People who believe in fairy tails, whether they be imaginary space weapons, or scary A Rabs with box cutters, and the people who earn livings by selling such stories don't like me much, true.
Click to expand...
Please feel free to elaborate more on your theory 19 people armed with box cutters could not have hijacked four planes on 911?
 
Robrob said:
Please feel free to elaborate more on your theory 19 people armed with box cutters could not have hijacked four planes on 911?
Click to expand...
I'm waiting for him to show how the plane could not have penetrated the building.

He keeps changing the subject when people ask his to support his work.

I'm beginning to think he doesn't know. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I'm waiting for him to show how the plane could not have penetrated the building.

He keeps changing the subject when people ask his to support his work.

I'm beginning to think he doesn't know. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The east-west directional damage from wingtip to wingtip indicates a jet traveling north-south didn't cause it (if such a thing were actually possible in the real world.) We've already gone over this.
 
Robrob said:
Please feel free to elaborate more on your theory 19 people armed with box cutters could not have hijacked four planes on 911?
Click to expand...

The damage evidence indicates something other than a plane struck, and from a completely different direction than what we were shown on the TeeVee.

No plane = no hijackers.
 
yankee451 said:
Then produce the link that points to the FEA Purdue used to back up their video. I've provide links, images and videos to back up my argument, please reciprocate.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what finite element analysis is, do you? I've suddenly realized this.

What format of "the FEA?" would be most helpful to you? Have you a spare mainframe sitting around you can run it with?
 
yankee451 said:
The east-west directional damage from wingtip to wingtip indicates a jet traveling north-south didn't cause it (if such a thing were actually possible in the real world.) We've already gone over this.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating this as if the airplane supposedly struck the building square on. You do know it didn't, don't you?
 
ApolloGnomon said:
You have no idea what finite element analysis is, do you? I've suddenly realized this.

What format of "the FEA?" would be most helpful to you? Have you a spare mainframe sitting around you can run it with?
Click to expand...

Text please. Got a link?
 
yankee451 said:
The east-west directional damage from wingtip to wingtip indicates a jet traveling north-south didn't cause it (if such a thing were actually possible in the real world.) We've already gone over this.
Click to expand...
The "east - west" damage is from the wings. A jet flying N-S would impact the building with the wings striking E-W at 90 degrees to its axis of travel. Exactly like the photos. Please elaborate how this confuses you?

yankee451 said:
The damage evidence indicates something other than a plane struck, and from a completely different direction than what we were shown on the TeeVee.

No plane = no hijackers.
Click to expand...
There is zero evidence showing "something other than a plane struck."

OTOH, there are scores of videos, thousands off eyewitnesses and literally tons of forensic evidence showing two very specific planes struck the WTC.

yankee451 said:
Text please. Got a link?
Click to expand...
Please elaborate on your belief not having all the raw data made personally available to you - a lay person - somehow invalidates anything?
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
The east-west directional damage from wingtip to wingtip indicates a jet traveling north-south didn't cause it (if such a thing were actually possible in the real world.) We've already gone over this.
Click to expand...

Yes, and you ignored the answers.

Why would this not be consistent with a 767-200 hitting the building.

Got something better than your (admitted) layperson opinion?

Why should we believe you?
 
Last edited:
Seriously, I'll write to Purdue, but you need to tell me what format you want. Bar chart? Half inch tape? Doctoral thesis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom