Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[beachnut]

In this video I examine the North Tower impact damage on 9/11, allegedly caused by American Airlines Flight 11.

What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

http://kaiju.boomcoach.com/gallery/rodan.jpg

Confirmed by Pilots for Truth super pilots of woo.

Here is the practice run...
http://exploderbutton.com/exploder/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DVD002.jpg
And spotted over West Virginia before the Pentagon hit.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-O2NOM8XA4Nk/UBv_oztJs3I/AAAAAAAABF4/UF4DLmM93f0/s1600/rodan5.jpg

 

[DGM]

I'm resisting the temptation to post a rickroll at this point in the conversation. You don't know what FEA is and what it does. Asking for "the link" to "the FEA" is stupid.

I should link 900 pages of "1" and "0" and ask him to prove me wrong.

 

[yankee451]

Why do you lie? I've been asking you for math and you can't produce it.

Is it only important when you ask?

It's not a lie when you believe what you believe because you saw a television show. I only ask because I know you can't produce it.

 

[Craig4]

So you'd suggest ignoring the evidence at the scene of the crime and believing the "proof" used to justify America's longest war; proof provided by the people who profit by it?

Good plan.

All is clear. You have a need to believe something and you made up some evidence to support your belief. This has nothing to do with evidence for you.

 

[Robrob]

From NIST NCSTAR1 WTC Investigation p. 20:

The aircraft flew almost straight toward the north
tower, banked approximately 25 degrees to the left (i.e.,
the right wing elevated relative to the left wing) and
descended at an angle of about 10 degrees at impact.
Moving at about 440 mph, the nose hit the exterior of the tower at the 96
th floor.

Which differs from the published photos, how?

 

[Craig4]

It's not a lie when you believe what you believe because you saw a television show. I only ask because I know you can't produce it.

This is an odd thing to say from a guy who produces ridiculously bad videos. Tell me, is this what you've devoted your life to?

 

[yankee451]

When a column appears bent to the right in that photograph, how do you ascertain to what extent it was really bent to the right and to what extent it was actually bent inwards?

The photo does not appear to have been taken from a point perpendicular to the face of the building. Do you know where it was taken from and at what angle to the building?

Also, I already pointed out that your comparison of the two wingtip imprints is bogus because your photo does not include the impression of the starboard wingtip. Several feet of wing damage are cropped out of that photo.

Perspective:

 

[Robrob]

Perspective:

Perspective with the right side cropped out?


Why would you do that?

 

[Craig4]

Perspective with the right side cropped out?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_52458522813623fc59.png[/qimg]
Why would you do that?

Oooo..oooo... I know why! He did it because he is showing a picture of a plane impact on the building and he wants it to be something else.

 

[EventHorizon]

It's not a lie when you believe what you believe because you saw a television show. I only ask because I know you can't produce it.

I don't think people believe that airplanes hit the buildings because they saw it on TV. I think people believe that airplanes hit the buildings because airplanes hit the buildings. Try opening a history book.

 

[ozeco41]

I don't think people believe that airplanes hit the buildings because they saw it on TV. I think people believe that airplanes hit the buildings because airplanes hit the buildings. Try opening a history book.

spot on.

And the "plane shaped hole" was caused because the building was hit by a "plane shaped object" - and there is nothing more plane shaped than a plane.

Until yankee shows that it was not a plane all this red herring discussion about the fourth bolt on the left of the wrong-way leaning bit of whatever other nonsense.....
....is merely troll feeding.

He has no claim worthy of a response so why respond?

 

[pgimeno]

delete

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

It's not a lie when you believe what you believe because you saw a television show. I only ask because I know you can't produce it.

Waht you are asking for is nonsensical and even if provided to you wouldn't know what to do with it.

Q: What's the hardest part about teaching algebra to a goldfish?
A: First you have to explain the concept of "zero." After that it gets easier.

You have no comprehension of what FEA is. Asking for "the math" or "the link" to "the FEA" is nonsensical. Also, implied by your dismissal of the FEA simulation's phase IV graphic output project (a totally separate project, the FEA data was interpreted for several academic papers without the graphics) is that several different teams from several different departments of the university were "in" on the conspiracy. That doesn't seem like a supportable contention (not that any of your blather is actually supportable).

 

[ozeco41]

delete

If you mean the whole thread - I agree.

 

[beachnut]

So you'd suggest ignoring the evidence at the scene of the crime and believing the "proof" used to justify America's longest war; proof provided by the people who profit by it?

Good plan.

Against war, so you lie about 911; that makes sense to you?

Why do you lie?

You ignore the evidence and post silly lies, mocking the dead because you are anti-war. You lie like people say Bush lied? Did you guys go to the same school?

 

[beachnut]

In this video I examine the North Tower impact damage on 9/11, allegedly caused by American Airlines Flight 11.

What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

Who need missiles when we have mission adaptive flying saucers?
Based on your logic, this is more likely than not.

Duhdummy Atta distracted by what he thought was food.
http://marketplaceadvisor.channeladvisor.com/hi/3/3282/frys_1.jpg

A near miss?
http://uschs.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/earth-vs-flying-saucers.jpg

Failed practice run
http://lh4.ggpht.com/-oPuCpuRt0U0/T...L9maC4/crashed-saucer-b_thumb2.jpg?imgmax=800

Oops
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EMl0LFIZS...Saucers-screenshot-UFO-WashingtonMonument.JPG

Hani Solo crashed in training.
http://media.heavy.com/media/2013/03/flyingsaucer.jpg


With no planes how did the Passengers not on the planes die at the WTC?

In your lie what happened to the Passengers? Are they still alive, and have you contacted friends and families to tell them of your great work?

In your lie, the fantasy were you can't figure out what hit the WTC due to your hate of Bush, or some problem you have; where are the Passengers?

Try to explain?
You contacted friends and families of your fellow murdered citizens to tell them of your great work. Or are you spreading lies for fun?

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Oh contraire...I expect to be ridiculed, but then I'm not the one who took the photos of the damage no one seems willing to discuss. To wit, if JSANDERO claims the floors were so weak they pancaked onto the floors below, what could be holding up this floor?

I wasn't referring to the minutiae-arguing details like that is a waste of time when it ignores the obvious. Like you, I'm not an engineer or physicist, however, unlike you, I am well-versed in the application of logic, and as such, I recognise the need for you to disprove the existence of the aircraft before your hypothesis will gain any form of validation or recognition. Until that time, you are merely promoting a rather inane story.


The obvious:

<snip>


And the "plane shaped hole" was caused because the building was hit by a "plane shaped object" - and there is nothing more plane shaped than a plane.

<snip>

a). You can't prove the planes were faked.

b). You can't refute eyewitness testimony that identifies the aircraft as aircraft.

c). You can't demonstrate or prove how the aircraft wreckage was planted, or if it was planted at all.

d). You can't prove or demonstrate how all the video footage (that depicts aircraft) was faked, or if it was faked at all.

Until that time your story is just that-a story (and not even a good story).

Do you understand the process required to develop a reasonable hypothesis?

 

[ozeco41]

...The obvious:

 

[Robrob]

Oh contraire...I expect to be ridiculed, but then I'm not the one who took the photos of the damage no one seems willing to discuss. To wit, if JSANDERO claims the floors were so weak they pancaked onto the floors below, what could be holding up this floor?

The same thing holding up all the other floors?

You do realize the photo was taken only shortly after the impact and well before the fires had softened the support girders, causing them to lose the majority of their structural integrity and collapse - right?

 

[tsig]

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?

Maybe he thinks it's Spanish.


fea
∗ ≈
ugly
∗ adjective

fea [fay-ah]
noun
1. Ugly woman, plain girl. (f)

Ser la fea del baile -> to be a wallflower

adjective
1. Ugly, deformed, hideous (aspecto), haggard, grim: homely.

Más feo que Picio -> as ugly as sin

2. Causing horror or adversion.
3. Bad, nasty (olor); dirty (jugada); nasty, awful (tiempo); nasty (situación)