Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

There is no technology even 12 years later to fake airplanes in broad daylight. There is no missile that is capable of the damage inflicted on the targets.
There is no way anyone can buy off 100,000 New Yorkers, every media personality in NYC, every NYPD, FDNY, FBI, NTSB, BATF, FEMA, and state and city law enforcement person.

Period.

Any rational person knows this.

Want to have some fun, put a few pounds of COAL into your wood burning fireplace and see what happens to your steal. Call your fire department first.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ApolloGnomon said:
Why, are you unable to scroll back to the last time I posted the link, just this evening? Is your computer broken?

Bah. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M

Just watch it this time.
Click to expand...

NIICE!

You posted the only view of the second strike as shown on "live" TeeVEE!!!

Woot.

Pity it shows nothing but what appears to be a jet-like animation passing behind WTC1 followed by an explosion.

What you provided is proof that there are no "live" impact videos. They all were released AFTER the fact. The one you linked was the only "live" shot, but alas...it doesn't show an impact, does it?

:crowded:
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Nope. Your subjective and unsystematic hog-tied amateur interpretation of a limited dataset is not "proof" of anything.

Over 20 (maybe as many as 30) different videos have surfaced of the second 9/11 impact. These videos were taken at distances ranging from a few hundred feet from the tower to nearly 5 miles away, and range all around the compass. Here is one collection of them.

In this collection is a video shot from a nearby building looking up at the impact, (02:12 to 02:25) with another building between the tower and the camera. You want to compare the mass of the plane to the mass of the building? In that video you can clearly see the building flex to screen-right when the mass of the airplane hit the central column. Somewhere out there is a longer version of that clip showing the WTC oscillating for nearly 5 minutes after the impact. Do the math on the timing of that the motion of the building begins at a time AFTER the initial impact, consistent with the impact velocity of the plane reaching the building core.

Also in that same clip you can see the debris ejecta leave the building. The debris leaves two smoke trails, one spiralling and one not. The spiralling smoke trail originates at the corner of the building, and you can see this in nearly every video. That smoke trail is the right wing engine punching through the building, falling a thousand feet while travelling at about 450mph (I've done the math -- if you don't believe me do it yourself) and ending up at the intersection of Church and Murray. The other tail leads to a nearby rooftop where a chunk of fuselage more than 100'square was later found.

The videos are consistent.

The debris ejecta is consistent.

The "Pinocchio's nose" aka "hole that wasn't there" is consistent (both in timing and placement) with the air column of the fuselage exiting the building along with the fuel from the center tanks, which then explodes in a fuel-air fireball.

Your Nope Lamer fantasy only works if you toss out 9 tenths of the information. That's not science. That's lying to yourself and others.
Click to expand...
found it :)
 
yankee451 said:
The aluminum cladding is pinched, not the "pillar" and besides; the right side gash is right across a spandrel, behind which was allegedly a concrete floor.
Click to expand...

No, that is a floor, you know where people were sitting and working right before they got killed when the plane impacted. Those would be the people whose deaths you've turned into meaningless game.
 
In the video you make a statement
"The inward bends of these two big wall panels are ample evidence for missing floors, because this sort of damage was only possible if there were no floors behind them."

that is pure speculation. Unless you have done the numbers you're just making things up. Several different FEA results verify that a 767 at 450 to 550 mph is more than capable of damaging the building to the extent shown.

Do you know what FEA is yet?

In another part you say
"The next column was shattered. Something exploded on the face, causing top of the column to protrude out, evidence the bolts were removed from this seam."

That spot is where the engine was mounted to the wing. An absurd proportion of a plane's dry weight is the engines. Gee, your imaginary conspirators sure were good at covering all the bases. The even enlarged the hole where a plane's engine would have make a larger hole. Tricky fellows. Too bad they didn't plant any other fake evidence of planes to trick us. What, for example, would have happened to the fuel and air within the fuselage? Wouldn't it move forward at 500 mph after the plane itself was totally shredded into confetti by being shoved across steel box columns? Oh, yes! They did include that important detail. It's called "the hole that wasn't there" or "Pinocchio's nose" by truthers (you can google those terms if you are unfamiliar with them). The location of that damage on the downrange side of the tower is consistent with the direction of the plane travel into and through the building, and the damage itself is suggestive -- the aluminum cladding is blown off, but the steel columns are just burnt.

Tricky fellows, those NWO Garden Gnomes! So clever!
 
Last edited:

CAN ANYONE TELL ME THE MEASUREMENT FROM TOP SKIN TO BOTTOM SKIN AT THE TIP OF THE WING OF A BOEING 767-200?[/QUOTE]

Because the thickness of the wing decreases constantly from the root to the tip, would you mind giving a specific location?
 
yankee451 said:
Is it? Can you demonstrate what you mean by "peeling aluminum cladding"? Please explain.
Click to expand...

Look at your own pictures. The cladding is peeled back. This actually progresses from impact to collapse.
 
SezMe said:
I can help. At the very tip: 0 cm
Closer inboard: 10 cm
Closer inboard: 100 cm
etc.

There's your ballpark. Now hit a homer.
Click to expand...

Thanks! So why would there be such a difference between the left 10 CM and the right 10 CM?
 
yankee451 said:
The aluminum cladding is pinched, not the "pillar" and besides; the right side gash is right across a spandrel, behind which was allegedly a concrete floor.
Click to expand...
na, your wrong.

If the cladding is pinched then obviously the pillar still exists behind it. The point is all you photos show that where there is a floor behind the impacted wing the penetration is less, and where these isnt one the penetration is more. Go figure sherlock. This to me is completely consistent with a wing impact if the plane were not level on impact.

booom, and thats out of the park!!!

nothing to see here, next.
 
fess said:
CAN ANYONE TELL ME THE MEASUREMENT FROM TOP SKIN TO BOTTOM SKIN AT THE TIP OF THE WING OF A BOEING 767-200?

Because the thickness of the wing decreases constantly from the root to the tip, would you mind giving a specific location?
Click to expand...

Well judging by the distance between columns, at most 18 inches from the very tip?
 
yankee451 said:
Or "Ignoring the topic."

But really, how about the left wing tip as compared to the right wing tip?

Why would a southbound jet's wing tips cause such different damage from left to right? Why is there a tiny "pinch" on the left, yet a much larger gash on the right?

Say, aren't you a pilot? Perhaps you can run outside and measure the thickness of a 767-200's wing tip? Top skin to bottom skin, how many inches is that?
Click to expand...

This site gives the thickness to chord ratio as 10.3% at the tip. Figure out what the chord is and that will allow you to calculate the maximum thickness of the wing at that point.

http://www.aer.ita.br/~bmattos/mundo/country/usa/boeing-767.html
 
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0527767

Another FEA report, this one without the cartoon. They used math, not standing by a wood stove with a preconceived notion. One finding:
"It was found that about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft was used to damage columns. The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130 m/s . It was also found that a Boeing 767 traveling at top speed would not penetrate exterior columns of the WTC if the columns were thicker than 20mm ."


Read More: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:10(1066)
 
Reactor drone said:
This site gives the thickness to chord ratio as 10.3% at the tip. Figure out what the chord is and that will allow you to calculate the maximum thickness of the wing at that point.

http://www.aer.ita.br/~bmattos/mundo/country/usa/boeing-767.html
Click to expand...

Heh, yes. Wings and columns are both modeled as box beams which is a way of twisting the model to suit a predetermined conclusion.

The math isn't as important as their method.

the wings were modeled as box beams with a fuel pocket, and the engines were represented as rigid cylinders. The exterior columns of the WTC were represented as box beams.


Read More: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:10(1066)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom