Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

yankee451 said:
1. The video demonstrates exactly that.
2. I claim no such thing, I claim that IF the bolts in the connecting the column ends (not 'pylons' or 'beams', PAY ATTENTION!) had been snapped then BOTH ends of the connecting columns would be damaged. That you demand "calculations" is laughable considering none of the calculations you've ever used as proof of the official story prove anything except the dishonesty of the authors.

Name one, if you can.
Click to expand...

What was the speed (we'll deal with velocity later, if you get that far) of the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower at the point when it was observed to impact the tower?

...and that's just the first step...
 
Step 1. The rather obvious fact that a plane actually hit the tower.
Step 2. Errrr.... see step 1.
 
The gazortinsnatchs of caloric in the impacting object, which we'll term "the plane" is resisted by the keggerwimples of phlogiston in the impacted object, which we'll term "the building".
There's no requirement to invoke rock and scissors, nor escalate to lizard-spock.
Caloric trumps phlogiston.
 
Yankee451's problem is simple. He has nothing and he can't BS his way around this. Why he comes to a forum where he will be questioned is anyones guess. Maybe he hopes he will be banned and can claim he won by default. What he wins is anyones guess.

Yankee451, My suggestion, stick to the brains on YouTube. You are out of your league when people actually expect you to back-up your opinion.
 
Last edited:
I Ratant said:
The gazortinsnatchs of caloric in the impacting object, which we'll term "the plane" is resisted by the keggerwimples of phlogiston in the impacted object, which we'll term "the building".
There's no requirement to invoke rock and scissors, nor escalate to lizard-spock.
Caloric trumps phlogiston.
Click to expand...

Nommed in Awe.
 
yankee451 said:
To date you haven't demonstrated anything other than a refusal to discuss the topic.



Done. I laid out my argument in the video and the accompanying transcript in the OP.

Wading through all the sarcastic and childish posts I still have yet to see any sort of an attempt to discuss the evidence I brought forth, so I find it humorous that you use the term "layperson opinion".
Click to expand...

Just what evidence have you brought forth? I see a lot of statements, but no evidence to support them. Like the statement about the removal of bolts and entire floor systems. What is the evidence that supports this premise? Just how was this done, and where did they hide the parts and pieces they removed? And, how did they do this without anyone noticing?
How did anyone know where the impact area was prior to the impact?
 
yankee451 said:
1. The video demonstrates exactly that.
2. I claim no such thing, I claim that IF the bolts in the connecting the column ends (not 'pylons' or 'beams', PAY ATTENTION!) had been snapped then BOTH ends of the connecting columns would be damaged. That you demand "calculations" is laughable considering none of the calculations you've ever used as proof of the official story prove anything except the dishonesty of the authors.



Name one, if you can.
Click to expand...

 
fess said:
Just what evidence have you brought forth? I see a lot of statements, but no evidence to support them. Like the statement about the removal of bolts and entire floor systems. What is the evidence that supports this premise? Just how was this done, and where did they hide the parts and pieces they removed? And, how did they do this without anyone noticing?How did anyone know where the impact area was prior to the impact?
Click to expand...
Yep. With all those bolts and floor systems removed, it would have been really embarrassing for the Illuminati if one of those buildings had collapsed on September 10th.
:o
 
yankee451 said:
Ohh...the documents may say 52 but the spandrels say 48. There are these new fangled measuring tools you can use to measure distances in photographs. Science, try it, you'll like it.

Besides, you bet wrong. I clearly highlight the half dozen seams with only one half of the connections damaged, some top, some bottom. You really should watch the video.



You failed to examine the evidence. Why?

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Seams7.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Seems an odd thing to do, showing a picture of the hole the plane left in the building if you are trying to convince us that a plane didn't cause the damage. Maybe showing a picture of the damage not caused by the plane impact would be more effective.
 
yankee451 said:
Allegedly the same thickness for each connecting column, with 12 bolts between them. Now, can you explain why only one half of the equation was damaged?
Click to expand...

The wing only hit "half the equation". Why would you expect symmetric damage?
 
phunk said:
The wing only hit "half the equation". Why would you expect symmetric damage?
Click to expand...

Tell you what, here's how you can really nail me:

Take the dimensions of a wingtip of a 767 and compare them to the wing tips on the gash.
 
abaddon said:
The hole is plane shaped. That prooooves it wasn't a plane. There is no way a plane could make a plane shaped hole. Or something.
Click to expand...

There's no way you can prove a plane did it. If you could you would, but no one has because no one can.
 
yankee451 said:
LOL!

The Naudet video proves he was using a tripod to film a "before" sequence of the undamaged tower and used it to overlay a fuzzy jet-thingy over the live shot.

You guys are just like the "troofers" you whine about, you begin with a premise and then look for the evidence to suit it, rather than examining the evidence and trying to explain what caused it. Educational forum, indeed.
Click to expand...

I’m not whining, in fact, I am laughing. That has to be one of the funniest non answers I have seen in a long time. If you had indeed watched the Naudet video, you would have seen they weren’t using a tripod.

>snip snarky remarks<
 
fess said:
I’m not whining, in fact, I am laughing. That has to be one of the funniest non answers I have seen in a long time. If you had indeed watched the Naudet video, you would have seen they weren’t using a tripod.

>snip snarky remarks<
Click to expand...

I own the DVD, have watched it countless times and frame by frame. I am also well-versed with video cameras and tripods and can recognize stabilized tripod panning when I see it. I can also recognize when a camera is being removed from the tripod, also visible in the footage. Had you STUDIED it instead of just WATCHING it, you'd not be making such foolish statements.
 
yankee451 said:
I own the DVD, have watched it countless times and frame by frame. I am also well-versed with video cameras and tripods and can recognize stabilized tripod panning when I see it. I can also recognize when a camera is being removed from the tripod, also visible in the footage. Had you STUDIED it instead of just WATCHING it, you'd not be making such foolish statements.
Click to expand...

Well, like all the rest of your studies you failed to learn anything meaningful from it.
 
yankee451 said:
I own the DVD, have watched it countless times and frame by frame. I am also well-versed with video cameras and tripods and can recognize stabilized tripod panning when I see it. I can also recognize when a camera is being removed from the tripod, also visible in the footage. Had you STUDIED it instead of just WATCHING it, you'd not be making such foolish statements.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on, you can do better than that, I have faith in you. :D
That was a pretty quick pan to the left for a camera mounted on a tripod.
 
Putting it in a way that tries to avoid breaching the MA and is sensible... the thread has run its course. The responses as of now regardless of intent have served little more than to feed the "entertainment" for the OP.... the whole basis of the OP rests on ignoring evidence that can't be ignored... so trying to correct it seems tantamount to speaking with a brick wall... but moreover I doubt that's the biggest issue with the direction of the tread, as what I'm reading clearly suggests.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom