Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[yankee451]

I asked you before, who do I need to demonstrate this to? The fact you don't like the evidence does not make it false.

To date you haven't demonstrated anything other than a refusal to discuss the topic.

You first. Start with more than just your lay person opinion.

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".

 

[Kid Eager]

No evidence supports any such thing. If it did you could demonstrate how the east-west damage is consistent with a mostly hollow aluminum aircraft with leading edges as sharp as a basketball traveling north-south.

Until any single one of you can demonstrate that, no we're far from done. But I get that desperate men do desperate deeds, so I fully understand why you'd rather make this about me.

You have the floor, it's clean, I just wiped it with you lot.

Pretending that we haven't already presented the evidence isn't going to advance your case.

Meanwhile, evidence to support your assertions is notably lacking.

ETA: Animated gifs with arrows are *not* evidence - they are the claim.

For example:

1. You claim that distortion of the pylons inwards towards the point of impact is inconsistent with the official story, but have provided no *evidence* that supports your assertion that the damage would be otherwise in the official version of events.

2. You claim that the aircraft could not have broken the pylons/beams, but have failed to show any calculations that support the assertion. On the contrary, other posters have provided calculations that show that the energy at the point of impact was sufficient. If, as you claim, this is not the case, where are the calculations and physical evidence of the day in error, as the score is 2-0 against what you claim?

There are other questions you have still not answered in the thread, but I'm sure you can find them easily enough.

 

[DGM]

To date you haven't demonstrated anything other than a refusal to discuss the topic.

What have we refused to discuss?

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".

So we need to do a video? I can do the same thing you did. I think a plane did it. Prove me wrong.

Your turn. As far as I can tell we're even.

 

[yankee451]

What have we refused to discuss?

Everything:

Explain to who?

You, no thanks.

(anyone else, no problem)

So we need to do a video? I can do the same thing you did. I think a plane did it. Prove me wrong.

Have at it, I look forward to seeing you twist yourself into a pretzel to demonstrate how the damage is consistent with the impact of a jet plane. Perhaps you can get Purdue to help. Once you get your video released I'll be happy to prove you wrong seven ways from Sunday.

Your turn. As far as I can tell we're even.

Big surprise that's as far as you can tell but you've still demonstrated squat.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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".

Far as I can tell the op offers no substantive point whatsoever. Its mostly egging on members (quite often successfully it would seem) to be snarky. And in the few cases in which an honest response to the op's query, it's been returned with more snark.

As for the topic at hand you have a burden of proof to uphold in demonstrating that the witness testimony and collective evidence (which you claim doesn't exist) proving the plane impacts is wrong. If you don't explain away anyof that then you have no case like it or not. Unfortunately it takes two people to hold a discussion and the flow of the thread so far is incompatible (and admittedly I'm not totally innocent either). The threads 9 pages too long and there's plenty of blame to go around for how it's gone so far.

 

[DGM]

Big surprise that's as far as you can tell but you've still demonstrated squat.

I've demonstrated as much as you. You're opinion against mine. Except, I also have proof the planes existed. You have nothing.

You're spinning your wheels and stuck in the mud.

 

[yankee451]

Pretending that we haven't already presented the evidence isn't going to advance your case.

Meanwhile, evidence to support your assertions is notably lacking.

ETA: Animated gifs with arrows are *not* evidence - they are the claim.

For example:

1. You claim that distortion of the pylons inwards towards the point of impact is inconsistent with the official story, but have provided no *evidence* that supports your assertion that the damage would be otherwise in the official version of events.

2. You claim that the aircraft could not have broken the pylons/beams, but have failed to show any calculations that support the assertion. On the contrary, other posters have provided calculations that show that the energy at the point of impact was sufficient. If, as you claim, this is not the case, where are the calculations and physical evidence of the day in error, as the score is 2-0 against what you claim?

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.

There are other questions you have still not answered in the thread, but I'm sure you can find them easily enough.

Name one, if you can.

 

[yankee451]

Far as I can tell the op offers no substantive point whatsoever. Its mostly egging on members (quite often successfully it would seem) to be snarky. And in the few cases in which an honest response to the op's query, it's been returned with more snark.

As for the topic at hand you have a burden of proof to uphold in demonstrating that the witness testimony and collective evidence (which you claim doesn't exist) proving the plane impacts is wrong. If you don't explain away anyof that then you have no case like it or not. Unfortunately it takes two people to hold a discussion and the flow of the thread so far is incompatible (and admittedly I'm not totally innocent either). The threads 9 pages too long and there's plenty of blame to go around for how it's gone so far.

The hypocrisy is endless.

 

[yankee451]

I've demonstrated as much as you. You're opinion against mine. Except, I also have proof the planes existed. You have nothing.

You're spinning your wheels and stuck in the mud.

So "nu uh!" is the length and breadth of the debate I can expect on an ironically-named educational forum?

 

[Kid Eager]

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.

1. What was the speed of the aircraft when it impacted the building?
2. What direction were the wings going at the time of impact?
3. What direction were the wings going after impact?

 

[DGM]

Let's look at what he got:

In conclusion:
With the far left “pinch” in the column cladding we have evidence of physical impact, eliminating explosives alone, which simultaneously eliminates holograms.

Bravo, you debunk what only a moron would believe and showed an impact.

The size of the pinch on the left compared to the gash on the right eliminates a Boeing 767.

Except it's exactly the same size. Your proof is that you don't think it looks right.

With the shattered and “popped-out” column we have evidence of a detonation as well as of loosened bolts.

That's your fantasy. There is no evidence of this.

With the inward-bending big wall panels we have evidence of removed bolts and floors.

Again, your fantasy. The fact you can see these things makes you look stupid.

With the big pile of debris we have evidence of a heavily reinforced floor likely intended to display the wall debris while masking the empty towers and missing plane parts behind it. This floor also gave Edna Cintron a stage on which to perform her magic.

No, we have the remains of a building. I thought you said this stuff was removed.

And then we have all the directional damage that proves whatever caused it came from the east, eliminating explosives as well as a jet of any kind.

So you think it was "something else" helped along by "something".

What part of this is "demonstrating"?

 

[DGM]

So "nu uh!" is the length and breadth of the debate I can expect on an ironically-named educational forum?

In this case it's called rising to meet the challenge.

I think "nu uh" covers this.

 

[beachnut]

So "nu uh!" is the length and breadth of the debate I can expect on an ironically-named educational forum?

Why are you here, you are anti-education, you call it indoctrination. You spread lies about 911 and your evidence is bad fiction.

You have fantasy, how do you debate fantasy?

 

[ozeco41]

In this case it's called rising to meet the challenge.

I think "nu uh" covers this.

Actually it is overkill.

 

[DGM]

You have fantasy, how do you debate fantasy?

"nu uh" pretty much covers it.

 

[Reactor drone]

Yeah, just sheared right off without damaging the column ends they were attached to, something that only happens in cartoons.

How thick do you think the butt plates at the ends of the perimeter columns were?

 

[DGM]

How thick do you think the butt plates at the ends of the perimeter columns were?

The question is bogus. He only claims the ends weren't damaged. "Nu uh" fits well here.

Don't play his game.

 

[yankee451]

1. What was the speed of the aircraft when it impacted the building?
2. What direction were the wings going at the time of impact?
3. What direction were the wings going after impact?

The damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it.

IF you claim one did, you'll have to demonstrate what the NIST, R. Mackey, MIT, Puirdue, et al could not.

 

[DGM]

The damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it.

IF you claim one did, you'll have to demonstrate what the NIST, R. Mackey, MIT, Puirdue, et al could not.

Nu uh!

 

[yankee451]

How thick do you think the butt plates at the ends of the perimeter columns were?

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?