Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

yankee451 said:
The hypocrisy is endless.
Click to expand...

I fail to see the hypocrisy in pointing out that the prima fascia of your argument relies on denying that the plane as described even existed and that thousands of people on the ground in the immediate vicinity saw little more than a hologram or some kind of covered special effect. Since you prove neither, you have the reason as to why I don't give the no plane theory you're pushing my undivided attention. If you ever get to that point I'll be ready to discuss. But it's rather impossible when you respond the same way as many of the peers you're directing the above "critique" to.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, just sheared right off without damaging the column ends they were attached to, something that only happens in cartoons.
Click to expand...

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...

First you claim they broke without any damage and now you claim one side was damaged (the part you can see) and the other part (that you can't) wasn't.

Try to keep your story straight.
 
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...

I'll bet that the condition you refer to is at the top section of a panel... the columns project about 48" above the floor and the 52" spandrel is there. The top of those panels in that location would be much stiffer and the impact above ripped the columns and destroyed the floor as a more or less direct hit in that location.

You fail to recognize that the impact was not a uniform blunt "thing" hitting a another uniform flat thing... they were both complex and represented a range of stiffness/density/resistance and so forth.

You show a certain obsession with detail and miss the over larger principles of mechanics in play.
 
JSanderO said:
I'll bet that the condition you refer to is at the top section of a panel... the columns project about 48" above the floor and the 52" spandrel is there.
Click to expand...
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.

JSanderO said:
The top of those panels in that location would be much stiffer and the impact above ripped the columns and destroyed the floor as a more or less direct hit in that location.

You fail to recognize that the impact was not a uniform blunt "thing" hitting a another uniform flat thing... they were both complex and represented a range of stiffness/density/resistance and so forth.

You show a certain obsession with detail and miss the over larger principles of mechanics in play.
Click to expand...

You failed to examine the evidence. Why?
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Seams7.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And all those conditions confirm the condition I noted.. I am not wrong. You've highlighted exactly what I said in words! Check the stagger pattern... you'll see.
 
JSanderO said:
And all those conditions confirm the condition I noted.. I am not wrong. You've highlighted exactly what I said in words!
Click to expand...

No you didn't.

What we are seeing highlighted in the image are seams that prove the bolts were removed prior to impact. Only one half of the connecting panels were damaged. We see a spandrel plate shattered and directly below it we see the telltale three straight column ends. This is exactly opposite what you said in words.
 
JSanderO said:
Check the stagger pattern... you'll see.
Click to expand...

I have, in fact I can put it together piece by piece, view it from multiple angles, compare it to videos and photos from the same angles, and take it apart again.

You'll see.
 
yankee451 said:
No you didn't.

What we are seeing highlighted in the image are seams that prove the bolts were removed prior to impact. Only one half of the connecting panels were damaged. We see a spandrel plate shattered and directly below it we see the telltale three straight column ends. This is exactly opposite what you said in words.
Click to expand...
'
When is the wing test?

The engineer you hired, what did he say about your fantasy before he left?
 
Yeah I see that. You know what I also saw? Planes hit the towers.

None of the mindless babble you've presented as "evidence" even comes close to countering that.

Hell maybe the images you've seen were made by that same magical hologram machine that made the planes. :rolleyes:

Why exactly should we believe anything you show us? Faking a grainy internet photo would be infinitely easier then faking a plane hitting a tower.
 
Last edited:
JoeBentley said:
Yeah I see that. You know what I also saw? Planes hit the towers.

None of the mindless babble you've presented as "evidence" even comes close to countering that.

Hell maybe the images you've seen were made by that same magical hologram machine that made the planes. :rolleyes:

Why exactly should we believe anything you show us? Faking a grainy internet photo would be infinitely easier then faking a plane hitting a tower.
Click to expand...

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.
 
yankee451 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your post seems to me to suggest you have issues with the Purdue Finite Elements Analysis (FEA) simulation video. Prior experience suggests asking you questions is like pissing up a rope, but would you please give me one or two reasons why you doubt the results of that analysis?
 
Kid Eager said:
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.
Click to expand...


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...

Kid Eager said:
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?
Click to expand...

yankee451 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The questions were asked, the answers evaded

"The damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it." is an assertion that is not supported by anything.

In your opinion, the damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it, but there is nothing to back this up:
  1. that both ends of the connecting columns need to be damaged
  2. that both ends of the connecting columns were not damaged, where there is an evidenced need for them to be damaged
  3. that the absence of aforesaid damage conclusively excludes damage by an aircraft impact
  4. that an alternative explanation has stronger specific evidence than that supporting the aircraft impact scenario

On a more basic point, nothing has been presented to explain why the physics of an aircraft impact is insufficient to cause the damage observed. Several posters have provided you with calculations that support the damage.

If these are wrong, what is wrong with them and why?
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
The damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it
Click to expand...

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.
 
yankee451 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What would you say if private individuals, with no ties to the govt, took pictures or videos of a plane going into one of the towers?
 
yankee451 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, dear: The only way you can pretend there is "no evidence" is to ignore the questions that so obviously intimidate you. Just for grins--how fast was the leading edge of the wing or either one of the 767s that was observed to impact either one fo the towers, at the pint either one was observed to impact the tower if impacted? Do remember that speed is a scalar.

And remember that that is just the first step...until you begin to deal with actual reality, "we" are, in fact, done.
 
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...

...leading edge speed?
 
yankee451 said:
The damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it.
Click to expand...

Okay. You know what proves a jet did it? A jet hitting the flippin' tower.

I mean seriously this is beyond the pale. Planes... hit... the.... towers. Tens of thousands of people saw it happen in real life. Millions saw it live on television.

This is beyond wrong into full scale reality denial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom