Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[Spanx]

Well you lot will go back to examining your navels and I'll carry on the good fight.

Yep I agree, there would be more chance of finding explosives in my navel

 

[yankee451]

I did. You even responded to the post. I said it produces the same damage as a missile. I'm using the same standards of evidence you use.

You provided an opinion without any corroborating evidence.

So it goes on the "educashunal forum".

 

[DGM]

I googled "purdue fea" and found many references to the FEA. Some of them are pretty technical and detailed.

Are you now asserting that the entire Purdue CS department is run by NWO Garden Gnomes, too?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/behin...on-on-the-2001-world-trade-center-attack/5442
https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/

Let's see how yankee451 claims these don't exists.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You assert that "all" the videos of the second impact "can be faked, and indeed all have been exposed as such" without providing any citation or evidence. Please do so or withdraw the assertion.

Can someone quote me so the intellectual cowards reading can see this too?

Glad to...

 

[Robrob]

Repeating the mantra "thousands of witness saw stuff', doesn't make it so, and the damage evidence says otherwise (you know, that which is detailed in the video you're avoiding like the plague?).

What "evidence" do you have that there were not "thousands of eyewitnesses?"

What evidence do you have contradicting the score of videos from different angles all showing the jets?

Why do you refuse to simply provide evidence in your own words and demand we watch a video?

 

[DGM]

You provided an opinion without any corroborating evidence.

So it goes on the "educashunal forum".

Again rising to the challenge. It's kind of ironic that you miss-spell education.

 

[Robrob]

And yet, you have utterly failed to even begin to attempt to consider demonstrating that a JASSM (not in limited productin until after the 2006 test flight inaccuracy troubles) can be launched from a static platform. Less than 250 m off the ground. Less than 400 m from the target.

Good thing you have never thought about the size of a JASSM, or the mass...

It's "Argument by Hollywood." If he can imagine it with enough buzz words, it must have happened.

 

[Hans]

As if you've ever used science to explain anything, ever, lol!

Just following your lead... Here is another question for you to deny tell us the numbers that would be needed for the jetliner to not penetrate the steel columns - how slow would it have to be going?

But we know you cannot provide it...so deny away lol

 

[yankee451]

No, you didn't.



No, they weren't.

I'm sure you missed it through all the tears, but the original 35 pilot production missiles were just the beginning:

The Air Force's April 1996 schedule for JASSM development and early
production calls for
-- a 24-month competitive program definition and risk reduction
phase beginning in June 1996 (milestone I);
-- a 32-month engineering and manufacturing development phase
beginning in June 1998 (milestone II);
-- production of 75 low-rate initial production missiles beginning in January 2000;-- production of 90 full-rate production missiles beginning in April 2001 (milestone III); and-- initial JASSM deployment in June 2001.

 

[Kid Eager]

You provided an opinion without any corroborating evidence.

So it goes on the "educashunal forum".

Oh, the irony... This is the entire problem with your video. It's one big opinion piece. It couldn't be more devoid of evidence.

 

[Robrob]

I'm sure you missed it through all the tears, but the original 35 pilot production missiles were just the beginning:

I'm sure you missed it in all your "research" but that was the initial plan as conceived in 1996. In reality, as you've already been told, the missile had numerous guidance problems and didn't come into production until 2009.

 

[Robrob]

No one here has offered a technical discussion...they've pointed to MIT and Purdue but clearly have never read the material, else they wouldn't be citing them.

Enough distraction and complaining.

Please provide evidence supporting your claim a missile was used on the WTC.

 

[DGM]

No one here has offered a technical discussion...they've pointed to MIT and Purdue but clearly have never read the material, else they wouldn't be citing them.

Are those the studies you said they never did?

I've read the material. You wouldn't like it it.

 

[yankee451]

Oh, the irony... This is the entire problem with your video. It's one big opinion piece. It couldn't be more devoid of evidence.

The evidence is the gash. True Believer have much in common with most Truthers...neither clique wants to discuss the damage evidence.

Who knew you would be so alike?

 

[fess]

I'm sure you missed it through all the tears, but the original 35 pilot production missiles were just the beginning:

How hard were you crying when you missed my reply to your post concerning that article?

 

[Hans]

No one here has offered a technical discussion...they've pointed to MIT and Purdue but clearly have never read the material, else they wouldn't be citing them.

So tell us master technical man at what speed will the jetliner not penetrate the columns , let's say 5 km/h will the jetliner penetrate?

Lol

 

[Kid Eager]

No one here has offered a technical discussion...they've pointed to MIT and Purdue but clearly have never read the material, else they wouldn't be citing them.

Another lie. You're squirming and evading every attempt to engage in a technical discussion.

 

[yankee451]

Are those the studies you said they never did?

I've read the material. You wouldn't like it it.

Then please by all means do as I do and post a link or an example of what you're talking about!

 

[DGM]

The evidence is the gash. True Believer have much in common with most Truthers...neither clique wants to discuss the damage evidence.

Who knew you would be so alike?

Would that be the one that's shaped like a plane and exactly the right size?

 

[yankee451]

Another lie. You're squirming and evading every attempt to engage in a technical discussion.

No one's stopping you from starting a technical discussion. You just can't figure out a way to make your silly jet match the damage highlighted in the video.