Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[fess]

Post 613

Originally Posted by yankee451
I'm sure you missed it through all the tears, but the original 35 pilot production missiles were just the beginning:

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

Still no comment, eh? And, you still haven't retracted your comment about my mathematical skills. So now who is the hypocrite?

 

[yankee451]

Photos?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_524585227acfa96c65.png[/qimg]

Thanks for that.

Your plane body is way to far to the left in this one:

And in this one it's way too far to the right:

I can't believe we're going over this again!

Headsmack.

 

[Robrob]

Thanks for that.

Your plane body is way to far to the left in this one:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/524585227acfa96c65.png[/qimg]

And in this one it's way too far to the right:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/524585227ad13e0e49.png[/qimg]

I can't believe we're going over this again!

Headsmack.

You do realize I've offset those color outlines so as to not obscure the obvious entry holes?

Post 613

Still no comment, eh? And, you still haven't retracted your comment about my mathematical skills. So now who in the hypocrite?

Interesting how much energy he's spending demanding other people do Google searches for him or watch his videos and so little time (none actually) explaining how a missile not in production until 2009 was involved in 911.

 

[ozeco41]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you the one claiming to have evidence of something contrary to the null hypothesis?...

you need retraining in debunker school ... "how to fall for 'reversed burden of proof' "

 

[LSSBB]

I suspect drumming up page hits is his primary reason for posting here.

That's my impression. Ad revenue.

 

[DGM]

Funny how that works. You just spent how many pages calling my stuff worthless and yet you don't even have the photographic evidence to back up your story.

Give me the link to the Purdue calculations please.

Your stuff is worthless, you even said so.

What photographic evidence do I need? I can log off this forum and you will still have nothing. You log off and the world still believe there were planes.(not that you're convincing anyone). Feeling even more insignificant yet?

Your claim. Get to work.

 

[yankee451]

Interesting how much energy he's spending demanding other people do Google searches for him or watch his videos and so little time (none actually) explaining how a missile not in production until 2009 was involved in 911.

FALSE

http://yankee451.com/2013/09/04/jassm-documentation/

 

[yankee451]

Your stuff is worthless, you even said so.

What photographic evidence do I need? I can log of this forum and you will still have nothing. You log off and the world still believe there were planes.(not that you're convincing anyone). Feeling even more insignificant yet?

Your claim. Get to work.

Link to the Purdue calculations please.

 

[Iamme]

Hahaha. Everytime i scroll down the forum list of the latest responses to the threads and read - WHAT CAUSED THE PLANE SHAPED HOLE? - i actually for real lol, and have to read that title outloud to myself for further amusement, then say to myself ``Umm, lets see, umm, yeah, what could have made a plane shaped hole?`` (as they show on tv planes crashing into the building!)
!

 

[Slowvehicle]

As stated numerous times before, use the NIST figure.

Can you provide the Purdue calculations?

1. Does this mean that you are admitting that you lied when you implied that I had "claimed victory"?

2. WHat was the speed of the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower, causing the damage it was observed to cause, at the point that it was observed to impact the tower? If you want to bail out and default to the NIST figure, that is fine with me; as long as you specifically endorse, and provide, that figure (as a scalar).

3. I never offered to provide the calculations Purdue used; were I to find it necessary, I would search the internet, or ask Purdue for them. I, however, have not been discussing the Purdue reconstruction; I have been asking you, personally, for the speed you, personally, would claim to be the speed at which the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower was moving at the point that it was observed to impact the tower...

 

[yankee451]

Hajaha. Everytime i scroll down the form list of the latest responses to the threads and read - WHAT CAUSED THE PLANE SHAPED HOLE? - i actually for real lol, and have to read that title outloud to myself for further amusement, then saying ``Umm, lets see, umm, yeah, what could have made a plane shaped hole?`` (as they show on tv planes crashing into the building!)
!

I know-oww! Like, we all saw it on TeeVee silly!

 

[DGM]

Link to the Purdue calculations please.

Why? Who do I need to convince?

 

[TheRedWorm]

So I can study them.

Produce the link please or stop citing it.

Why? You'd most likely just dismiss them out of hand like you do with all the other evidence. So why should anyone do your legwork for you?

 

[Robrob]

FALSE

http://yankee451.com/2013/09/04/jassm-documentation/

Your repeated linking to a purchase plan dated 1996 and your repeated ignoring of the actual deployment date (2009) seems more than a little disingenuous.

The missile's development began in 1995, but a number of problems during testing delayed its introduction into service until 2009.

 

[yankee451]

1. Does this mean that you are admitting that you lied when you implied that I had "claimed victory"?

2. WHat was the speed of the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower, causing the damage it was observed to cause, at the point that it was observed to impact the tower? If you want to bail out and default to the NIST figure, that is fine with me; as long as you specifically endorse, and provide, that figure (as a scalar).

3. I never offered to provide the calculations Purdue used; were I to find it necessary, I would search the internet, or ask Purdue for them. I, however, have not been discussing the Purdue reconstruction; I have been asking you, personally, for the speed you, personally, would claim to be the speed at which the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower was moving at the point that it was observed to impact the tower...

1 - huh?
2 - Use the NIST figure.
3 - I know, I was hoping you might be able to provide something that DGM could not.

 

[NoahFence]

I know-oww! Like, we all saw it on TeeVee silly!

Not all. Some in person. Say, 100,000 on a very low estimate.

 

[yankee451]

Your repeated linking to a purchase plan dated 1996 and your repeated ignoring of the actual deployment date (2009) seems more than a little disingenuous.

See if you can come up with the difference between "production" and "deployment".

The Airforce had several dozen JASSMs by the end of 2000, and the fact that they weren't officially deployed yet means nothing. They wouldn't have been very smart to use missiles that were deployed and in inventory would they?

Ever heard of plausible deniability? That's the crutch you're leaning on right now.

 

[DGM]

1 - huh?
2 - Use the NIST figure.
3 - I know, I was hoping you might be able to provide something that DGM could not.

You're lying again. "Could not" is not the same as chooses not to.

You really should try to be more honest.

 

[Robrob]

See if you can come up with the difference between "production" and "deployment".

The Airforce had several dozen JASSMs by the end of 2000, and the fact that they weren't officially deployed yet means nothing. They wouldn't have been very smart to use missiles that were deployed and in inventory would they?

Ever heard of plausible deniability? That's the crutch you're leaning on right now.

Hand wave noted.

In 1999, powered flight tests of the missile began. These were successful, and production of the JASSM began in December 2001. The weapon began operational testing and evaluation in 2002. Late that year, two missiles failed tests and the project was delayed for three months before completing development in April 2003. Two more launches failed, this time as a result of launcher and engine problems. In July 2007, a $68 million program to improve JASSM reliability and recertify the missile was approved by the Pentagon. A decision on whether to continue with the program was deferred until Spring 2008. Lockheed agreed to fix the missiles at its own cost and has tightened up its manufacturing processes.

 

[DGM]

The Airforce had several dozen JASSMs by the end of 2000,

Proof?

Let me guess, you just know?