Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[Jrrarglblarg]

Is everyone with me so far?

No. You are concentrating on micro details but ignoring all the other evidence downrange of the impact.

1) the building flexed in the direction of impact at a time consitent with travel time from impact to center of the building.

2) aircraft ejecta left the building at a time consistent with travel time from impact to exterior of building. Some of the ejecta was fuel/air bolus that exploded at the outside of the buiding (Pinocchio's nose) and other ejecta was large aircraft parts that were found in locations consistent with all the other evidence.

3) You have not provided sufficient explanation for the 20+ videos of the impact that show a completely consistent 3-d reality of aircraft flying into building. Hand waving away evidence is not counter-evidence, it's just noise.

The nope lamer notion is the "c-rock" of the 9/11 movement.

 

[Robrob]

Yes, some sections obviously were, good point, but let's pretend for a moment they were there...I mean, if there really WAS a plane, the floors HAD to have been there, right? If not Marsh McLennan has some explaining to do, eh?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

This is where an honest disputant would provide evidence...

 

[yankee451]

You've posted a bunch of pictures with red lines. Eventually I assume you will try and explain what you think they mean?

Well, right off the top of my head I'd say they mean you need to retract your pictures:

Or are you sticking with them as your interpretation of the evidence?

 

[Slowvehicle]

AGM-158 JASSM Launch
platforms:
B-1 Lancer
B-2 Spirit
B-52 Stratofortress
F-15E Strike Eagle
F-16 Fighting Falcon
F/A-18 Hornet
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
F-35 Lightning II
P-3 Orion

Notice they are all aircraft? Wonder why there are no static mount launchers?

It is also instructional to watch the first several seconds of an actual launch of an actual JASSM, the way they are actually capable of being launched.

 

[Robrob]

Well, right off the top of my head I'd say they mean you need to retract your pictures:

Or are you sticking with them as your interpretation of the evidence?

So are you eventually going to make a point?

 

[yankee451]

Whoa there big boy, weren’t you not too long ago claiming your mathematical skills were so much better than mine?

Is that what I said and retracted? which post was that?

 

[RoboTimbo]

No. You are concentrating on micro details but ignoring all the other evidence downrange of the impact.

1) the building flexed in the direction of impact at a time consitent with travel time from impact to center of the building.

I've seen video of the deflection and I seem to remember 11 inches but now can't find anything about it. Cite? Video?

 

[beachnut]

Why can't you lay out this simple physics? Physics is math.

Show your math. Simple, right?

BTW: the math is in the links I gave you, stop saying it doesn't exists.

Here it is again: https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/

The OP links to anti-intellectual no plane lies. Math and physics are prohibited in the world of fantasy 911 truth created out of ignorance and hate.

 

[yankee451]

Proof of your Airforce claim?

From earlier in the thread:

JASSMs have 60x12 inch dense metal penetrating warheads with fuses that can distinguish whether they're penetrating soil, rock or concrete and their use was mostly to cut the wing gashes, hence they didn't need to detonate on impact.
http://yankee451.com/2013/09/04/jassm-documentation/

The Airforce had at least 35 pilot production JASSMs before 9/11:
[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/5-35-pilot-production-missiles.png[/qimg]

 

[yankee451]

So are you eventually going to make a point?

I think I've already made several very good points, not the least of which being that your idea of scale leaves much to be desired. You might want to delete those images before you forget and post them yet again.

 

[Iamme]

How come this subject was seriously discussed? To prove whose smarter regarding laws of physics, rather than if missiles flew into the buildings instead of planes, or not?
It was shown live on tv, actual witnesses saw planes, and people took photos and videos of at least the second plane hitting the second building.
Who has pics or videos of missiles flying into the buildings? Especially on cameras that have clocks built in.

 

[yankee451]

No. You are concentrating on micro details but ignoring all the other evidence downrange of the impact.

1) the building flexed in the direction of impact at a time consitent with travel time from impact to center of the building.

2) aircraft ejecta left the building at a time consistent with travel time from impact to exterior of building. Some of the ejecta was fuel/air bolus that exploded at the outside of the buiding (Pinocchio's nose) and other ejecta was large aircraft parts that were found in locations consistent with all the other evidence.

3) You have not provided sufficient explanation for the 20+ videos of the impact that show a completely consistent 3-d reality of aircraft flying into building. Hand waving away evidence is not counter-evidence, it's just noise.

The nope lamer notion is the "c-rock" of the 9/11 movement.

We're still examining the scene of the crime, step one in any criminal investigation. Don't get ahead of yourself.

 

[yankee451]

How come this subject was seriously discussed? To prove whose smarter regarding laws of physics, rather than if missiles flew into the buildings instead of planes, or not?
It was shown live on tv, actual witnesses saw planes, and people took photos and videos of at least the second plane hitting the second building.
Who has pics or videos of missiles flying into the buildings? Especially on cameras that have clocks built in.

You missed the part where not one of you can provide any physics to prove your claims, so we're all examining the available evidence together now.

What do you see? A pterodactyl?

 

[fess]

FALSE

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

Totally inaccurate, and you know it. So that makes it a lie. I addressed this article in another post, but you didn’t acknowledge it.

 

[yankee451]

Totally inaccurate, and you know it. So that makes it a lie. I addressed this article in another post, but you didn’t acknowledge it.

Huh. You accusing me of fabricating it or something? I mean, I'm good but...

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I've seen video of the deflection and I seem to remember 11 inches but now can't find anything about it. Cite? Video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M

It's the clip at about 2:20. I can't remember the name that clip is known by, but if anyone else does . . .. ? Anyway, in the better quality versions it looks like the building flexes about one column width.

 

[fess]

Yes, some sections obviously were, good point, but let's pretend for a moment they were there...I mean, if there really WAS a plane, the floors HAD to have been there, right? If not Marsh McLennan has some explaining to do, eh?

Let’s pretend, why not? You’ve been pretending for 19 pages now. So, were the floors removed, or what?

 

[DGM]

From earlier in the thread:

That does not support your claim that they had them. Where did you get the claim that they had the missiles in 2000?

 

[Kid Eager]

Huh. You accusing me of fabricating it or something? I mean, I'm good but...

The documents are real, the claim you make about them is a lie.