Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

twinstead said:
Can I assume that the obvious answer to what should have been a two-post thread is still "a plane"?
Click to expand...
Everyone knows this.

Now more people know to look at how stupid the idea really is, and where to go for the evidence.

It's like reading "National Enquirer", we all know it's bunk and for entertainment.
 
twinstead said:
Can I assume that the obvious answer to what should have been a two-post thread is still "a plane"?
Click to expand...

Yes.It's plain a plane shaped hole explains the plane shaped plane and it's plain a plane shaped plane explains the plane shaped hole. A new tongue twister for truthers to learn.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
Can I assume that the obvious answer to what should have been a two-post thread is still "a plane"?
Click to expand...

Yep.

A plane (AA11) carrying 76 passengers (plus 5 hijackers) and 11 crew. People yankee claims didn't exist.

A plane hitting a building with thousands of people inside. People yankee claims didn't exist.

And he wonders why engineers do not want to be associated with him... :mad:
 
Last edited:
Yankee451:
I've just watched your 'crash test project' video. I would like to commend you on your clear and focused delivery. Your voice is nicely recorded and you obviously put considerable effort into editing your script to eliminate unclear phasing. As I told Tracy in her thread about her minecraft WTC project, delivery of content makes a big difference.

Pity you didn't fact check things a bit better. You raise a point about Newton's laws, but it is obvious to anyone with even a smattering of relevant education or real world experience that action/reaction would not prevent 'mostly hollow aluminum' from damaging the tower structure. The momentum of the plane would need to be absorbed 100% into the airframe deformation in order to prevent the airplane from damaging the tower.

Even if the columns and the column connections had all held up to the kinetic energy equivalent of a half ton of TNT the plane would have still slid through the wall, as the wall presents only 35% structural opacity. It would be like firing a pumpkin cannon at a chain link fence.

Your intuitive and uninformed numberless reacharound to Newton's laws isn't utilizing a complete understanding of action/reaction. I can fire a shotgun loaded with birdshot at any number of targets that the birdshot, each an individual speck of lead, could easily penetrate. The plane components, even while experiencing rapid compressive deformation and disassembly, would still present mass at velocity to the building components. The weakest point of any compound object is where individual components are joined; in the case of the WTC that would be the rivets holding the structural members. Popping the rivets alone would allow the plane to enter even if the box columns survived the experience unbent.

So if your core belief is that a plane "couldn't" penetrate the building because "hollow aluminum" and "newton's laws" then perhaps you could look into modeling the collision using computer simulations. That would cost less than jumping straight to rocket sled collisions and would allow you to fine tune the experiment to give the most valid results. Also, you could easily model the collision in small scale , again allowing fine tuning of both hardware and software sims of the collision.

Or you could research the subject and find that several different Finite Element Analysis simulations have been done by several different teams at several different universities over a range of years. The results for these projects are available to anyone, including new researchers seeking to model the collision today.

For your "theory" to be true would require every computer science department at every university on earth to NOT do that simulation, ever, from 9/11 until the heat death of the universe, but even then 2 undergrads with an over-the-counter physics program could do it on a laptop and blow the whole thing open.

Numbers. You haven't used them. They're important.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
There are plenty of people who believe they've seen aliens and Bigfoot, but hearsay isn't exactly proof, is it?
Click to expand...

The difference here is that we have evidence of the plane from video, radar and the aircraft parts.

So, did you really pay an engineer to "work" on this for you?
 
yankee451 said:
So why would two separate jets striking at different trajectories, different speeds and impacting steel of different thicknesses create such similar damage?

The mind boggles.
Click to expand...
its called orders of magnitude. The resulting forces involved will have been similar, the same order of magentude. With that amount of energy and similar collisions (same building, both similar jet lines), the differences in the results will not be easy to see. Basically the same sort of impact.

BTW whats with the stoves?

The mind boggles.
Click to expand...

Yes, so it would seem. I think we can all see you are struggling with the basics.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
The east-west directional damage from wingtip to wingtip indicates a jet traveling north-south didn't cause it (if such a thing were actually possible in the real world.) We've already gone over this.
Click to expand...
yes, but a Jet did crash into the buildings, the evidence for which is indisputable. So we start from there and then ask how a plane could have done the damage you are talking about. ITs actually quite straightforward logic. Even my 8 year old could follow this. Come on now, try harder.
 
yankee451 said:
that the TeeVee was all the proof you need.
Click to expand...
In this case, with so much TEEVEE, and there is a lot, plus all the eye witnesses, yes its pretty much all I need. Should be all you need.

Also, where are you getting this plane shaped hole images from? off the TEEVEE!? er, the same TEEVEE that shows clearly a plane hitting the buildings, that according to you has been faked. But the fakery stops when the plane shaped hole is displayed in the same TEEVEE footage. Duh :/
 
Last edited:
(I feel like an idiot for posting in a 9/11-conspiracy thread. Here goes!)

Yankee451, your understanding of how wedges work is totally wrong. Your claim is: the plane's wing is at a 30 degree angle, so anything that hits it should be pushed to the side rather than forwards? If you've seen that sort of "push aside" effect before, it has been in (i'm fairly certain) in (a) elastic collisions, like a baseball being struck by a bat, or (b) interactions of objects that can slide along each other, like slushy snow being struck by a snowplow. A metal beam, interacting with an airplane wing, is an inelastic collision. There's no sliding going on. The wing could have been canted at 45 degrees or 60 degrees and I would still expect it to exert a forward force.

Your intuition that there should be a sideways force is totally wrong.
 
I estimated years ago (from census data maps) while dealing with another Nope Lamer (DIFbat kooskoets, if you know him; I suspect he is the actual Ace Baker) that about 5 million people live within sight of the WTC, based on the circle described by teh home videos taken of the towers (this video collection, which you have apparently not watched).

Some percentage of 5 million people were looking at the tower when the second plane hit. Some percentage of those 5 million put video cameras on their balconies and filmed the second impact. So how is it that 20+ different videos were taken that show the exact same event, from 20 different angles and distances, if there were no planes?

Do you realize the implications of this? You are now adding to the conspiracy the ability to
1) prevent 5 million potential witnesses from looking at the second impact
2) prevent even one of those 5 million people from plunking a VHS camera on the balcony and taping over old Friends episodes while taking care of the baby
3) Gain access to every single one of any videos that might be taken and edit them to insert, consistently, a plane and the various ejecta

This makes no sense. You have created a nonsensical contention.

{edit to add:}
time sigs refer to rough start of clips
02:15 shows the building flex on impact
03:00 was taken from about 5 miles away, based on terrain association of visible landmarks and google earth
05:15 also about 5 miles away but on the other side
07:20 filmed from about 8 blocks away. I think this is the video that was discovered months later when the young couple unpacked after moving away from NY.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MileHighMadness said:
I guess I could post that Purdue University video, where they shoot a Ping-Pong ball thru a Ping-Pong paddle...but that probably would help Yankee451, at all.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA!

Yeah, because a ping pong ball is like a 767 in what way, exactly?
 
yankee451 said:
HAHAHA!

Yeah, because a ping pong ball is like a 767 in what way, exactly?
Click to expand...

I dunno, it's hollow and flimsy? Intuitively you wouldn't expect to to be capable of penetrating a harder object? It's shaped like the basketball you keep comparing the leading edge of a jet to?
 
yankee451 said:
HAHAHA!

Yeah, because a ping pong ball is like a 767 in what way, exactly?
Click to expand...
Correct, the 767 was far heavier and far stronger compared with the building compared with the pingpong ball and bat.

I'm board with this thread now. The argument is so silly theres no fun in it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom