Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

yankee451 said:
Uhh...so the cladding was like the peel on an orange?

:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

*facepalm*

Don't be silly.

Your left side pic clearly shows the effects of damage and subsequent heat on the cladding. It is coming away from the steal in many places near the hole, not counting any cladding partially or fully detached at impact.

There is a female figure standing in the hole further right by the way. Another one of your people that didn't exist?
 
Dash80 said:
*facepalm*

Don't be silly.

Your left side pic clearly shows the effects of damage and subsequent heat on the cladding. It is coming away from the steal in many places near the hole, not counting any cladding partially or fully detached at impact.

There is a female figure standing in the hole further right by the way. Another one of your people that didn't exist?
Click to expand...

Edna Cintron. She's mentioned in the video.

I'm interested in this "peeling" of the cladding and how you think the pinch at the far left is a "peel". Do you know how it was installed?
 
yankee451 said:
Heh, yes. Wings and columns are both modeled as box beams which is a way of twisting the model to suit a predetermined conclusion.

The math isn't as important as their method.
Click to expand...

Although you've quoted the wrong post (sloppy!) I understand you're responding to me.

This study made certain sacrifices for the limitations of the computation. Their results match the results of others. At the velocity the plane was going modeling the wing as a simplified object of appropriate weight and materials is sufficient to answer the core question of their study, which was how much stronger the WTC would need to have been to prevent the plane fully penetrating the building. They asked a simplified question and got a simplified answer.

You, on the other hand, standing by your wood stove with a priori conclusion firmly in hand model the airplane as "a hollow aluminum tube" and do no calculations whatever. Your results are not usable.
 
Thickness of 767-200 Wing Tip

Okay, that's it for me tonight. I am asking in good faith for help in learning the measurement from top skin to bottom skin of the last 18 inches of the wingtip of a 767-200. Thanks in advance to anyone who can supply these specs.

Steve
 
yankee451 said:
I have tried looking it up to no avail. Why the hostility? Don't you want to know whether the wing tip of a Boeing 767-200 could have caused the little pinch? No? Well I sure do. I have tried calling aircraft graveyards and have received permission to show up with video camera and tape measure to see for myself but haven't made the trip yet.

Come on, someone must have a ballpark measurement.

Anyone?
Click to expand...

Since it's part of your argument I'd have thought you would have a measurement.

Do you always demand that others find your facts for you?
 
yankee451 said:
And each and every one of the "home videos" has been proven fraudulent seven ways from Sunday, and not a single one of them involved the North Tower, which is the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...

And where might the link be to support this assertion? Since you're so demanding of others to provide links, perhaps you should set an example. After all, this is how the process works.

Anyone want to take bets on whether the OP provides anything of substance in response (if there is a response at all, that is)?
 
yankee451 said:
And each and every one of the "home videos" has been proven fraudulent seven ways from Sunday
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
, and not a single one of them involved the North Tower, which is the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...
Are you now arguing that the plane shaped hole in the South tower was caused by a plane but the similarly plane shaped hole in the North tower was not?

Are you going to explain how a missile (which was such a troubled design that it didn't enter service until almost the end of the decade) was used with pinpoint accuracy to gouge the surface of the tower, magically bending one column to the right and a neighbouring column to the left?
 
NoahFence said:
Why do you ignore the witnesses on the ground?
Click to expand...

But...in a post above it is stated that even home videos were fraudulent. So the obvious answer has to be the witnesses are fraudulent too. Lol. Right? Doesnt that stand to follow?
.
So then we demand of HIM to show us the evidence to back up such outlandish claims.
Now when dealing with claims that sound nutty where one or a few people are making the outlandish claim, i can see such a demand placed on the story teller.
But in this particular case, since we like KNOW what happened that day...that supposedly thousands knew what happened...cant we make an exception to the rule and show we are better informed and provide HIM with our evidence? Do we need to shy away and harp on him to provide the evidence?
Afterall, we DO have lots of evidence on our side, right? Don`t we? Lol.
So if he says we were duped by the media, and even home videos, etc., then are any of us knowledgable or smart enough to counteract that argument?
It seems like anything we post here, including pictures, he could claim is made up by somebody. Lol.
.
What i enjoy about this is such logic..such mental game playing... challenges the mind, regarding many claims made on topics at JREF. It actually might be a good lesson to know how to battle this in various debates.
In real life, face to face with people, using such tactics that fly against conventional wisdom and normally accepted evidence, that this could actually cause some people to go to blows over some discussed topic. Lol
 
Iamme said:
So if he says we were duped by the media, and even home videos, etc., then are any of us knowledgable or smart enough to counteract that argument?
Click to expand...
There are direct eyewitnesses who have posted in yankee451's threads and he just waves them away.

It seems like anything we post here, including pictures, he could claim is made up by somebody. Lol.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, LOL indeed. If you steadfastly refuse to accept any body of evidence, however impossible it would be to fake and to sustain the lie, then you can argue just about anything. You could argue that the towers never existed and had to be got rid of because the hologram projectors were getting too old to maintain. You could argue that New York never existed and is just an overused movie set. You could argue that Afghanistan never existed and 9/11 was faked so the army could be sent on a really expensive training exercise right next door to Iran.

The list of stupid is pretty well unlimited.
 
yankee451 said:
Okay, that's it for me tonight. I am asking in good faith for help in learning the measurement from top skin to bottom skin of the last 18 inches of the wingtip of a 767-200. Thanks in advance to anyone who can supply these specs.

Steve
Click to expand...

If it were so important for you to know this measurement, why wouldn’t you find it on your own? Why do you expect others to do your research for you?

And, if someone did give you the exact measurement, you more than likely wouldn’t believe it anyway.

Contact Boeing, I’m sure they have the answer.
 
tsig said:
Since it's part of your argument I'd have thought you would have a measurement.
Click to expand...

I noted the difference in sizes of the gashes, the measurements for which are easily gauged by comparing them to the known measurements of the columns.
tsig said:
Do you always demand that others find your facts for you?
Click to expand...

It wasn't a demand. If you don't know, just say so.
 
Without bothering to go back and look at 28 pages of this nonsense, has anyone pointed out to yankee the warplane that impacted and penetrated the Empire State Building in the 40's? His response?
 
yankee451 said:
They're no more or less reliable, but at least the damage evidence is consistent with their accounts.
Click to expand...

I have a question about your analysis of the holes. Where did you get the images and how do you know you didn't base your whole "theory" on a fake?

Considering the buildings are no longer there, how are you so sure the images are accurate?

I hate to say it but, unless you can prove those images are real, I'm going to have to dismiss all the work you've done.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom