Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

ApolloGnomon said:
In the video you make a statement
"The inward bends of these two big wall panels are ample evidence for missing floors, because this sort of damage was only possible if there were no floors behind them."

that is pure speculation. Unless you have done the numbers you're just making things up. Several different FEA results verify that a 767 at 450 to 550 mph is more than capable of damaging the building to the extent shown.

Do you know what FEA is yet?

In another part you say
"The next column was shattered. Something exploded on the face, causing top of the column to protrude out, evidence the bolts were removed from this seam."

That spot is where the engine was mounted to the wing. An absurd proportion of a plane's dry weight is the engines. Gee, your imaginary conspirators sure were good at covering all the bases. The even enlarged the hole where a plane's engine would have make a larger hole. Tricky fellows. Too bad they didn't plant any other fake evidence of planes to trick us. What, for example, would have happened to the fuel and air within the fuselage? Wouldn't it move forward at 500 mph after the plane itself was totally shredded into confetti by being shoved across steel box columns? Oh, yes! They did include that important detail. It's called "the hole that wasn't there" or "Pinocchio's nose" by truthers (you can google those terms if you are unfamiliar with them). The location of that damage on the downrange side of the tower is consistent with the direction of the plane travel into and through the building, and the damage itself is suggestive -- the aluminum cladding is blown off, but the steel columns are just burnt.

Tricky fellows, those NWO Garden Gnomes! So clever!
Click to expand...

In the flurry of posts last night perhaps this one was overlooked. You make large but unsupported assumptions here (bolded above for clarity).

Feel free to back those up if you are unwilling to retract them.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
There are direct eyewitnesses who have posted in yankee451's threads and he just waves them away.



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.
Click to expand...

Hahaha. Great read. That made my day.
 
Uh huh. In cartoon land.
Click to expand...

No, in cartoon land a guy can stand next to a woodstove and talk about hollow aluminum tubes then complain because some of the FEA models reduce the complexity of the airplane wing to a simplified form factor of equivalent mass of metal.

You claim that a 767 at 500mph couldn't penetrate the building. Claim is on you, prove your claim. Use numbers.

You claim that the FEA models we've shown you are invalid. The claim is on you. Produce your own results. Pulling a priori conclusions from your goatse does not count. Use numbers.
 
yankee451 said:
Interesting story. Are you referring to the Purdue video again?
Click to expand...

I'm referring to the FEA that generated the data that was later interpreted INTO that video, as well as this one http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0527767 and this one http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...34743X02001069

That's three different FEA studies. They use Newton's laws. You stand next to a stove and goatse numberless assumptions.

If you are so sure the Purdue FEA is wrong, do the math and prove it. If you think the Karim/Hoo Fatt FEA is wrong, do the math and prove it. If you think the Wierzbiki/Teng FEA is wrong, do the math and prove it.

Standing next to a stove and flailing on numberlessly is not proof.
 
My point about the FEA is that multiple computer simulations have been done to analyze the WTC impact. Either they're all wrong and confused or you are. Given that the results of those three FEA sims agree that a 767 could smash through the columns, and you base your "couldn't happen" on numberless analysis of faulty comparisons, I think I know which one I'd bet on.
 
Steve, I kinda like you after watching one of your videos (the crash test one) so I'll even help you get started.

Assume a 767 weighs 300,000 lbs. Assume the plane is flying at 500 mph. Assume the plane crashes into a totally non-deformable homogenous surface like a concrete wall a million miles thick.

How many footpounds of force does the airplane apply to the wall?
 
I notice a slight hypocrisy in the standards of evidence demanded...

OP = wave hands in front of wood fire, incorrectly interprets photos to reach predetermined conclusion. No actual evidence to support conclusions

Respondents = provide links, provide force calculations, provide physical evidence at scene, provide footage shot at day, provide eyewitness accounts.

OP = "your evidence is not good enough to negate my conclusion. Anyway, I don't do science. Oh, and by the way, show me more calculations that I can dismiss out of hand. And sorry for not bothering to read the links - I already told you I don't do science, therefore they're all wrong".

Rinse, lather, repeat....
 
Kid Eager said:
I notice a slight hypocrisy in the standards of evidence demanded...

OP = wave hands in front of wood fire, incorrectly interprets photos to reach predetermined conclusion. No actual evidence to support conclusions

Respondents = provide links, provide force calculations, provide physical evidence at scene, provide footage shot at day, provide eyewitness accounts.

OP = "your evidence is not good enough to negate my conclusion. Anyway, I don't do science. Oh, and by the way, show me more calculations that I can dismiss out of hand. And sorry for not bothering to read the links - I already told you I don't do science, therefore they're all wrong".

Rinse, lather, repeat....
Click to expand...

That's truthers for you. They make one jump through hoops then completely ignore anything one presents or dismiss it for some illogical reason. I'm trying to get one to see reason on another site, but no, this guy just believes the same old debunked garbage and no proof is good enough for him, however, his evidence is scant and his reasoning skills are poor, but that's ok when it comes to his confirmation bias.
 
Last edited:
Kid Eager said:
I notice a slight hypocrisy in the standards of evidence demanded...

OP = wave hands in front of wood fire, incorrectly interprets photos to reach predetermined conclusion. No actual evidence to support conclusions

Respondents = provide links, provide force calculations, provide physical evidence at scene, provide footage shot at day, provide eyewitness accounts.

OP = "your evidence is not good enough to negate my conclusion. Anyway, I don't do science. Oh, and by the way, show me more calculations that I can dismiss out of hand. And sorry for not bothering to read the links - I already told you I don't do science, therefore they're all wrong".

Rinse, lather, repeat....
Click to expand...

Actually I'm using the same criteria the OP faithful use, albeit at least I have the damage evidence in my corner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom