IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11

Reply
Old 10th January 2014, 01:24 PM   #281
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif

I don't think it has been said but...

one characteristic of a plane is that it is plane shaped.


No way! That is the nuttiest thing I have heard all day.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

Last edited by Mark F; 10th January 2014 at 01:24 PM. Reason: typo
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 01:28 PM   #282
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
Frankly I'm sorry to the OP and to the staff members that wound up having to clean the portion of the mess I made in the debate. I'd just seen this no planes argument since 2008 and contrary to the tone that the op sets none of the actual arguments are new. And they're wrong. If he wants to believe they made live holograms then maybe it would serve better to prove that argument beyond reasonable doubt as opposed to reciprocating the snipes. Otherwise I hardly see value in the thread either as an instrument for the op or as way to critique a topic that's been repeated.

In most respects I don't think more commentary is really needed unless the op is taken more seriously... not that I personally believe the no planes idea really can be taken that way
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 10th January 2014 at 01:30 PM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 01:39 PM   #283
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post

In most respects I don't think more commentary is really needed unless the op is taken more seriously... not that I personally believe the no planes idea really can be taken that way
Yankee451 actually believes there were planes. He just thinks the buildings needed to be specially rigged in order for them to do what they did. He's a "new" special flavor.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 03:27 PM   #284
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Yankee451 actually believes there were planes. He just thinks the buildings needed to be specially rigged in order for them to do what they did. He's a "new" special flavor.
Really? That's a change of direction, if so. Previously he was convinced there were no planes and the plane-shaped holes were carved by a fusilade of ultra-precise missile strikes from various angles.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 03:28 PM   #285
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Yankee451 actually believes there were planes. He just thinks the buildings needed to be specially rigged in order for them to do what they did. He's a "new" special flavor.
That is some serious precision flying then for these no-talent hijacker pilots to line the planes up EXACTLY where the charges were.

Really, do we have to entertain things this dumb?
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 03:32 PM   #286
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Really, do we have to entertain things this dumb?
No, quite the opposite in fact.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 03:52 PM   #287
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Really? That's a change of direction, if so. Previously he was convinced there were no planes and the plane-shaped holes were carved by a fusilade of ultra-precise missile strikes from various angles.
Oh, was yankee the guy who was rabbiting on about the JASSM? I loved that!
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 04:07 PM   #288
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by fess View Post
I’ll accept that, but I was trying to be nice.
.
You've noticed it Whooshed right over his head.
It is saddening over the years of watching this stuff to see noobs come in and pick up on the conspiracy parts only.
The actual reasons are fully and properly explained, and have been for 13 years now, and one would expect an intelligent observer to be capable of fingering the fact from the bizarre off-the-wall fictions, but, as my aero prof would say, "Thinking is painful", so the easy way out of swallowing cockamamie is the path easiest taken by these shlemeils.
And when their errors are dissected and corrected, invincibly ignorant properly describes them when they maintain their unsupportable positions.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 06:43 PM   #289
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Surely you can use your math to demonstrate how the east-west bends and twists were caused by aluminum sheeting formed into the shape of a jet with 30 degree swept back wings striking in a north-south trajectory.
Swept back in this case will not cause a wedge shaped damage. The force was enormous and normal... it was not parting the material like a bow of a ship.

Your analysis is flawed on this point.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 06:56 PM   #290
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
First tell me how much the radome, cockpit and forward cabin impact retarded the forward momentum of the whole plane. We all know a real jet's wings would snap off at that point but there it is on the TeeVee, the whole plane sliding like butter into the building, so be conservative, how much did the fuselage impact slow down the rest of the plane?
Why would they snap off? You're just saying it.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 07:04 PM   #291
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
First tell me how much the radome, cockpit and forward cabin impact retarded the forward momentum of the whole plane. We all know a real jet's wings would snap off at that point but there it is on the TeeVee, the whole plane sliding like butter into the building, so be conservative, how much did the fuselage impact slow down the rest of the plane?
You've already acknowledged the mass of the wings (plus fuel). Why do you pretend otherwise?
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 07:05 PM   #292
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
My claim is that the damage evidence is inconsistent with a jet crash, you are simply clutching at any straw to avoid having to discuss how it is.

And the word I used was "all", it was you who used "several". Get your accusations straight. You said you'd appreciate my posting one, if not several examples. I did, but you didn't. Sue me.
While the tone of the comments is degrading and insulting... the content of several have explained how the materials would behave and it is consistent with the damage observed. Your statements and "beliefs" about physics and strengths of materials and energetic mechanical interactions have been shown to be incorrect.

The column bolts were not removed they sheared... and that would depend on how close the joint was to the impact mass. Some were very.. some were as much as 18' away. The staggered panels and the geometry of the plane and mass distribution account for the variety of facade and structural damage to the staggered panel system.

It appears to me that you are hunting for some science... science which does not exist... to support your preconception that planes caused all the damage. You are way above your pay grade here. But don't feel bad, most people haven't a clue about such things either and their world view is informed by Hollywood FX. We've got a population which has been educated by TV and Hollywood rubbish... and I think that includes you Mr Yankee.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 07:29 PM   #293
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Swept back in this case will not cause a wedge shaped damage. The force was enormous and normal... it was not parting the material like a bow of a ship.

Your analysis is flawed on this point.
LOL. You are right. That is exactly what his cartoon physics predicts.

For some reason I am hearing the Ride of the Valkeries.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 07:54 PM   #294
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
You see had you watched the video or read the transcript you would know I was debunking the folks who claim a reinforced jet was used.
Why would you do that when your irrational belief is neither better nor worse than any other irrational belief about 9/11? Death rays, removed bolts, CDs, nano thermite, holograms, it's all a distinction without a difference. You're just sitting in a different car on the same crazy train, that's all.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 08:23 PM   #295
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
 
MIKILLINI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
in Randi World, the mass and weight of the building doesn't matter, only the speed of the wing, which also happens to be as sharp as a basketball
In this scenario physics doesn't take on the total mass and weight of the building, but it does take on the full weight and mass of a fuel laden 757 flying over 500 mph crashing into a specific area of the building. Sharpness takes on a whole different perspective; Harder and more defined than a basketball..
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me

The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo

Last edited by MIKILLINI; 10th January 2014 at 09:15 PM.
MIKILLINI is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 09:01 PM   #296
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
That is some serious precision flying then for these no-talent hijacker pilots to line the planes up EXACTLY where the charges were.

Really, do we have to entertain things this dumb?
I've repeatedly asked Truthers how the bad guys managed to keep the charges from getting damaged.

Only Clayton has ever acknowledged the question, and he would only commit to hand-waving about "computer simulations".
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 09:11 PM   #297
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
I've repeatedly asked Truthers how the bad guys managed to keep the charges from getting damaged.
That is a measure of how low the standard of truther claims has fallen....and the debunker responses dragged down with them.

In the peak era of 9/11 internet discussions 2006-7-8 when there were quite a few 'genuine honest truthers' around all of those factors were routinely discussed as part of the need for a coherent complete explanation.

The truthers and trolls we see today are all "single anomaly" focussed. And the expressions "genuine truther" or "honest truther" are oxymorons.

Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Only Clayton has ever acknowledged the question, and he would only commit to hand-waving about "computer simulations".
Both Clayton and Ergo have occasionally asked sensible questions but AFAIK rarely gone to a second post stage of discussion and never to a third post of reasoned debate.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 09:21 PM   #298
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 9,580
Originally Posted by MIKILLINI View Post
In this scenario physics doesn't take on the total mass and weight of the building, but it does take on the full weight and mass of a fuel laden 757 flying over 500 mph crashing into a specific area of the building. Sharpness takes on a whole different perspective; Harder and more defined than a basketball..
Truthers should never go the round ball route when we have video of a Ping-Pong ball passing through a Ping-Pong paddle.
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2014, 09:37 PM   #299
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
In this video I examine the North Tower impact damage on 9/11, allegedly caused by American Airlines Flight 11.

The damage evidence eliminates explosives alone as being the cause, and at the same time it eliminates a Boeing 767 or a reinforced jet of any kind. The video also dispenses with the hologram nonsense and pokes fun at the “mini-nuke” crowd as well as pokes a finger in the eye of the Judy Wood clique.

http://yankee451.com/2014/01/07/cut-...e-episode-one/
...
The OP has a lie in the first sentence. It was flight 11, to say allegedly is wrong.

Next lie, the damage, a failed statement; damage proves it was a 767.

Next lie, it does not eliminate a 767, it proves a 767.

Next lie is the video, with continuous nonsense, debunks itself in 7 seconds.

Then the web site, "tons" of gibberish, like this.
Quote:
But these floors were lightweight concrete on a sixty-foot truss system and were not designed for heavy loads, yet here we see what must be dozens of tons of debris, some of which fell 20 feet, to land in a heap on this floor. Comparatively the mechanical floors required I-beams to be able to support the big elevator motors and other heavy equipment, so what’s holding up this pile? Why didn’t the multi-ton wall panels plunge through this floor and every floor beneath it? Clearly this floor was heavily reinforced and I believe this is because they needed a big pile of debris to fill the hole so people wouldn’t notice the empty tower and the lack of jet parts behind it.
Fantasy to support a failed fantasy.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 02:15 AM   #300
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
First tell me how much the radome, cockpit and forward cabin impact retarded the forward momentum of the whole plane. We all know a real jet's wings would snap off at that point but there it is on the TeeVee, the whole plane sliding like butter into the building, so be conservative, how much did the fuselage impact slow down the rest of the plane?

Regarding the wings snapping off: As a pilot (including 757s and 767s), I don't think so. The wings are virtually "one" as they are "tied" together through/underneath the fuselage with the wing spar. And even if the wing spar were to "snap," the wings of the airplane would already virtually entirely be in the building in a swept back fashion within a nano-second longer than if they had not snapped at all, i.e., it would make no real difference.

This is not to say you do not make some interesting points. And what I say does not disprove what is shown in you video.
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 03:09 AM   #301
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Regarding the wings snapping off: As a pilot (including 757s and 767s), I don't think so. The wings are virtually "one" as they are "tied" together through/underneath the fuselage with the wing spar. And even if the wing spar were to "snap," the wings of the airplane would already virtually entirely be in the building in a swept back fashion within a nano-second longer than if they had not snapped at all, i.e., it would make no real difference.
Given that the wings and their fuel load have a lot of mass - i.e. wings will do much if not all of their own cutting through the perimeter columns - the actual differential force to cause wing separation/shearing will be much lower than some folk seem to be expecting.

Get your qualitative model of the free body physics right people.

And - no I'm not about to do the maths. I said "qualitative".
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 05:19 AM   #302
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
Yankee,
I find it curious that aside from the sarcasm of some posters here, much of your theories have had the rug pulled out from under them... with sound science and engineering. Yet you refuse to accept these explanations.

Why?

Do you dispute the science?

Do you understand that the columns were not fluid to be parted by the impacting jet parts and wedged east and west (even equally) as you assert?

Do you understand how the bolts would be sheared from the lateral forces of the end plates moving past one another. You got one point correct.. the 4 bolts per column connection were inadequate to keep them together when subject to the impact of a fast moving plane.

Have you seen the panels and perimeter columns in the debris pile? Where are the bolts? How did they get removed from thousands of perimeter columns? You don't think someone removed them as part of a CD prep do you?

They were sheared... heads or shanks... or pulled through the column end plates... from forces of the column leverage. The weak link in the assembly.

You are making up nonsense. Stop it and get real.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.

Last edited by JSanderO; 11th January 2014 at 05:20 AM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 07:33 AM   #303
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,215
I figured the such...regarding pilot david.watts explanation regarding penetration.
Now for some enjoyable reading that could maybe help shed som light on the physics of this, google: Mythbusters episode 61 - deadly straw - mythbusters results
Google those exact words, and click on the site of those exact words.
Very interesting.
Plus the second myth listed made me laugh. (The chicken)
And the one about plants might be worth a thread of its own in our paranormal section!
Be sure to read viewers comments regarding the straw test, as some of the comments like the one ones about being wet, the newspaper, etc are most interesting.
This might help you when contemplating the wings penetration.
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 08:36 AM   #304
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This is where you go off. You have not calculated the area of impacts ability to arrest this motion. NIST and Perdue did but, you don't believe in physics so you don't believe them.

<cough>
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 08:41 AM   #305
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
This is sad to the point of hilarity.

"What caused the plane shaped hole in that building that just got hit by a plane?"

Yeah that's one of the mysteries of the ages. You don't exactly need Occam's Razor to work through that one. Occam's Dull Butter Knife will suffice.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 09:01 AM   #306
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Swept back in this case will not cause a wedge shaped damage. The force was enormous and normal... it was not parting the material like a bow of a ship.

Your analysis is flawed on this point.

Just to expand on this, Yankee, do you know why a guillotine blade is angled?
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 09:42 AM   #307
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
<cough>
I know, noticed too late for edit.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 09:55 AM   #308
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
This is sad to the point of hilarity.

"What caused the plane shaped hole in that building that just got hit by a plane?"

Yeah that's one of the mysteries of the ages. You don't exactly need Occam's Razor to work through that one. Occam's Dull Butter Knife will suffice.
This thread demonstrates once again that even feeding a truther facts with Occam's Spoon doesn't have much effect.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 10:52 AM   #309
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Regarding the wings snapping off: As a pilot (including 757s and 767s), I don't think so. The wings are virtually "one" as they are "tied" together through/underneath the fuselage with the wing spar. And even if the wing spar were to "snap," the wings of the airplane would already virtually entirely be in the building in a swept back fashion within a nano-second longer than if they had not snapped at all, i.e., it would make no real difference.

This is not to say you do not make some interesting points. And what I say does not disprove what is shown in you video.
.
The center wing box on the L-1011 Tristar. Each wing half is bolted to this structure with fasteners along the depth of the spars, and through the wing skins top and bottom to flanges along the opening.
When this is assembled, it is ASSEMBLED!
One of our Tristars had a wing on one side overpressured during a pre-acceptance fuelling test due to a relief valve remaining closed, and the wing pooched, and leaked all over the place. The customer turned down the option of a few cans of Stop Leak, and said they'd prefer a complete new part.
And so it occurred!
The airplane was placed in a special fixture, and the broken wing was -sawed- off just outside the fuselage. There was no other way to remove it!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg L-1011-WingRootAirfoil-jr.jpg (99.7 KB, 13 views)
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 01:00 PM   #310
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I know, noticed too late for edit.
Perdition for you sir?


ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 01:41 PM   #311
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Are we done?
My money is on "not even close to" lol
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 02:00 PM   #312
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
My money is on "not even close to" lol
Yeah but, now he can't say we didn't address the OP. The ball's in his court to advance the discussion.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 02:56 PM   #313
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Yeah but, now he can't say we didn't address the OP.
Agreed but - just to make sure:

This was the OP question:
"What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole?"

And we - most of us anyway - know that one characteristic of a plane is that it is plane shaped.

So the obvious default hypothesis after filtering via Occam is "The plane shaped hole was caused because the building was struck by a plane shaped object. To wit - a plane."

Now Yankee needs to rebut (at least) two premises viz:
Show that a plane is not plane shaped; OR
Show that the towers were not struck by a plane shaped object.

(and the latter, IMO, is the correctly defined "set" - alternate suggestions welcomed)

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The ball's in his court to advance the discussion.
It was never out of his court - his claim - his burden of proof - despite the debating trick of framing the OP as "AQing"




ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 03:07 PM   #314
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Agreed but - just to make sure:

This was the OP question:
"What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole?"

And we - most of us anyway - know that one characteristic of a plane is that it is plane shaped.

So the obvious default hypothesis after filtering via Occam is "The plane shaped hole was caused because the building was struck by a plane shaped object. To wit - a plane."

Now Yankee needs to rebut (at least) two premises viz:
Show that a plane is not plane shaped; OR
Show that the towers were not struck by a plane shaped object.

(and the latter, IMO, is the correctly defined "set" - alternate suggestions welcomed)

It was never out of his court - his claim - his burden of proof - despite the debating trick of framing the OP as "AQing"




However we have a language difficulty; we are talking in the terms of science and he belief. The use of those two languages often leads to non- communication and denial by the believer, particularly when they are being willful about the subject.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 03:11 PM   #315
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
However we have a language difficulty; we are talking in the terms of science and he belief. The use of those two languages often leads to non- communication and denial by the believer, particularly when they are being willful about the subject.
So true.

(I did my apprenticeship as moderator on an atheist forum - been there "once or twice" )
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 03:12 PM   #316
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Agreed but - just to make sure:

This was the OP question:
"What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole?"

And we - most of us anyway - know that one characteristic of a plane is that it is plane shaped.

So the obvious default hypothesis after filtering via Occam is "The plane shaped hole was caused because the building was struck by a plane shaped object. To wit - a plane."

Now Yankee needs to rebut (at least) two premises viz:
Show that a plane is not plane shaped; OR
Show that the towers were not struck by a plane shaped object.

(and the latter, IMO, is the correctly defined "set" - alternate suggestions welcomed)

It was never out of his court - his claim - his burden of proof - despite the debating trick of framing the OP as "AQing"




.
In the secret forum here, yank states there were no planes.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 03:14 PM   #317
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by I Ratant View Post
.
In the secret forum here, yank states there were no planes.
Which was one reason for my somewhat obtuse comment about "set" and the terminology of the second premise.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 05:19 PM   #318
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You're right, it is about what caused the holes in the buildings. Considering your opinion is not based on any fact or science you should be done at this point.



All evidence points to two Boeing 767-200 tail numbers N334AA (AA flight 11 into the North Tower) and N612UA (United 175 into the South Tower).

Are we done?
No evidence supports any such thing. If it did you could demonstrate how the east-west damage is consistent with a mostly hollow aluminum aircraft with leading edges as sharp as a basketball traveling north-south.

Until any single one of you can demonstrate that, no we're far from done. But I get that desperate men do desperate deeds, so I fully understand why you'd rather make this about me.

You have the floor, it's clean, I just wiped it with you lot.
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 05:25 PM   #319
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
No evidence supports any such thing. If it did you could demonstrate how the east-west damage is consistent with a mostly hollow aluminum aircraft with leading edges as sharp as a basketball traveling north-south.
I asked you before, who do I need to demonstrate this to? The fact you don't like the evidence does not make it false.

Quote:
Until any single one of you can demonstrate that, no we're far from done. But I get that desperate men do desperate deeds, so I fully understand why you'd rather make this about me.

You have the floor, it's clean, I just wiped it with you lot.
You first. Start with more than just your lay person opinion.

ETA: Why do you keep saying it's not about you when you are the only one that believes what your saying?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 11th January 2014 at 05:33 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 05:32 PM   #320
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
No evidence supports any such thing. If it did you could demonstrate how the east-west damage is consistent with a mostly hollow aluminum aircraft with leading edges as sharp as a basketball traveling north-south.

Until any single one of you can demonstrate that, no we're far from done. But I get that desperate men do desperate deeds, so I fully understand why you'd rather make this about me.

You have the floor, it's clean, I just wiped it with you lot.
Not mostly hollow, the wings were filled with fuel and impacted the surface at a sweep back slant, and were carried on in by momentum, dragging their surface along the building structure and bending the building structure you are curious about transversely as the wings went in.

If you think the liquid in the wings didn't make a difference by the way, I suggest you hit yourself in the head with an empty milk carton, then try it again with a full one.

This is all I am going to say on this thread, because I don't see any sign of you acknowledging real physics. I won't bother with responding to any snarky replies unless they begin to acknowledge reality.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.