Humint Events Online: Load 'O Crap

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Load 'O Crap

My professional opinion of the Purdue simulation.

Actually, it's clearly crap, as the plane in the simulation doesn't show holes in the buildings at all similar to what was officially observed-- in particular the "tail section hole".

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

the purdue sim has absolutely no basis in reality and is ridiculous.

10:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lol Spooky. So now you are smarter than one of the leading engineering schools in the world.

Why aren't you a multibajillionaire? You know so much about everything.

11:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like a load and a half of crap to me!

1:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well...we know why YOU aren't, 1:42. They don't allow multi boneheads to be multibajillionaires.

5:23 AM  
Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

Professional? You're a professional kook commenting on the work of people who actually HAVE an education and background in engineering.

You? Chicken wire and cement blocks. Professional?.....giggle....

12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here is the purdue sim:

purdue U! go fighting liars!

proving that it has no basis in reality here are photos of the hole in wtc1:

photos

notice in the pudue computer sim of a cartoon that the giant tail fin enters the wtc1 entirely yet photos of the hole reveal that in reality no tail fin went into the tower.

also notice ms. edna cintron standing right where there is no 767 debris.

1:00 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

It's an indisputable fact that the Purdue simulation does not mimic what was seen on 9/11. So why should we trust those guys -- especially when they are toeing the official line and are taking gov't money to do so?

2:12 PM  
Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

You drooling idiot.

You aren't qualified to tie your own shoes, let alone criticize the work of trained scientists and engineers.

The word "professional" means that you do it for a living. We all know that you aren't employed in any field that would give you the authority to correct even a kindergarten teacher on matters of science.

6:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's right! if trained scientists and engineers want to get paid for making a cartoon that has no bearing on reality then who are you to criticize them?

7:18 PM  
Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

They are scientists and engineers.

Neither you nor Spook nor any of his other fans are so qualified.

Perdue > Spook

Get it?

6:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh qualifications again?
maybe these trained monkeys of the "leading engineering school in the world" that you are blindly defending will make a computer sim of your latest spelling-bee.
d.u.h. spells duh.

9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i never noticed this before but look how the phony right wing of the phony CNN plane is torqued upwards at it's tip as it glides casper-like into the wtc2:
CNN ghostplane
maybe it was in the process of flapping it's wings like some kind of pelican?
also there is no left tail wing whatsoever.
maybe it was flapping it's right main wing to compensate for the lack of left tail wing?
good thing that the professionals (pro means paid!) at perdue (duh) have made their own authoritative cartoon thus re-establishing the physics of the new american century once and for all!
sir isaac newton is no doubt rolling over in his grave.
right, noise?

11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"oh qualifications again?"

Qualifications are what you morons lack. Qualifications are what set aside REAL scientists from say, those who deal in chicken wire and cinder blocks...

1:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

righto!
what then is the formula for determining newton's 3rd law? which states:

"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

this means that if a real aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone were to really strike a massive steel/concrete wtc with a force equivalent to X, the massive steel/concrete wtc would also be striking the aluminum/plastic of a real 767 with the same force equivalent to X.

please mr. anonymous, set aside your worrying about qualifications and do enlighten us.

2:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger