Merged No Planer calls for scientific study / Missiles of 9/11

Mikeys said:
Do you have something more to say aside from this line. I know as much physics as most here and that's most likely gross understatement. That's why I don't use it as an argument.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you're talking about, and it shows. This post fools no one. You're just another arrogant truther who thinks he's got it all figured out.
 
Mikeys said:
Do you have something more to say aside from this line. I know as much physics as most here and that's most likely gross understatement. That's why I don't use it as an argument.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Show us the maths behind your argument. If you can't then you patently do not know as much physics as the people here who have studied the subject.
 
Mikeys said:
Do you recon chief the truth movement is a conspiracy against conspiracy?
Click to expand...
Bigotry doesn't help your cause at all son, it just makes you less credible than you already are.

You're a carbon copy of the truth movement; None of them agree on everything speculated in the full truther conspiracy theories. Even you have admitted this much.

When Beachnut "gets all up in your grill" about physics, he knows what he's talking about. He has investigated plane crashes and physics are very crucial in determining how to piece it all together. I believe what he brings to the table is extremely valuable in calculating the dynamics involved with these plane crashes and his tremendous knowledge of physics is rock solid. Adding more to that is his experience as a pilot.

Now you don't think you need to learn anything about physics, but as long as your here on planet earth, physics are what planet earth rules with. There's no getting away from that fact, and you can't measure dynamics by ignoring physics.
If this is how you're going to proceed, then pick up your ball, go home, and play in the dark Mikey.
 
Last edited:
Mikeys said:
I don't claim or plagiarize, just point the obvious, something that you too can analyze by yourself without having to admit your lack of common sense and sheepish trust in doctored science. The vids are free.
Click to expand...

So, you are basing your claims just on what you see in the videos? And science is "doctored"? And based on what YOU think it should look like when a 757 crashes into a steel framed building is the depth of your research. How many 757's have you witnessed crashing into buildings?............just a ballpark figure will do.

Are you aware of the calculations that a Ryan Mackey did on just the fuel alone? The calculations show that JUST THE FUEL on those planes, going at that speed, had enough force to severe a "core" column. (Obviously, that is a hypothetical. The fuel was obviously dispersed before it contacted the core.) The point is, that if it would severe a core column, it would definitely severe a perimeter column. And again, that is just the fuel. Never mind the 125 tons of airliner connected to it.
That's not "doctored" science. He shows his calculations and invites anybody & everybody to review it and check his math. And by the way, this is available on video.
 
MIKILLINI said:
You're a carbon copy of the truth movement; None of them agree on everything speculated in the full truther conspiracy theories. Even you have admitted this much.
Click to expand...
That's only logical and self explanatory considering the issue at hand. What else would you expect? No blind followers here.
 
Mikeys said:
Do you have something more to say aside from this line. I know as much physics as most here and that's most likely gross understatement. That's why I don't use it as an argument.
Click to expand...

But you've agreed you don't know much about physics. Most here that are arguing against you know at least a fair amount (some a great deal), so you've just contradicted yourself.

Remember ke = 1/2mv2 ?

It's fundamental to a 16-year old's physics class, yet you didn't understand it.

It's long past the time for you to shut up and just reflect on how little you know about the subjects you talk so damn much about.
 
Mikeys said:
do you cut your bread with a pound of feathers or steel. Don't repeat the same nonsense after anyone else. It will make you look like anyone else and that's about all you gain.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Are you talking about hardness again? Why do you make no sense at all? You do realise that objects made of soft material will damage objects of a relatively harder material due to velocity don't you? Are you cutting your bread at 500mph?

I notice you never responded to my post regarding soft Pb bullets penetrating harder steel plate. In your world bullets don't work.

Mikeys said:
It was a steel frame which is a wall. I understand it was not solid, but it also was not just a wall. It was connected with the inner grid with trusses on which platforms rested. I never said it. Damage to both on the outside is most likely.
Click to expand...
What on earth are you droning on about? Inner grid? WTF is the inner grid? The WTC towers were of very simple construction yet you seem to be totally unaware, just like most truthers, as to how they were constructed.

Why can't you take the time to explain yourself properly?

Mikeys said:
It was a drone if we are to follow the scenario. You need technology not skills to hit what you aim at.
Nothing amazing here.
Click to expand...
Yep, a drone the size of a B767, followed by radar all the way, with many parts from that aircraft found etc, etc, etc.

Perfect Dunning Kruger effect in action.
 
Mikeys said:
Do you have something more to say aside from this line. I know as much physics as most here and that's most likely gross understatement. That's why I don't use it as an argument.
Click to expand...
Go on Einstein, surprise us!

I think I'll stundie this one - it's classic play-ground bravado.
 
Mikeys

You think that somehow the towers were altered to allow the plane to pass easily through.
What would you expect a plane crashing into the tower to look like if they weren't altered?
 
Mikeys said:
Do you have something more to say aside from this line. I know as much physics as most here and that's most likely gross understatement. That's why I don't use it as an argument.
Click to expand...

Mikeys said:
What math do you want. I can not learn necessary math, impact physics, chemistry, structural engineering in a couple of days.
Click to expand...
If you knew as much physics as you claim you wouldn't have to learnt impact physics or the simple maths in a couple of days because it would have been covered in your A level/degree course (or American equivalent) which you obviously didn't take.
 
Mikeys said:
Can you show where I said that. That energy was able to damage the building no doubt about that alas by compression, not by slicing, and in the process explode. The thing sliced into a rigid wall, dude!
Click to expand...

Even if you think it was able to "damage the building", yet believe it wouldn't have penetrated it, then you A. have no idea what you're talking about physics-wise and B. you have no idea how the WTC buildings were constructed.

There are people on this forum who know A LOT about physics AND structural engineering. You don't believe them? Then ask somebody who you think does.
 
Mikeys said:
That's only logical and self explanatory considering the issue at hand. What else would you expect? No blind followers here.
Click to expand...

You are a blind follower; A blind conspiracy follower with no need for physics. That's self explanatory and a path that ensures for you to be not taken seriously when making an argument.
 
Mikeys said:
That's only logical and self explanatory considering the issue at hand. What else would you expect? No blind followers here.
Click to expand...

When someone insists that the buildings were brought down not by planes and resulting impact damage and fire, which were seen, and instead by some mechanism no one saw, then that person is essentially blind.
 
Mikeys said:
...
It was a drone if we are to follow the scenario. You need technology not skills to hit what you aim at.
Nothing amazing here.
Click to expand...
Pilots, including the terrorist pilots can hit a 207 foot target; no technology needed, pilots and drivers of cars have been on centerline for over 100 years. You might not be able to control a car and keep it in the center of the road, when your parents teach you to drive, that may change.

It was not a drone, it was real people on Flight 11, and Flight 175; you are essentially spitting on their graves making up insane lies about 911 because you can't comprehend physics.

You are full of nonsense.
 
I have been sitting back in the shadows, strolling JREF for quite sometime now. Then you come across threads like this which dumbfounds you as to how simple minded people actually are. We have Mikey saying the plane should have bounced off of the building because, if I understand him correctly, the 767 is not as dense as the WTCs steel. Basically since steel has a greater density than aluminum, mikey feels its impossible that the 767 was able to enter the structure, correct?

How about, lets say, a pumpkin smashing thru a car? Would Mikey say thats equally as absurd as aluminum thru steel?
 
Mikeys said:
That energy was able to damage the building no doubt about that alas by compression, not by slicing, and in the process explode. The thing sliced into a rigid wall, dude!
Click to expand...

Look at the impact area, you can see where it "sliced" into that rigid wall, dude. :rolleyes:
 
According to Mike, because Aluminum isn't as strong as steel, no damage to the towers would have been sustained.

Therefore, because flesh is no where near as strong as a Cast Iron engine block, this picture from a BMW going 160MPH into a male dear must be fake..

attachment.php


It must also be fake then that flakes of paint in space can damage space shuttles and crack windscreens..

Particles such as paint flakes (under 1 mm) can cause small craters in walls and windows. Almost 100 Space Shuttle windscreens have had to be replaced (as of 2008) due to pits caused by such impacts.

sts7crack_small.jpg


Unless maybe it's nano-thermite paint.. :boxedin:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom