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

Mikeys said:
Not really. Strength alone wouldn't prohibit from using hard stones like granite to raise tall structures, and even common brick could be used to raise structures higher than they are. A frame design is needed and stone can't do that. ...
Click to expand...

This is great stuff. Like the aluminum foil aircraft you made up.
 
Hi Mikeys
I have been reading your posts and I must admit I am rather confused as to where you are coming from.

Would you be so kind as to answer the following question ?

Of the below selection which one would YOU say describes you best.


Forrest Gump: stupid, but he knows it.
Homer Simpson: is actually dumb, but seems to think he's the cleverest guy alive.
Columbo: is actually smart, but comes across as quite a dope.
Mr Spock: smart, and knows exactly how smart he is.

Thank you in advance.
 
Mikeys said:
Sunstealer said:
Not really. Strength alone wouldn't prohibit from using hard stones like granite to raise tall structures, and even common brick could be used to raise structures higher than they are. A frame design is needed and stone can't do that.

You could build one if you wished to make a point. The problem is in balance rather that steel properties. The weight of steel towards the top of the WTC was still enough, don't worry about that.
Click to expand...

Are you making this up as you go along?
Click to expand...
 
beachnut said:
Lazy? Still in that comma? , or this ,
Click to expand...
No, not lazy. I hoped for some unknown to me evidence of the plane, and not the video that have been proved to be badly CGIed. That's why Glen was so reluctant to point me to the link.
 
Mikeys said:
No, not lazy. I hoped for some unknown to me evidence of the plane, and not the video that have been proved to be badly CGIed. That's why Glen was so reluctant to point me to the link.
Click to expand...

Proved?! :boggled:

Seriously, how dangerous is getting out into the sunlight to you?
 
Mikeys said:
No, not lazy. I hoped for some unknown to me evidence of the plane, and not the video that have been proved to be badly CGIed. That's why Glen was so reluctant to point me to the link.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCpCwzCRdkg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGR0Gw4c5M4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_jIFN3jkJc
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf


Lazy it is. Too lazy to get past the lies you spread, too lazy to research and do the math.

RADAR proves it was flight 175, but I predict you can't comprehend RADAR, the science behind it and why it was 175. You make fun of each passenger on Flight 175, killed in a flash by murderers who faked the hijacking to use weapons of mass destruction, 4 jets, more powerful than cruise missiles, caring the heat energy equal to 300 TONS of TNT. A value that is lost on you. Your only goal, posting lies and nonsense, and exposing failure to do science.

Thousands of eye witnesses and RADAR prove it was 175. It turns out to be a time and space event. People film and see aircraft, RADAR shows it is 175 at the same exact time - but you make up lies unable to comprehend reality, lost in a comma - celebrating ignorance and spreading lies.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2041454&postcount=160

An eye witness, another fact you will ignore. Why can't you do RADAR? Logic? Skepticism?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCpCwzCRdkg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGR0Gw4c5M4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_jIFN3jkJc
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf


Lazy it is. Too lazy to get past the lies you spread, too lazy to research and do the math.

RADAR proves it was flight 175, but I predict you can't comprehend RADAR, the science behind it and why it was 175. You make fun of each passenger on Flight 175, killed in a flash by murderers who faked the hijacking to use weapons of mass destruction, 4 jets, more powerful than cruise missiles, caring the heat energy equal to 300 TONS of TNT. A value that is lost on you. Your only goal, posting lies and nonsense, and exposing failure to do science.

Thousands of eye witnesses and RADAR prove it was 175. It turns out to be a time and space event. People film and see aircraft, RADAR shows it is 175 at the same exact time - but you make up lies unable to comprehend reality, lost in a comma - celebrating ignorance and spreading lies.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2041454&postcount=160

An eye witness, another fact you will ignore. Why can't you do RADAR? Logic? Skepticism?
Click to expand...
Just to keep you on track, we talking Flight 11
 
Mikeys said:
Just to keep you on track, we talking Flight 11
Click to expand...
Oh, you missed the RADAR data. It includes 11. Failure is your normal procedure, you never read the data presented. Why are you unable to read?

I saw both planes hit.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2041454&postcount=160
Click to expand...
You always prove you don't read the stuff presented to you. Why do you fail all the time?

The countless people who looked up when they heard a plane off course in NYC, matches the RADAR data for Flight 11 too. You don't do research, you spread lies.
 
Last edited:
Yup, you got us Mikeys. There's no evidence of a plane at all. Wrap it up boys; he's on to us! :boggled:
 
Mikeys said:
ok badly phrased. Indeed a stundie. It does not change the fact that Gravity makes the difference when you need to estimate tensile strength of a section of wall.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It makes A difference. Other considerations include tiny little things like what the wall is holding up.

Which are?
Click to expand...
Well, hitting other things generally does serious damage to planes, even if they're well below cruising speed. Of course, if you want to pursue this line of argument, please provide evidence to support your claim that

a plane is made of longerons connected by cross ribs, strong enough not to fall apart above a certain speed, which is not much higher than its cruising speed at optimal altitude​

Remarkably vague, I note. For the sake of simplicity, let's stick to you providing such evidence for the Boeing 767, the planes which struck the WTC.

In fact, let me just not even bother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Overview
That's strange. Their cruising speed is 533 MPH. That's roughly how fast they were going at impact.

Not that your claim, full of impressive sounding sciencey words, has any direct relevance to how much damage the plane would've done.

Where, show me
Click to expand...
No. Deny that you believe or have ever claimed the equivalent of that, and I'll apologize and withdraw the assertion.

Show me the math behind the impact.
Click to expand...
Nope. You're the one asserting that the building would've sustained less damage if the official story is true. You have the burden of proof. Arrayed against you are thousands of investigators and people with relevant technical knowledge, including people who build buildings for a living.

I note that you cut out the latter portion of my post.

Strange how your intuition is utterly infallable, but that of others isn't. Also strange how you seem to confuse actual evidence backed math and intuition. Projecting much?

Neither, actually. Thousands of cops, firefighters, ironworkers, and forensic experts. If you believe the FBI "massaged" the debris, provide evidence.
Click to expand...

Curious.

Mikeys said:
No, not lazy. I hoped for some unknown to me evidence of the plane, and not the video that have been proved to be badly CGIed. That's why Glen was so reluctant to point me to the link.
Click to expand...

Oh, I get it. You're trolling. That's why you avoided my post specifically quoting someone who saw the plane coming. I even specifically mentioned the flight number.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom