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

[Ape of Good Hope]

What does that mean? Are you saying the crater isn't less than 10 degrees from horizontal? Are you saying the description of a small white plane "no wider than my van" doesn't fit the specs of a JASSM missile? Is it the report of the two fighter jets at a high altitude you dispute? There are three pieces of evidence right there, so I guess you're wrong.

I am saying that you are wrong whenever you claim that missiles were involved on 9/11.

Any statements of fact you may make along the way are incidental to your conclusion, which remains wrong.

Gish galloping anecdotes and personal incredulity will not earn you any credibility here.


Hope this helps.

 

[yankee451]

At this web site we have nonsense.

http://911crashtest.org/

Then you won't have a problem with my making a fool out of myself with the test, will you? In fact, you should applaud my endeavor and urge me godspeed, for once the wing-section slices through the box-columns like a hot-kinfe through butter, ALL the crazed no-planers can go home and everyone can get down to the business of prosecuting the war on terror without any distractions.

I look forward to your donation.

 

[yankee451]

I am saying that you are wrong whenever you claim that missiles were involved on 9/11.

Any statements of fact you may make along the way are incidental to your conclusion, which remains wrong.

Gish galloping anecdotes and personal incredulity will not earn you any credibility here.


Hope this helps.

Pathetic.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Then you won't have a problem with my making a fool out of myself with the test, will you?

I certainly won't.

You're a doer Steve, and the Truth Movement needs doers.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Pathetic.

A good point, well made.

 

[beachnut]

What are you doing on this site? Don't you have a cartoon to immerse yourself in? But I repeat myself.

Yes, I am watching cartoons, they are fantasy, and posting to your claims which are also fantasy. What a coincidence.


Your claims were debunked when the universe was created, since the big bang. Physics. You make up what you think physics is, but you end up spreading lies on video. Fantasy video you make don't sell like the fantasy videos I am watching on our 111 inch screen (http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/DSC_4534osff.jpg) with DTS HD MSTR audio on custom speakers with 17 amplifiers, and AR-9s as my surround speakers. Reality of home theater, and fantasy of lies on 911. Lucky my mom made me take typing class in 1969. Lucky my parents "made" us take enginering... But then we were going to the moon, you are going to spread lies. Two different skills are required.

...
I look forward to your donation.

Full scale models on 911 prove I am right, what we saw on 911 is supported by physics, math, and engineering.
This is where engineering and physics comes in handy. I don't have to do a physical study to understand what we saw on 911 was real. What engineering school did you go to?

You already called me a liar, all the military too, and the media. I called your claims lies, and you called me, the military, and the media liars.

 

[yankee451]

I certainly won't.

You're a doer Steve, and the Truth Movement needs doers.

I say how I feel about the ironically-named movement in the video. Why would anyone be against such a test? Either way the rocket sled slices it's good for the truth - if history repeats itself and the lightweight, hollow round-edged aluminum slices through the sharp steel knives of the box columns, all the no-planers can go home (a victory for the plane-hugging truth movement and vindication for the government), but if the wing shatters against the steel, all the troops can come home.

Seems fair, who's with me?

 

[beachnut]

I say how I feel about the ironically-named movement in the video. Why would anyone be against such a test? Either way the rocket sled slices it's good for the truth - if history repeats itself and the lightweight, hollow round-edged aluminum slices through the sharp steel knives of the box columns, all the no-planers can go home (a victory for the plane-hugging truth movement and vindication for the government), but if the wing shatters against the steel, all the troops can come home.

Seems fair, who's with me?

The videos on 911, taken by independent people and news agencies are real. Your claims are nonsense. Because you can't do physics you spread lies, and now fall back to who would not want a test. lol

You can't do physics, so you need to be shown. You don't understand reality, call the military liars, and the media liars.

Oh, you-called all the video, RADAR, FDR lies. With no proof.

Because you failed to stop your government from doing stuff you don't like, you make up lies about 911. UBL promised to kill us, and he made good on his promise. Did you miss it?

You can't do physics, you lie about 911 videos, RADAR and FDR. You don't have a clue what Flight 93 impact should look like.

I would edit this, but I am watching fantasy, and posting about someone who produces fantasy video on 911; lies.

 

[TheRedWorm]

...<snip>...If you were an engineer you'd know you're talking bollocks, so you're either lying about being an engineer or lying about an aluminum jet wing penetrating the steel of the WTC.

Let's see the math on that.

 

[beachnut]

BS - If you think you have the math chops, you might want to contact MIT because even they couldn't crunch the numbers to explain how the wing could cut the steel, or are you referring to your own estimates you scribbled on the bathroom wall?

MIT agrees with me. Feel free to show me 10 engineers from MIT who agree with your fantasy. Make my day.

I'm a graduate of the school of hard knocks, but don't be shy Daddy-o, lay the math on me; explain what MIT could not.

Wow. No math, hard knocks. No wonder you have delusions about 911, too many hard knocks.
You have what from MIT? One nut? Or two? lol

If you were an engineer you'd know you're talking bollocks, so you're either lying about being an engineer or lying about an aluminum jet wing penetrating the steel of the WTC.

I flew jets, heavy jets since 1976. The WTC would stop jets at speeds under 200 mph, it is physics, and Robertson, the chief structural engineer of the WTC agrees with me. Your research is nonsense.

A navy jet cut a cable on a cable car, the jet landed safely, the people in the cable car were killed. How can a weak wing cut a cable holding a cable car? You don't do physics and it shows. Did you ask a physics teacher before you lied about 911? No

Nope just you, I haven't started on the military or the media yet.

You implied the military would lie. You implied the media lied. How many people are in on the 911 fantasy you have? You can't remember you own nonsense.

You don't understand physics, and have to call all videos of 911 fake, and all eye witnesses liars. You are so nice, and full of BS.


Oh, I am an engineer, but any layperson can beat me in logic, grammar, engineering and more. It only takes critical thinking - like one of the themes at JREF, a place you bring lies, nonsense, false claims, more lies, and fantasy. You come to a skeptic forum with no science, essentially unarmed and try to float more lies than Hitler could spin.

I am an engineer, but I am in awe of those who skipped college and can think on their own, able to read an comprehend quickly and rationally.
It only takes a grade school education to see you are pushing lies, and nonsense, a BS expert. No degree required. I was luck to have everything, flight school after engineering school and grad school... the pilot who had everything.

What did 60 Minutes say? Are you too afraid to do take action?

 

[yankee451]

Let's see the math on that.

You will, and hopefully you'll see a physical demonstration to boot.

In the meantime, since we've gone to war over this stuff and 99.99 percent of the world's engineers believe a jet wing CAN do such a thing, surely you can point to the math on that?

 

[Justin39640]

I say how I feel about the ironically-named movement in the video. Why would anyone be against such a test? Either way the rocket sled slices it's good for the truth - if history repeats itself and the lightweight, hollow round-edged aluminum slices through the sharp steel knives of the box columns, all the no-planers can go home (a victory for the plane-hugging truth movement and vindication for the government), but if the wing shatters against the steel, all the troops can come home.

Seems fair, who's with me?

You do realize that when that wing (if the test is set up correctly) slices the column, you'd be labeled a shill by the same morons who support your retarded ideas now?

 

[yankee451]

MIT agrees with me. Feel free to show me 10 engineers from MIT who agree with your fantasy. Make my day.

I'll take your drivel one point at a time so you can keep up.

I think it is more accurate to say you agree with MIT, don't you?

Since you agree with them, and since you understand their math better than the rest of us (being an engineer), it should be a simple matter for you to point to the math where they explained the interaction between the wing and the exterior wall.

I'll wait here.

 

[yankee451]

You do realize that when that wing (if the test is set up correctly) slices the column, you'd be labeled a shill by the same morons who support your retarded ideas now?

You mistake me for someone who cares more about reputation than learning the truth.

 

[Justin39640]

<SNIP> ... the evidence that two JASSM missiles striking in crossfire at less than 10 degree trajectories caused the gash at Shanksville, and if they didn't use planes there, where else didn't they use them, eh?

<SNIP>

Seeing that they didn't go into production till Dec 2001, and delayed after that with problems, I'd say your "idea" has some serious flaws.

 

[yankee451]

Seeing that they didn't go into production till Dec 2001, and delayed after that with problems, I'd say your "idea" has some serious flaws.

I'd say you need to do some more reading.

 

[beachnut]

I'll take your drivel one point at a time so you can keep up.

I think it is more accurate to say you agree with MIT, don't you?

Since you agree with them, and since you understand their math better than the rest of us (being an engineer), it should be a simple matter for you to point to the math where they explained the interaction between the wing and the exterior wall.

I'll wait here.

How many joules were the impacts? How many joules does it take to enter the WTC?

Robertson already did the study for a 180 mph impact of a 707. The planes on 911 had 7 to 11 times more kinetic energy than the design was for. This is why the planes on 911 entered the WTC, as seen by real video, in real time on 911, live. Verified by RADAR. You are debunked by RADAR, math, physics, video, eyes, etc.

MIT says the aircraft will enter the WTC above 200 mph. So? Did you ask an MIT engineer to do the math for you? MIT agrees with the "official" story. You agree your claims are false. good job, you debunked yourself.

 

[yankee451]

How many joules were the impacts? How many joules does it take to enter the WTC?

Robertson already did the study for a 180 mph impact of a 707. The planes on 911 had 7 to 11 times more kinetic energy than the design was for. This is why the planes on 911 entered the WTC, as seen by real video, in real time on 911, live. Verified by RADAR. You are debunked by RADAR, math, physics, video, eyes, etc.

MIT says the aircraft will enter the WTC above 200 mph. So? Did you ask an MIT engineer to do the math for you? MIT agrees with the "official" story. You agree your claims are false. good job, you debunked yourself.

Is that a round about way of saying 'I can't do physics'? Come on now - you guys are the ones saying a jet wing can slice through the steel, you must have a reason for it other than because you saw it on the TeeVee.

Where's all the math?

 

[Justin39640]

You mistake me for someone who cares more about reputation than learning the truth.

I doubt it.

 

[TheRedWorm]

You will, and hopefully you'll see a physical demonstration to boot.

In the meantime, since we've gone to war over this stuff and 99.99 percent of the world's engineers believe a jet wing CAN do such a thing, surely you can point to the math on that?

Well, if you look up posts by R.Mackey, IIRC he already has done the math, but allow me to give you an example of a softer metal penetrating a harder metal, from my own experience: Using a lead .410 slug, I put a hole in a piece of sheet steel from a distance of ~50 feet. It really is all about speed.