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

[fitzgibbon]

It's pretty obvious a jet with a 160 foot wingspan isn't a bullet, and its pretty obvious you don't have a clue how the physics works.

Show us the magic, Merlin. Do your figures. Publish your findings. Make believers out of the 99.99%+ of architects and engineers who have no truck with 9/11 wooism

Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

Spread your bullet's mass out 160 feet and reconsider yours. It's an absurd analogy.

A better one is a spear - throw a spear at a tree and it'll impale the tree, but throw the spear sideways and it'll bounce off or break in half. Same mass, same energy, much different result, all because the mass and energy isn't focused on a small point of impact.

9/11 was like the spear cutting down a forest of trees.

Uh...you do realise that spears are not known for causing catastrophic fires after impact? And I hope you're not suggesting that the planes should've bounced off the WTCs all cartoon-style?

Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

All your gyrations are meaningless - you won't convince me to stop the test. The only thing that might is the engineering model which I will publish when it's complete.

Oh, please don't stop your 'test'. The world needs the lulz. I just don't think you'll actually conduct it and/or publish honest findings based on an honest and realistic model. I suspect that at best any 'test' you undertake will have more in common with Gage's box analogy than anything else

Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

Time for more serious things - I'll pay you fellas a visit in a bit.

Why do I find it most unlikely that you actually will? At least not to do anything more substantial than post some more drive-bys before retreating to the shadows?

Fitz

 

[000063]

Another vague reply?

Another patented Clayton non-point.

From the mouth of babes.

You are no engineer or pilot.

Beachnut is a pilot. Several people here are engineers. But given that the vast majority of truthers aren't engies or pilots either, including, I suspect, you, that's a tad hypocritical. Like most people, you will dodge when asked to prove your own bona fides.

Who the hell are you and why should I care?

Yes, exactly like that.

Oh good grief, not the "KE" argument. This forum is like 9/11-101 isn't it? Don't you want to point to a Wierzbicki document or something?

I love how your primary "arguments" are sarcasm, incredulity, and personal attacks, with almost no actual content, and you still end up losing. Are you Ergo's sockpuppet?

Few people are as indoctrinated as military people, and if you'd lie about a hollow aluminum jet being able to slice through a steel skyscraper, you'd lie about just about anything.

So when he says he's a pilot, you move your goalposts to claim he's "indoctrinated" and accuse him of "lying", which seems a tad self-contradictory. People who are indoctrinated have difficulty telling the difference between their belief and reality. Like truthers, for instance, many of whom repeat facts that have empirically been proven wrong over and over. You do not, I note, actually address his argument.

Spell it out for me Professor. Tell me all about the big bad mass in the big bad jet. I chose an empirical demonstration because most people don't understand the math - they understand the TeeVee. But fear not - I wouldn't dream of conducting this project without everything being open to public scrutiny (as stated in the video), so you'll be able to peruse the math to your heart's content.

I like how you dodge the question of what math you're currently using and attempt to reverse the BOP.

You're a shrewd one.

Nothing to say about the evidence, just a "yeah, but"?

Tens of thousands of military folks may already have noticed but why would they tell your sorry ass?

You're no help.

So tens of thousands of people who took a vow to defend their country would just sit on evidence of malfeasance, and, of course, not contact truthers.

I like how you completely ignore his point about the publicly accessible paper trail.

Let's see the math on that.

Weird how he needs to do an experiment before he can provide any real evidence supporting his point, but already knows everyone else is wrong, without doing any math.

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

I'd say you're hand-waving with a vague one-liner non-point to avoid addressing the point.

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?

That's what we've been asking you.

For pages.

I'd rather see the math than your examples - a jet is not a bullet, and that analogy may work for the pre-teens of JREF but it won't fly for a grow-up.

I'm in my mid-20s. Many people here are adults.

Kinetic penetrating weapons like these all work for the same reason - by focusing their mass and energy on the smallest point possible they obtain maximum penetration.

Energy derived from what, pray tell? Oh, right, speed. Say, what usually happens with aerodynamics? Oh, right, the forward initial profile is made as small as possible.

It's an apples to zucchini comparison and you'll need to do much better.

You didn't actually compare KPWs to a plane.

And please lets dispense of the other lame examples often used by the true-believers:

Kamikazes
Steel-slicing water jets
rail guns
the straw through a tree in a hurricane

They're all bogus comparisons which if you try to argue, will only make your spanking even worse than it already is.

Yes, we're clearly terrified of your vague one-liners and dodging of evidence and hand waves and attempted reversals of the burden of proof.

The Defense Acquisition Executive signed the Acquisition Decision Memorandum authorizing entry into Low Rate
Initial Production (LRIP) on December 21, 2001, but the inital approval date was 1/31/2001 - which means the missiles were production-ready at that time.

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logisti...ASSM (JASSM JASSM-ER) - SAR - 31 DEC 2011.pdf

That's strange. You had no trouble looking up the paper trail for that. But actual records of them being produced you seem to lack.

It's pretty obvious a jet with a 160 foot wingspan isn't a bullet,

Straw man. No one said it was, but that it was comparable in some aspects.

and its pretty obvious you don't have a clue how the physics works.

Bald assertion. Also wrong.

Spread your bullet's mass out 160 feet and reconsider yours. It's an absurd analogy.

A better one is a spear - throw a spear at a tree and it'll impale the tree, but throw the spear sideways and it'll bounce off or break in half.

No one said the planes went in sideways.

Same mass, same energy, much different result, all because the mass and energy isn't focused on a small point of impact.

Who do you think you're explaining this to? We're the ones pointing out that the mass and energy was focused on a small area.

9/11 was like the spear cutting down a forest of trees.

Given the relative size of the "spear" compared to the "trees" (WTC columns), the trees would be more like a bundle of twigs. And the building didn't collapse from the plane impact alone, but the impact and fires.

When all else fails "someone would talk"; yeah. Heard it.

You're effectively asserting that they wouldn't talk, without providing any evidence. You haven't even been able to provide evidence there would be anything to talk about.

Of course, anyone that thinks that tens of thousands of people would all just shut up when they realized that something was up has a remarkably low opinion of their fellow man anyway.

A wing is a hollow aluminum gas tank with a leading edge as sharp as a basketball, it is not a sword. All your gyrations are meaningless - you won't convince me to stop the test. The only thing that might is the engineering model which I will publish when it's complete.

A basketball with tons of weight and hundreds of MPH behind it.

Just to be clear; would you be willing to hide behind a wall made of WTC columns while someone flings a plane wing at it at appropriate speed? To put your money where your mouth is? Because you seem to have your mind made up, even before the experiment.

 

[Sunstealer]

I needed a laugh today - wow, just wow. Dunning-Kruger in spectacular effect. He wants to get a 767 wing (presumably full of fuel) and accelerate it to around 550mph and crash that wing into a mock up of the WTC perimeter columns.

The test is simple, just affix a wing-section from a real 767 to a rocket-sled and have it collide at 550 MPH with several steel boxes built to the specifications of the World Trade Center.

Oh boy. The stupid is strong in this one.

 

[yankee451]

Will you be showing us your math when you return?

As soon as you prove you can understand it, sure.

 

[yankee451]

I needed a laugh today - wow, just wow. Dunning-Kruger in spectacular effect. He wants to get a 767 wing (presumably full of fuel) and accelerate it to around 550mph and crash that wing into a mock up of the WTC perimeter columns.


Oh boy. The stupid is strong in this one.

How so? If the impossible is possible, why is conducting a test to prove or disprove it stupid?

 

[yankee451]

You may have missed it in the video, but the 9/11 Crash Test project proposes a scientific test to prove or disprove an hypothesis. The test hasn't occurred yet, and the engineering documentation hasn't been completed.

I am still scraping up the money for the engineereing for my project, but since you geniuses can already explain the math (where MIT could not), now's your chance to back up your petulence. I even included a link for you:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf

I notice you take offense with my using layman's terms to make my case; good. Most people aren't scientists so the math would be lost on them, therefor I use layman's terms to reach them. You self-proclaimed scientists will need to wait for the engineering documentation, but there's nothing stopping you from making your own cases, unless your fingers are painted on and you need them to count with.

 

[yankee451]

Why do I find it most unlikely that you actually will? At least not to do anything more substantial than post some more drive-bys before retreating to the shadows?

Fitz

Why do I not give a rat's ass what Fitz thinks?

Steve

 

[Sunstealer]

How so? If the impossible is possible, why is conducting a test to prove or disprove it stupid?

Have you got details of the engineering required for this experiment?

Where are you going to acquire the wing from? How are you going to detach this wing from the aircraft without destroying it? How are you going to remove the remnants of fuel from the wing? How much will this cost? How are you going to transport this wing to the test bed? What cranes and lifting equipment are you going to need? How much will this cost? Who are you hiring who has experience of moving such large and heavy wing structures?

I used to work for Airbus at their wing facility at Filton, Bristol. It took us months to get everything ready in order to perform the static wing testing. There was an enormous amount of planning in just moving the wing from the manufacturing to test facility. We had massive automatic cranes with specifically designed tooling to move it. What have you got? What are you planning to have.

How much does a B767 wing weigh? I doubt you know so how are you going to deal with that weight.

How are you going to attach this enormous weight to a rocket sled? You'll need detailed technical drawings of the B767 wing and wing box in order to design and produce all the relevant fixtures because I doubt Boeing will lend you theirs.

Have you costed your project? What will all this cost?

I could go on and on and on but I know you'll never give me a straight answer.

 

[DGM]

How so? If the impossible is possible, why is conducting a test to prove or disprove it stupid?

Unless you just like smashing things (which is OK), simple and well understood physics and math have already answered this question.

If you do it, I would love to see the video.

 

[yankee451]

So two pre production JASSMs to simulate a 757 crash, that's one expensive hole in the ground. Still, I suppose they've got that 757 that they can sell once they've filed off the serial number

Well now's your chance to explain how the evidence better supports a jet crash.

 

[yankee451]

Unless you just like smashing things (which is OK), simple and well understood physics and math have already answered this question.

No it hasn't. If it has you could point to the document.

If you do it, I would love to see the video.

I'm with you there anyway.

 

[DGM]

No it hasn't. If it has you could point to the document.

Actually RMackey (I too lazy now to look it up) did the math and so did Perdue University. Perdue even did a cool video. I bet you already know this.

The plane will indeed enter the building.

 

[yankee451]

Have you got details of the engineering required for this experiment?
QUOTE]

The engineering document will cost me several thousand dollars, but that's just the first step needed to get a written estimate from a test center. Once that occurs I can price out the project and attempt to get the rest of the funding.

The rest of your questions can be answered by the FAQ

http://911crashtest.org/faq/

 

[fitzgibbon]

Why do I not give a rat's ass what Fitz thinks?

Steve

Ah! Is that your way of saying that you won't even address the low-hanging-fruit question of how the video insertion was accomplished? Quel surprise.

Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

The rest of your questions can be answered by the FAQ

http://911crashtest.org/faq/

Goodness me; he's even trying to drive-up traffic to his site. Never seen that before.

Fitz

 

[yankee451]

Actually RMackey (I too lazy now to look it up) did the math and so did Perdue University. Perdue even did a cool video. I bet you already know this.

The plane will indeed enter the building.

Then the crash test will prove it. Or not.

 

[Sunstealer]

I see that the lovely Medical Marijuana Barbie aka Dr Dusty AKA Tracey Blevins is the first poster to comment on your site offering advice and help as a " 9/11 expert". That should be fun.

Your FAQs didn't answer anything. This is going to require hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'll leave you to it. I'll come back when you've done your test unless I die before then. Good luck.