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

[yankee451]

The locker-room bullies I'm assuming tormented yankee back in the day.

HTH
Fitz

Project much?

Steve

 

[yankee451]

Well, we won't know until you post it, so proceed.

I have already stated it isn't complete yet, but you can use the math I've linked-to that proves your point. But you won't.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Let's do a little impromptu survey.

Do you want to stop him from doing this? (I vote) NO

Would you love to see the carnage in the video if he did it? (I vote) YES

Do you think he can raise enough money? (I vote) NO WAY IN HELL.

1. Another No
2. Another Yes
3. Not in this (or the next two or three) lifetimes

Fitz

 

[000063]

Once again, if the test can prove the "nut jobs" are wrong, what are you children complaining about? The test works both ways.

The nutjobs have already been proven wrong, over and over, with math. We're "complaining" that you're holding the test as some ultimate arbiter of truth, that you need the test to prove the plane could not cause the damage we saw.

A high school physics class could prove it (spending no money).

Hey, if you got several hundreds of thousands of dollars and you want to smash ****, have at it.

A 12th grade physics student could do it for gas money (toss in a movie and you'll get your answer faster)

Seems very important to the towel-snappers that I don't conduct this test.

Someone tells you to conduct the test if you have the money, and you say he wants you not to conduct it?

Gage, Jones, the Faux Pilots and the rest of the faux truth movement were just as concerned as you are - they want nothing to do with the test either. Intersting that you have so much in common, eh?

Of course Gage doesn't need a test. He already did a detailed and comprehensive simulation.

Evidently not -

One of the fellows from AE911T sent me this email a while back. He's coming around - there might even be hope for you:

The planes got into the towers. Not so much "through".

Let's do a little impromptu survey.

Do you want to stop him from doing this? (I vote) NO

Would you love to see the carnage in the video if he did it? (I vote) YES

Do you think he can raise enough money? (I vote) NO WAY IN HELL.

Ditto. Of course, money isn't the only bar. I doubt his practical ability to set up such a test as well.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Project much?

Steve

So enlighten me, oh wise Humpty

Fitz

 

[yankee451]

Let's do a little impromptu survey.

Do you want to stop him from doing this? (I vote) NO

Would you love to see the carnage in the video if he did it? (I vote) YES

Do you think he can raise enough money? (I vote) NO WAY IN HELL.

Here, I'll spell it out for you -

Even if the project doesn't raise the money, it'll raise awareness. Maybe not with you, but then this is JREF.

 

[yankee451]

So enlighten me

Impossible is still impossible.

 

[DGM]

Here, I'll spell it out for you -

Even if the project doesn't raise the money, it'll raise awareness. Maybe not with you, but then this is JREF.

Raise awareness of what? How have you "spelled" this?

Does the guy screaming on the street corner "the end is near", raise awareness?

 

[TheRedWorm]

I have already stated it isn't complete yet, but you can use the math I've linked-to that proves your point. But you won't.

I'm not driving up traffic to your site, so either post it here or say that you can't.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Here, I'll spell it out for you -

Even if the project doesn't raise the money, it'll raise awareness. Maybe not with you, but then this is JREF.

Awareness? You're kidding, right? You do realise that 9/11 trutherism is used in the real world as shorthand for 'a few bricks short of a load', 'a few fries short of a happy meal', 'lights are on but nobody's home', etc.?

I strongly recommend you to pursue your endeavour. But do be honest about its chances for anything meaningful

Fitz

 

[yankee451]

I'm not driving up traffic to your site, so either post it here or say that you can't.

Then Google it if you're able. But you won't, because it only proves no one has explained the math.

 

[Animal]

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?

<sigh> of course something "lightweight" could NEVER slice through something harder or heavier.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...5D900BCA7D15F9BE47395D&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1

 

[yankee451]

I strongly recommend you to pursue your endeavour. But do be honest about its chances for anything meaningful

It'll be meaningful for honest people.

 

[DGM]

Then Google it if you're able. But you won't, because it only proves no one has explained the math.

That happened in the high school classes you skipped.

 

[BasqueArch]

Evidently not -

One of the fellows from AE911T sent me this email a while back. He's coming around - there might even be hope for you:

Quote:

Steve,

For whatever it's worth I remember attending an MIT club of dc talk by prof Simon Johnson about too big to fail being specious.

At my table was a recently retired physicist who had had significant professionsl success. I raised the issue of symmetrical collapse with him, and his response was he was more suspicious of the planes getting through the towers.

If I ever have money to burn I'll give you a chance to make your case for your experiment. In the mean time, I haven't paid my October rent.
Best

subjective epistemology + natural selection = why I got no money.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Then Google it if you're able. But you won't, because it only proves no one has explained the math.

I'm asking for your math. Why would I have to google for your math when you are currently posting here?

 

[000063]

Notice how seriously I took you. Nice trolling, how many responses did you get?

Wow. He was pretty good. Of course, the road was plowed by knowing that there's a regular truther who sounds a lot like him. Most trolls don't set up a website.

8/10.

Weird, though. He stopped responding to me after I kept making posts comprehensively knocking him down, just like a genuine Truther would. In fact, ergo has me and others on Ignore for that very reason.

Then Google it if you're able. But you won't, because it only proves no one has explained the math.

On the off chance you're not a troll; liar. I like how you moved goalposts from MIT to no one after I pointed out MIT did explain.

I'm going to refresh the PDF a few dozen times now, just to drive up your bandwidth without giving you any ad revenue.

 

[yankee451]

<sigh> of course something "lightweight" could NEVER slice through something harder or heavier.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...5D900BCA7D15F9BE47395D&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1

Eyeroll please -

Here we go with the water jets - next will be Kamikazes and the straw through the tree -

The key to cutting metal with water is to keep the spray coherent. Waterjets are able to cut because the spray is channeled through a very narrow jeweled nozzle at a very high pressure to keep the spray coherent. Unlike metal cutters, a waterjet never gets dull and it cannot overheat.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question553.htm

The key is PRESSURE and a tiny point of impact. Not exactly a fair compairson to a jet, is it?

 

[Sunstealer]

subjective epistemology + natural selection = why I got no money.

I noticed that and it made me lol.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Impossible is still impossible.

Runaway, runaway [/Monty Python and the Holy Grail]

So what does "towel snappers" mean in your lexicon?

Fitz