• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

yankee451 said:
If you believe what we're told it also severed 37 steel columns and a few spandrels and therein lies the rub. Jets can't do that and the crash test will prove it.

If you were so certain a jet can do such a thing, why are so many of you so threatened by this test? You should be throwing money at me to get it done.
Click to expand...

Dodge. No one here feels threatened by the test, as you have been told, what, three times already by me alone? No one, least of all Beachnut, has denied the jet was destroyed, which it was. It just also destroyed exterior columns on the way in.

I refuse to donate money to a fool's errand. I will, however, gladly laugh at it. That's what fools are for, after all.

Clayton Moore said:
Yup. It looks mighty thin and would seem to be might light.:D
Click to expand...

Oh, look, no evidence. And, oh look, Clayton and Yank are both now ignoring the amount of kinetic energy in play.

Of course, if a car can get through a brick wall at less than 100MPH, what on earth makes steel beams able to stop a larger, heavier plane moving at several hundred MPH with much more kinetic energy?
 
Hey Yankee...the Truther Movement peaked in 2006-08. The movement got killed by common sense, logic and the complete lack of evidence to support it. Dude you are 5 years too late.

All the big conspiracy nuts have moved on to Sandy Hook
 
000063 said:
He's not a pilot, because he doesn't do things you say pilots would do, therefore he's not a pilot.

Say, where were the hundreds of thousands of pilots calling BS? And the hundreds of thousands of engineers calling BS at NIST's report? AE911T can only scare up a bare dozen or so thousand members, which make up less than 0.1% of the world's population of both professions. Pilots for 911 Truth? All of 300 members or so.

And still more quote-mining. Tsk tsk.
Click to expand...

"quote-mining"?

Haven't heard that since ATS - seems like the same towel-snappers.
 
000063 said:
He's not a pilot, because he doesn't do things you say pilots would do, therefore he's not a pilot.

Say, where were the hundreds of thousands of pilots calling BS? And the hundreds of thousands of engineers calling BS at NIST's report? AE911T can only scare up a bare dozen or so thousand members, which make up less than 0.1% of the world's population of both professions. Pilots for 911 Truth? All of 300 members or so.

And still more quote-mining. Tsk tsk.
Click to expand...

Since the proof will be in the pudding I'll be the pilot. yankee451 will be my wingman.
 
MileHighMadness said:
Hey Yankee...the Truther Movement peaked in 2006-08. The movement got killed by common sense, logic and the complete lack of evidence to support it. Dude you are 5 years too late.

All the big conspiracy nuts have moved on to Sandy Hook
Click to expand...

We're still bombing innocent people over the actions of our own government. That bothers me and I want to do something to stop it.
 
000063 said:
Dodge. No one here feels threatened by the test, as you have been told, what, three times already by me alone? No one, least of all Beachnut, has denied the jet was destroyed, which it was. It just also destroyed exterior columns on the way in.

I refuse to donate money to a fool's errand. I will, however, gladly laugh at it. That's what fools are for, after all.



Oh, look, no evidence. And, oh look, Clayton and Yank are both now ignoring the amount of kinetic energy in play.

Of course, if a car can get through a brick wall at less than 100MPH, what on earth makes steel beams able to stop a larger, heavier plane moving at several hundred MPH with much more kinetic energy?
Click to expand...



Pixies? Buildings are made of pixies, right?
 
yankee451 said:
Indicating your confusion with material densities and basic physics.

To sum up - all you plane-huggers don't have a leg to stand on. You cry about math and physics but can't produce anything to support your beliefs, whereas I am prepared to put my money and reputation on the line to publish the math and physics, as well as an empirical test to support mine.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've seen plastic cream steel. I use real world experience to know if it's going fast enough, has enough mass, anything can destroy anything else for the most part.

Plane huggers? That's cute. Nice argument. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously. You're convinced, hardly a skeptic. Be skeptical of your own ideas. You're obviously not. We did the same and came up with the answers years ago that elude you today. :rolleyes:
 
yankee451 said:
If you believe what we're told it also severed 37 steel columns and a few spandrels and therein lies the rub. Jets can't do that and the crash test will prove it.

If you were so certain a jet can do such a thing, why are so many of you so threatened by this test? You should be throwing money at me to get it done.
Click to expand...
Why do you think anyone is threatened? I'm afraid that is all in your head.

No one really cares if you do this or not. We're just pointing out the fact that math and physics has answered your question.

BTW: You're lying by saying this has not been done. Is this what you do, find truth by lying?
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
Indicating your confusion with material densities and basic physics.
Click to expand...
Physics involves math. Which you don't do. Also, hand-wave.

To sum up - all you plane-huggers don't have a leg to stand on. You cry about math and physics but can't produce anything to support your beliefs, whereas I am prepared to put my money and reputation on the line to publish the math and physics, as well as an empirical test to support mine.
Click to expand...

Ooh, good one, appropriating Clay's "-huggers" suffix. He likes people stroking his ego.

Of course, it wouldn't be your money. It would be yours and that of others, and you've already said the empirical test is the primary test, not an "as well". You could give everyone your hypothesis and physics and math right now, if you wanted to, but you refuse. I distinctly remember the hypothesis - what you think might happen - being a critical part of the experiment back in high school science. For all your pretense of neutrality, you clearly think it'll bounce. But you don't have anything significant to back it up. You can't even prove the most basic of your contentions.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Since the proof will be in the pudding I'll be the pilot. yankee451 will be my wingman.
Click to expand...

Must be a big pudding.

Welp, time to put the troll on ignore. It's been fun. He can accuse me of "running away", but since he's clearly been the one who's been evading my points, that's a pretty obvious lie.

I like how the only thing he'll really accept as evidence is a test that will almost certainly never happen. He could always meet a rich, eccentric millionaire, of course.
 
yankee451 said:
:cool:

Now that they're gnashing their teeth and foaming at the mouth, I'll leave them to you.

TTYL

Steve
Click to expand...

Upon your return, don't be shocked this happened lol

homercerelafire.jpg
 
yankee451 said:
The materials in the wing were thinner, less dense and less massive than those used in the building. This is why MIT gave up on crunching the numbers - because math can't prove a lie.
Click to expand...
The wings carried 60,000 pounds of fuel, which sliced through the WTC exterior due to mass, speed, and energy. But you don't believe in physics, math and science; you prefer making up your own version of 911, it is called fantasy. You taught yourself how to make up lies. You are good at it. Oops, did the wings break the columns? You don't know anything. What did NIST find? What about Purdue? MIT?

It is true, you can't prove your lie. You can't show the math. I gave you numbers, you ignored it. Nice.

You have no engineers who support your. Proof, you can't produce math to show a 767 can't do what we saw on 911. I gave the numbers, why can't you?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom