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

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by yankee451
I'm sure you'd like to trade barbs all day.

Boring troll's still boring. Anyway, off to replace an old toilet. Time to deal with other malodorous ****.

Fitz

Speak for yourself! I think this is hilarious!

 

[TJM]

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. No.

2. Not particularly.

3. Meh, He might raise something around high four to low five figures, declare defeat due to a lack of funding and then disappear like a fart in the wind. It's all good though - 9/11 truthers are easy targets for this sort of scam and it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of idiots.

Good luck with your project Steve.

 

[UTLonghorn]

I got your math right here.

Figured out why MIT never proved a jet can slice through a steel skyscraper yet?

Figured out why MIT, or any physicist or engineer for that matter, hasn't endorsed your no plane fantasy?

 

[Mudcat]

Because an airfoil is equal to a battering ram in your world?

You see? This post of yours proves that you have no idea of just how complicated an aircraft's wing is.

But in my world, in other words the real world, that's not what an aerofoil is used for.

But considering their components, their mass, the speed they go, as well their immense size, they would be much much more destructive than a measly battering ram.

 

[Spanx]

Lol

It's starting to look like this whole episode is all about YouTube hits

 

[Mudcat]

Lol

It's starting to look like this whole episode is all about YouTube hits

That's what I think, too. Otherwise they would be more forthcoming with requested information.

<SNIP>

If you really believed in what you were saying you would supply the requested information so we can make an informed decision of wether we should watch it or not. Your continual evasiveness tells me its not something I need or want to see.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Lol

It's starting to look like this whole episode is all about YouTube hits

I suppose if truthers had actual evidence, they wouldn't be truthers...

 

[Spanx]

I have watched the end of the video with the experiment.

So let's talk about which part of the wing.

I started watching from the beginning and it would appear you want to lower airport security so I skipped to the experiment which is what you won't talk about.

 

[yankee451]

Figured out why MIT, or any physicist or engineer for that matter, hasn't endorsed your no plane fantasy?

Figured out how fast a jet would have to go to pierce the exterior walls of the twin towers, or bore through the brick and concrete walls of the pentagon, or burrow into the hard, dry, rocky soil of Shanksville yet?

To all of you losers, I'll repeat:

Until any single one of you can mathematically demonstrate how the jet's wing could slice through the 14 inch steel box columns with two sharp leading edges each, in addition to the 52 inch steel spandrels behind them, and the alleged concrete floor behind that, you are in no position to demand anything of me.

When it comes to working towards definitively proving whether 9/11 could have possibly occurred as we saw on the TeeVee, I'm light years ahead Purdue, MIT and certainly any of you lot.

 

[Spanx]

Ok Yankee
Are you going to use the section of wing between the fuselage and engine ?

That's the impression I got from the video

 

[yankee451]

Ok Yankee
Are you going to use the section of wing between the fuselage and engine ?

That's the impression I got from the video

Yes

 

[Spanx]

Yes

Ok, now you tell me what is concealed within that section of wing.

 

[yankee451]

Ok, now you tell me what is concealed within that section of wing.

I don't have to. I'm going to use a real wing in the test, so whatever should be there, will be there.

 

[UTLonghorn]

... I'm light years ahead Purdue, MIT and certainly any of you lot.

Yes! I finally get to use my very first laughing dog:

 

[Mudcat]

Figured out how fast a jet would have to go to pierce the exterior walls of the twin towers, or bore through the brick and concrete walls of the pentagon, or burrow into the hard, dry, rocky soil of Shanksville yet?

I'll leave the first part alone, as 9/11 (to the best of my knowledge) is the first time that an aircraft ever impacted a structure like the WTC.

Now, you don't need an aircraft to crash through a brick and concrete wall at all. There are a number of situations where automobiles have done so, both before and after 9/11. In case you don't know, there's a considerable difference between automobiles and airliners in terms of performance and sheer size.

As for the last part there are quite a few air crashes where the aircraft in question practically buried itself. Very little survived those that could be identified as aircraft.

 

[Spanx]

I don't have to. I'm going to use a real wing in the test, so whatever should be there, will be there.

You will have to raise alot of money if you want the landing gear included.

 

[Mudcat]

You will have to raise alot of money if you want the landing gear included.

I doubt if Yankee has the first clue of how high a hurdle they have to clear.

Everything on an aircraft is expensive as hell, and it won't be easy to obtain the desired wing section with all their components intact.

 

[yankee451]

You will have to raise alot of money if you want the landing gear included.

Yes, it'll cost a lot of money.

Groan - yes, the landing gear, good point - heh that should make a dent, huh?

I think I can get a whole jet for about 30K stripped, but to add the landing gear would be substantial. We're not talking scrap metal there...

Well, this is why I'm hiring engineers, they warned me there would need to be some changes to my initial plan. I origionally wanted to use that part of the wing from the engine to the tip, because that's what I find least believable. Seems I might have to switch to that plan - it would be a whole lot cheaper.

Cool - thank you.

 

[yankee451]

I doubt if Yankee has the first clue of how high a hurdle they have to clear.

Everything on an aircraft is expensive as hell, and it won't be easy to obtain the desired wing section with all their components intact.

Hertz, who founded Studio of Environmental Architecture, a Santa Monica-based firm, says Rehwald bought the entire Boeing 747-200 for $35,000. She then spent extra to deconstruct it into pieces and transport it to her property http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ouse-built-with-aircraft-wing-nears-takeoff/1

 

[Spanx]

Consider yourself corrected.

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/broken-spandrel.png[/qimg]

Have a look at your pic, you will see the wing tips did not cut the steel but you can see the outline of fuselage, landing gear and engine.