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

[Mudcat]

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

Google confirms it, she bought a decommissioned 747, for thirty thousand dollars. Just the hull mind you. And it wound up costing her two million dollars in the end.

But you want more than just the hull. Even decommissioned, you'll be looking at something more than forty thousand dollars.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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.

Ryan Mackey did this back in 2009.

• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137438
• http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryanmackey and https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/ryanmackey

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.

Ah, a Poe. Got it. Folks, he's not serious. Just laugh and let him have his joke.

 

[beachnut]

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

No wonder aluminum cars crush steel guardrails.

Is that what you would have thought? Huh.

I thought you did not know math; but skeptical, until I found you deny the moon landing, and nukes. Nukes are physics. You don't do physics you don't do math. Is E=mc² too hard for you too?

It is funny, you draw the woo line at Chemtrails. What about Bigfoot? You have the same evidence Bigfoot believes have for Bigfoot; ignorance.

I have already explained how the water can cut steel - by using a tiny aperature placed very close to the steel and very high PRESSURE, the integrity of the column of water is kept intact long enough to overcome the steel, but often a water jet needs aprasives added to the water to cut thicker plate.

However a jet is not a water jet, is it?

No, you did not explain why water can cut steel but a high speed aircraft with big stainless steel landing gear, and titanium engines, and 60,000 pounds of jet fuel (like water, a little lighter per liter, but it will rip you to tiny pieces at 600 mph, that is 590 rounded to 600, since you don't do math), etc. It is sad you skipped physics, and math.

The contents do not add density to said tube. Back to the drawing board for you.

The contents don't add to the density of the tube? lol, my toothpaste tube has no density. lol, you are in a fantasy world. Wow

Nor 100,000 tons of structural steel. Don't mention that. Ever.

How much steel was in the cross-section of the aircraft? Do the math next time. My goodness, no wonder you have the stupid wood-stove analogy. You don't know what landing gears are made of. You don't know anything about 911.

Here we go - "holograms". I'm still waiting for the straw through the tree comparison.

Were the people holograms. So the people who lost loved ones were fake? No one died? You are so nice. Big fantasy, big lie.
You can't do physics, so you don't understand tornadoes, or aircraft flying fast. You lied about Flight 93, you lie about 11 and 175.

Well lookee here - a real question to which I answer; because an aluminum jet can't slice through a steel skyscraper like a hot knife through butter, there were no planes. No planes means no passengers, no pilots and no hijackers.

There were 4 planes, you lied 4 times. There were passengers and they were murdered by the terrorists you apologize for. The pilots were killed first. They were not hijackers, they were terrorists. You spread fantasy so stupid, it hurts. Your videos are torture for rational people. What did your kids say? What did you x-wife say?

Touche!

I said I was a pilot, you called me a liar. Were you bullied a lot, with all your silly towel snapping nonsense. Did you get picked on a lot, or do you project tons. I said I was an engineer, you said I am a liar.
You are projecting? Do you spread BS a lot? Like Nukes don't exist? Are you anti-science and anti-intellectual; is that your goal?

Anyway, what I really mean, is, a grade school kid understand a high speed object can do what we saw on 911. Being a pilot and engineer makes it interesting to see how gullible people are when they are fooled by their degree from the school of Hard Knocks, aka, Google U. lol

I do understand sports, which is why I couldn't care less. I understand physics better than you hope I do.

You couldn't care less if you deny the murdered people on 911. Disrepectful and no practical skills in phyhsics. You ignore your own source because you can't comprehend the study.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf

It's called sarcasm. You've heard of it, havent you?

Is this your evidence to support your fantasy? Fantasy will remain so, it is forever.

Because the video explains it faster than I cay type it. And because I don't like you.

Your video is nonsense. A redo. The study you posted debunks your thesis.

Too bad you haven't watched the 11 minute video - you'd know it is an introduction to the crash test project; the math comes later, is everyone clear on that yet?

The math is never coming, you can't see the MIT study makes your test project nonsense. And you ignored the real event, and deny it. Like the moon landing, and nukes? lol, looks like things that have math and physics required to complete never happened. Is this your attempt to go back to the good old days, the middle ages, or caveman time?

I got your math right here.

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

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
Oops, MIT says Al aircraft will damage up to 20 core columns. The core in inside the WTC. You don't understand the math so you essentially lie about the MIT paper conclusion. Like I said, a grade school kid can read the paper and debunk your idiotic fantasy. My grandkids can debunk you.

<SNIP>

... more like you walked into a room of engineers, pilots, intelligent laypeople, and you start spreading dumbed down BS, spit on the dead, apologize for terrorists with idiotic claims, and spew anti-intellectual claptrap. Your claims are drivel, you can't read your own source to see you were debunked.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
Was the math too much?

Actually it is exactly like you walked into a room of skeptics, who use facts, math, evidence, physics to debunk the silly immature claims you rant about due to ignorance.

Say what?

You failed to read your own source.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf

<SNIP>

If that's your question, the answer is yes.

More evidence? Math?

Faux outrage. Yawn.

You are saying the passengers were fake. Have you told the loved ones? Knowledge of crime, keeping to yourself is a crime. In your case you have a delusional fantasy, and can't be more than a person spreading nonsense. Even 911 truthers ban you for your nonsense. However, you can't be banned here all you do is project, and spread nonsense. You can't be banned for nonsense.

Oh good - can you point me to the math where MIT, Purdue, Mackey or ? proved it was possible for the less-dense, less-massive, lighter-weight jet designed for flying through the air to slice through a steel building?

Because until you clowns produce some "math" to support your premise, you're in no position to demand anything from me, especially considering I'm doing something to prove my convictions.

MIT, Purdue, NIST all showed the math - and you used MIT as your proof?

I already did the math, you ignored it. You have to ignore reality when you have such an idiotic fantasy on 911.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf

MIT shows an aircraft can do it. You posted the source. Was it the math stuff that fooled you?

Let me rephrase; I am willing to talk about the experiment with folks who have watched the video. Had you you wouldn't be wasting my time right now.

Seriously - everyone watch the video, have a group text message, or throw your neighbor a spitball over the cube walls, do something to arrive at your top five stupid questions and then present them all at once.

Your video is nonsense. You already debunked yourself. Remeber the MIT study you posted? They figured it out, and you think they did not.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
Better read it again. You debunked yourself, and, you don't know it.

http://letsrollforums.com/blog.php?b=368 But where to begin; HOW to begin to reach an entranced people who will change their reality to suit the TV? Sane people don’t believe aluminum wings can slice structural steel columns, but most Americans sure do. Americans tend to believe that if you speed up anything to 500 MPH it’ll cut through just about anything else. That doesn’t bode well for the gene pool.

lol

 

[tsig]

Oh good - can you point me to the math where MIT, Purdue, Mackey or ? proved it was possible for the less-dense, less-massive, lighter-weight jet designed for flying through the air to slice through a steel building?

Because until you clowns produce some "math" to support your premise, you're in no position to demand anything from me, especially considering I'm doing something to prove my convictions.

Running your fingers over a keyboard?

 

[Redwood]

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

Seriously, Steve, part of me says you can't be serious, and a part of me is horrified that you might be serious. Either this is performance art in very poor taste, or you need to seek help.

Either way, I'm sure that Donna Spero, Stanley Praimnath, and other impact survivors would testify that an airplane wing did penetrate WTC 2. Just read about them, especially Ms. Spero, and don't try to contact them.

If you were to buttonhole Ms. Spero with the same manners you show here, she could sue you for harassment and she'd collect right down to your underpants. Throw in an accusation of being a part of the Vast Conspiracy, if she gunned you down in broad daylight in front of a hundred witnesses, no jury would ever convict her.

 

[beachnut]

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.

So you... spread lies about 911.

You deny people died. You deny the lives of people; to have your fantasy. What did your kids say about your fantasy?

You make up lies on 911 based on ignorance of math and physics, so you can stop war. You lie to stop war. Logical? Wait, math is logic. Darn.

Where is Flt 11, 175, 93 and 77? How did the bad guys plant the DNA? How did the bad guys get an engine to injure someone in NYC on the exact trajectory as if the real aircraft hit the WTC? Too bad math and physics don't exist in your Hard Knocks world of idiotic Fantasy.

 

[yankee451]

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.

 

[yankee451]

No wonder aluminum cars crush steel guardrails.

I thought you did not know math; but skeptical, until I found you deny the moon landing, and nukes. Nukes are physics. You don't do physics you don't do math. Is E=mc² too hard for you too?

It is funny, you draw the woo line at Chemtrails. What about Bigfoot? You have the same evidence Bigfoot believes have for Bigfoot; ignorance.

No, you did not explain why water can cut steel but a high speed aircraft with big stainless steel landing gear, and titanium engines, and 60,000 pounds of jet fuel (like water, a little lighter per liter, but it will rip you to tiny pieces at 600 mph, that is 590 rounded to 600, since you don't do math), etc. It is sad you skipped physics, and math.

The contents don't add to the density of the tube? lol, my toothpaste tube has no density. lol, you are in a fantasy world. Wow

How much steel was in the cross-section of the aircraft? Do the math next time. My goodness, no wonder you have the stupid wood-stove analogy. You don't know what landing gears are made of. You don't know anything about 911.

Were the people holograms. So the people who lost loved ones were fake? No one died? You are so nice. Big fantasy, big lie.
You can't do physics, so you don't understand tornadoes, or aircraft flying fast. You lied about Flight 93, you lie about 11 and 175.


There were 4 planes, you lied 4 times. There were passengers and they were murdered by the terrorists you apologize for. The pilots were killed first. They were not hijackers, they were terrorists. You spread fantasy so stupid, it hurts. Your videos are torture for rational people. What did your kids say? What did you x-wife say?


I said I was a pilot, you called me a liar. Were you bullied a lot, with all your silly towel snapping nonsense. Did you get picked on a lot, or do you project tons. I said I was an engineer, you said I am a liar.
You are projecting? Do you spread BS a lot? Like Nukes don't exist? Are you anti-science and anti-intellectual; is that your goal?

Anyway, what I really mean, is, a grade school kid understand a high speed object can do what we saw on 911. Being a pilot and engineer makes it interesting to see how gullible people are when they are fooled by their degree from the school of Hard Knocks, aka, Google U. lol


You couldn't care less if you deny the murdered people on 911. Disrepectful and no practical skills in phyhsics. You ignore your own source because you can't comprehend the study.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf

Is this your evidence to support your fantasy? Fantasy will remain so, it is forever.

Your video is nonsense. A redo. The study you posted debunks your thesis.


The math is never coming, you can't see the MIT study makes your test project nonsense. And you ignored the real event, and deny it. Like the moon landing, and nukes? lol, looks like things that have math and physics required to complete never happened. Is this your attempt to go back to the good old days, the middle ages, or caveman time?

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
Oops, MIT says Al aircraft will damage up to 20 core columns. The core in inside the WTC. You don't understand the math so you essentially lie about the MIT paper conclusion. Like I said, a grade school kid can read the paper and debunk your idiotic fantasy. My grandkids can debunk you.


... more like you walked into a room of engineers, pilots, intelligent laypeople, and you start spreading dumbed down BS, spit on the dead, apologize for terrorists with idiotic claims, and spew anti-intellectual claptrap. Your claims are drivel, you can't read your own source to see you were debunked.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
Was the math too much?

Actually it is exactly like you walked into a room of skeptics, who use facts, math, evidence, physics to debunk the silly immature claims you rant about due to ignorance.


You failed to read your own source.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf

That is what you are doing? Yes.

More evidence? Math?


You are saying the passengers were fake. Have you told the loved ones? Knowledge of crime, keeping to yourself is a crime. In your case you have a delusional fantasy, and can't be more than a person spreading nonsense. Even 911 truthers ban you for your nonsense. However, you can't be banned here all you do is project, and spread nonsense. You can't be banned for nonsense.


MIT, Purdue, NIST all showed the math - and you used MIT as your proof?

I already did the math, you ignored it. You have to ignore reality when you have such an idiotic fantasy on 911.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf

MIT shows an aircraft can do it. You posted the source. Was it the math stuff that fooled you?


Your video is nonsense. You already debunked yourself. Remeber the MIT study you posted? They figured it out, and you think they did not.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
Better read it again. You debunked yourself, and, you don't know it.


lol[/QUOTE]

Interesting story.

 

[beachnut]

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Wing-placement-on-the-wall.png

The engine is not really that big. The fan section is why the darn thing is so wide. The core of the engine is much smaller than the engine nacelle. But then I am an expert, you spread BS.

You show a photo where a 767 hit the WTC, to the exact dimensions of what a 767 would leave in high speed impact. There goes the V² stuff, more math which you don't do.

What is the point? Is there one? What does the fantasy you have say?


Don't forget, because you don't do math, you posted the MIT study to support your lie; you were wrong.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
Your MIT study, you posted, and it debunks your claims an aircraft can't damage the WTC core. Did you read it, or did the math stuff mess up your critical thinking skills, you know, the JREF stuff?
You need to do some the E in JREF stuff, and try again.

Get some physics. It might take a few years, physics is a Hard Knocks kind of subject. Imagine if you did not disrespect the dead so much you actually were skeptical of your own opinion, and tried to back it up with math and physics, or at least read your own source, you offered to support your claim; and it did not.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
Read it slower.

Learn some physics. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137438
Will you bump a 3 year old thread?

 

[yankee451]

Ryan Mackey did this back in 2009.

• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137438
• http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryanmackey and https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/ryanmackey

Ah, a Poe. Got it. Folks, he's not serious. Just laugh and let him have his joke.

Recently I alluded to a project I had in the works. I am pleased to announce that the project is now ready. A few weeks ago, Ron Wieck (known to veterans as pomeroo) and I recorded a series of shows for the public-access show Hardfire, discussing the physics involved in the September 11th conspiracy nonsense we've all had to suffer through for the past few years.

The first show is now ready, and can be found here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2636718609916624673
There are two others which should be ready in a week or so.

We did these shows as a kind of coda to the never-ending conspiracy arguments that now seem to be dying out. Instead of taking on any individual or specific wild claim, what I attempt to do instead is walk through the process of science, and show how anyone can apply this approach to any claim one might encounter. The scientific method is available to anyone, and need not be expensive, either. I attempt to demonstrate this by walking through two of the more common Truth Movement misconceptions from first principles.

I apologize up front for the video and audio quality -- we make do with the equipment we have. I could not travel to NYC to join Ron in the studio, nor could he visit me in LA for fear of running into the professional wrestler who has been embezzling his NWO paychecks. But I hope the message is readable and clear.

An extended version of the presentation used in these shows will be available shortly at either of the two following websites: http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryanmackey or http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

Any comments or feedback regarding the show, follow-up questions, etc. are welcome in this thread. Off-topic posts will be mercilessly reported regardless of source. Enjoy.

I see he likes to add the fuel's mass and density to the wing, but I don't see where he calculates the fuel's stress against the wing at impact. Wouldn't the fuel push against the inside of the wing on impact? Where are those calculations?


Why does he represent the aircraft wing as a slug of uniform density in this slide? Is a wing a slug of uniform density?

Why isn't the column accurately represented in his model? Would you consider a square box a fair representation for this?

 

[beachnut]

I see he likes to add the fuel's mass and density to the wing, but I don't see where he calculates the fuel's stress against the wing at impact. Wouldn't the fuel push against the inside of the wing on impact? Where are those calculations?


Why does he represent the aircraft wing as a slug of uniform density in this slide? Is a wing a slug of uniform density?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/MACKEY-Simple-Model-Section-Impact.png

Why isn't the column accurately represented in his model? Would you consider a square box a fair representation for this?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/column-cross-section-page-45.png

It is called engineering, and engineering was not taught at Hard Knocks U., aka, Google U.


LOL, the fuel is traveling at 590 mph too. You skip the years of education, and go straight to the silly adolescent questions.

 

[Mudcat]

The engine is not really that big. The fan section is why the darn thing is so wide. The core of the engine is much smaller than the engine nacelle.

Indeed, it makes you wonder just what the Truthers think that stuff is made of. It's not like it's indestructible.

 

[yankee451]

The engine is not really that big. The fan section is why the darn thing is so wide. The core of the engine is much smaller than the engine nacelle. But then I am an expert, you spread BS.

You show a photo where a 767 hit the WTC, to the exact dimensions of what a 767 would leave in high speed impact. There goes the V² stuff, more math which you don't do.

What is the point? Is there one? What does the fantasy you have say?


Don't forget, because you don't do math, you posted the MIT study to support your lie; you were wrong.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
Your MIT study, you posted, and it debunks your claims an aircraft can't damage the WTC core. Did you read it, or did the math stuff mess up your critical thinking skills, you know, the JREF stuff?
You need to do some the E in JREF stuff, and try again.

Get some physics. It might take a few years, physics is a Hard Knocks kind of subject. Imagine if you did not disrespect the dead so much you actually were skeptical of your own opinion, and tried to back it up with math and physics, or at least read your own source, you offered to support your claim; and it did not.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
Read it slower.

Learn some physics. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137438
Will you bump a 3 year old thread?

You've got quite a lather going now.

 

[yankee451]

It is called engineering, and engineering was not taught at Hard Knocks U., aka, Google U.

He uses a "slug" as the wing and a square box as the column and you think this is an accurate proof?

Maybe you need to spend some time in the school of hard knocks.

 

[yankee451]

Indeed, it makes you wonder just what the Truthers think that stuff is made of. It's not like it's indestructible.

Okay, so the engine would make an even smaller hole, still not matching the existing damage.

What a conundrum. How do you explain this? Better get some math!

 

[beachnut]

You've got quite a lather going now.

Is that projecting when you were banned at ATS, and letroll nut house?
And this is your best math. Wow, you got me all lather up now. You spread lies, I served my country. I served my country. You spread lies.

What is lather? Is that what you do when you can't do math, so some kuv stuff? This is your best? You can't do the math to understand why Flt 11 and 175 entered the WTC.
Then you post the MIT study, which proves you wrong. With math.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf

You debunked yourself. That is what 911 truth does best.

 

[yankee451]

It is called engineering, and engineering was not taught at Hard Knocks U., aka, Google U.


LOL, the fuel is traveling at 590 mph too. You skip the years of education, and go straight to the silly adolescent questions.

So is this your way of saying you can't answer my simple questions?

 

[beachnut]

Okay, so the engine would make an even smaller hole, still not matching the existing damage.

What a conundrum. How do you explain this? Better get some math!

You posted a photo showing the exact damage of a 767. That is classic 911 truth. Self-Debunking.

Is this your math? yes

MIT debunked you too.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf

So is this your way of saying you can't answer my simple questions?

You don't do engineering. It is not a surprise you can't figure out the diagram, and have to ask nonsensical questions. You don't know engineering, that is the answer; why you can't figure out 911. So you spread lies the passengers did not die, did not exist. You deny reality.

 

[yankee451]

Well kudos to Spanx for asking good questions.

Everyone else should take a nap.

 

[beachnut]

Well kudos to Spanx for asking good questions.

Everyone else should take a nap.

A fact filled post, worthy of the best 911 truth has, and ever will. And all the math you have, all in one concise post.

What did 60 Minutes say about your claims? lol

He uses a "slug" as the wing and a square box as the column and you think this is an accurate proof?

Maybe you need to spend some time in the school of hard knocks.

I did pilot training, it beats your school of Hard Knocks, by about a million plus dollars, 76 dollars. lol, good luck, I am frothing, and ... oops ... relaxing... darn, how do you get the lather up? I can't get past 70/120 50 beats per second. ...

How do you deny the moon landings, and nukes? Is that due to math too?

... bad mouth the engineering, ignore science, and go for the woo. Why are you against knowledge, science, math, physics, and rational thinking? You don't do model, engineering, so you will not understand it. You don't care, you make up lies about the dead, the murdered people. Why do you hate the people killed on 911, and make up lies about it?