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

[Ape of Good Hope]

You've got quite a lather going now.

Hey, we work with what you give us

 

[yankee451]

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.

If the test proves what the damage evidence indicates and what Newtonian physics already predicts, the people with poor taste are listed above; they lied us into murdering hundreds of thousands of people. What punishment could fit that crime?

 

[beachnut]

If the test proves what the damage evidence indicates and what Newtonian physics already predicts, the people with poor taste are listed above; they lied us into murdering hundreds of thousands of people. What punishment could fit that crime?

Wow. This makes as much sense as your failed claim.

Your source proved you wrong.

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

Unknowingly, posted your rebuttal. Got math?

 

[yankee451]

Wow. This makes as much sense as your failed claim.

Your source proved you wrong.

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

Unknowingly, posted your rebuttal. Got math?

I don't doubt their math is sound, it is more important to examine how they create their model. Are they trying to discover what caused it, or are they trying to explain how it could have happened, striving for a predetirmined conclusion?

I have taken the liberty of highlighting pertinent sections in yellow and have added my corresponding comments - care to comment on my comments?

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

 

[yankee451]

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.

A wing, maybe two. Should be fun, big explosions, majestic scenery. Honestly, whichever way the rocket sled slices, what's not to love about this project.

 

[Mudcat]

A wing, maybe two. Should be fun, big explosions, majestic scenery. Honestly, whichever way the rocket sled slices, what's not to love about this project.

Better you than me. The logistics of the experiment, if you get it past the conception stage, would be a nightmare.

 

[beachnut]

I don't doubt their math is sound, it is more important to examine how they create their model. Are they trying to discover what caused it, or are they trying to explain how it could have happened, striving for a predetirmined conclusion?

I have taken the liberty of highlighting pertinent sections in yellow and have added my corresponding comments - care to comment on my comments?

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

Wow, I had to save this gem, it shows who Google U. aka School of Hard Knocks fails at math and physics.

All Your comments are nonsense. Please pick your big one, and explain it.

I like the 10 stories of rubble, and you have no clue it is math. 110 stories, and 95 percent is air. Means the pile will end up being 5.5 stories.

You can't do research, and no math is the icing.

No, you pick the silly comment you think is worthy of critique, I found them all useless nonsense based on ignorance, and contempt for reality. As you lie about the dead, and make up your own version of 911 based on failed concepts.


They expose you don't understand physics and engineering. The comments were self-critiquing.

""How can the calculate something they can't see?"" lol, you are something else.

What a waste

Not one who envisages Newton's three basic laws of physics which state clearly that the 300,000 ton steel and concrete building would have wiped out the 127 ton aircraft when it struck it at 500 MPH.

Pure nonsense based on ??? Not math. lol, you are, spreading lies based on ignorance of math.

No wonder a quarter ounce bullet can't kill a 200 pound man. Wow, now I know. Special 911 truth nonsense-physics in action; or inaction.


Silly comments, which mean? You can't do science.

Kamikazes! Don't forget the Kamikazes which were often rocket-boosted to reach speeds in excess of 500 MPH.

A 767 can exceed 500 mph with the engines alone, let alone in the steep dive of 175, the idiot terrorist pilot was too high to slow down; flying, another topic you don't understand.


We have the Fantasy Physics calling real physics, Hollywood.

Hollywood physics. The disintegration of the fuselage would have occurred equally and opposite to the disintegration of the exterior columns, with the deciding factor being the masses of the impacting bodies. The jet's wing was NOT 127 tons, therefore no matter how you slice it the wing loses, every time.
After being shredded by the exterior columns there would be very little left to "continue to cut and rip apart" an acre of concrete floor.
They are being very dishonest.

??? You don't make sense. Why would the mass of the aircraft stop at the exterior? The aircraft parts continued and damaged 4 to 20 core columns.

Oh, you say there were no planes, but act as if you are saying the planes were stopped by the shell? Your no planes, you are arguing they can't, but you say they weren't? You are special


Hint: since you say there are no planes, you can't argue about the study. If you do, they you agree there were planes. Add logic with the math?


Wow. You said this? lol, a head-scratcher. Just say no.

Now this one's a head-scratcher. If they hadn't skipped over the equal and opposite reaction law they might see their error here.
The wing hit the columns just as hard as the columns hit the wing. Since the columns were far more massive than the wing (the mass of the wing was NOT 127 tons), why wouldn't the columns shear off the wing instead of the reverse? They're still being dishonest.

No wonder I am bullet proof, my skin and bones stop the bullet with the old equal and opposite reaction law. How do you pervert Newton laws so easily?


This is hard for me to explain. But the section of the columns hit were not that massive. You have no clue what you are talking about, but you think you do. wow



And then, or ...

Wait, what? Why are they calculating the entire mass of the plane? The plane may have weighed 127 tons, but its mass was distributed from nose to tail and wing tip to wing tip. A jet is not one solid body but a combination of smaller parts, and the mass of the engines far exceeded the mass of the wings. They aren't being honest.

The funny part, you never checked their energy of impact.

... your comment is nonsense. They were calculating the energy of impact. They were off, they had the speed too slow. This study came early, and later the NTSB released the RADAR data, because it is our data, we can have it. The energy was more. Your comment is based on ignorance, and nonsense. You are not on the topic. You don't understand. They were being honest, you don't understand physics, or what they said. Means the aircraft did more damage.

They're forgetting the three most basic laws of motion.

lol, you don't understand the paper. It refutes you, and you posted it. If you understood the paper, you would not be spreading lies.

Where are the people who died on 911?

Television and video clips can be faked and scientists can lie, but aluminum airplanes do not disappear into steel buildings in the real world. They are lying.

You are wrong, and you can't do the math to back up your lie. You are the one spreading lies - you are projecting.

 

[Oystein]

...most people ... understand the TeeVee. ...

Clayton? I don't know whom you are referring to. My name is Steve De'ak.

Went to the Jerry Leaphart College of Woo?

 

[Oystein]

LSSBB asked you to show him something real.

What does that mean?

Ah.
I found the problem.

 

[cjnewson88]

A wing, maybe two. Should be fun, big explosions, majestic scenery. Honestly, whichever way the rocket sled slices, what's not to love about this project.

The claim behind it. Its ridiculous. More ridiculous than your failed missile theories. More fail than your failed understanding of the "Newtonian" laws you thrash. Isaac would roll in his grave at the complete and utter gross misunderstanding of a very simply law. How did people get this stupid. Your premise is ridiculous. Thousands of people saw an aircraft hit those buildings.





Your 'experiment' is null and void. These aircraft existed. RADAR proves you wrong. Witnesses prove you wrong. Reality proves you wrong. Physics and math proves you wrong. But hey, what do we expect from a man who thinks the military, news agencies, and even the police officers were responsible for 9/11? I'm sure the FDNY would love to know how they're partly behind the conspiracy to murder and cover up of 3000 US citizens. You'll find no support here, go back to bowels of the David Icke Forum and take Mr Moore with you.

 

[Spanx]

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

So what your saying is, the engine is where the hole is.

Now tell me how large or small the engine support brackets are ?

 

[BasqueArch]

You know how occasionally a biologist discovers a fluorescent frog with five legs, breasts and one forehead eye in a puddle by a Russian nuclear power plant?

This is just like that.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Should be fun, big explosions, majestic scenery. Honestly, whichever way the rocket sled slices, what's not to love about this project.

As entertainment, it certainly ticks my boxes

I have a suggestion though: "Crash Test" is a boring title for such an adventurous endeavour. You need something to capture the audience's imagination. Something with a hint of romance, a touch of showbiz pazazz.


How about "A Wing And A Prayer"?

 

[cjnewson88]

Here's another couple for your "research" Yankee;

 

[Spanx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDAFRCFu0Sk&feature=youtube

I guess we could expect to see something like this on a larger scale ?

We also need to except that the landing gear is going to be alot stronger than what's used in this clip.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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?

What does that matter? How is that supposed to change the impulse calculations?

 

[000063]

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

Kids, this is the rare combination "rhetorical strawman". It's when you ask a question about a distorted version of your opponents position. When they tell you you're wrong, you just ignore them, or say you were "just asking questions".

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.

I like how, since yesterday, you have had to move goalposts from "prove the wing could slice through exterior columns" to "prove the wing could slice through exterior columns and the spandrels and the floor". I like how you add the size of the columns and spandrels to try and make them sound more impressive, but curiously neglect to mention the size of the wing.

And, of course, this started with you refusing to provide your evidence. Your nonsense standard we have to meet before you'll present your math is just as transparent as your other excuses for not putting up, such as us having to demonstrate that we are able to understand it. I don't think you ever explained how we would demonstrate that, incidentally.

I like how you're "lightyears ahead" of universities when you refuse to do the math, and have admitted that you haven't done any, and have been entirely unable to address the math presented in this thread or in their reports of said universities in any significant detail.

What does that matter? How is that supposed to change the impulse calculations?

It's a Gish Gallop. Verbal chaff to distract from his complete lack of point.

 

[yankee451]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDAFRCFu0Sk&feature=youtube

I guess we could expect to see something like this on a larger scale ?

We also need to except that the landing gear is going to be alot stronger than what's used in this clip.

Per your recommendation, I'll use a section from the engine out.

You'd think they would have just used a piece of wing to cut the car in half - they went overkill making a reinforced steel plow.

 

[yankee451]

I like how, since yesterday, you have had to move goalposts from "prove the wing could slice through exterior columns" to "prove the wing could slice through exterior columns and the spandrels and the floor".

I like how not one of you has been able to back up anything you say.

 

[yankee451]

Question for the class -

Is this model an accurate prediction of the failure of an exterior column?

Anyone? Can anyone explain how that square box represents the actual construction of the towers:

For extra credit you can show me where their calculations explain this damage: