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

[yankee451]

If it was not an aircraft impacting the WTC than what else could it have been? That's all that there's evidence for.

We'll just take your word for it.

 

[LSSBB]

Then use your words to explain how.




You mean other than the measurements of the holes compared to the measurements of a jet, the mass and construction of the impacting bodies and the density of materials? Why yes I do, but until you get past 9/11 101 you can't move on to the advanced studies.

Those don't prove there wasn't a plane. They just reinforce something went through the exterior. Plane is my best guess. Proof of anything else?

 

[yankee451]

Those don't prove there wasn't a plane. They just reinforce something went through the exterior. Plane is my best guess. Proof of anything else?

Guessing isn't good enough for me.

 

[LSSBB]

Guessing isn't good enough for me.

Well, there's eyewitness testimony, plane parts, radar, video. Still all shows a plane.

 

[Mudcat]

We'll just take your word for it.

How is that in any way an answer to my question?

What else could have impacted the WTC other than an aircraft?

 

[tsig]

More proof that your self taught education failed drastically.

Many self educated men seem inordinately proud of their Alma Mater.

 

[LSSBB]

Many self educated men seem inordinately proud of their Alma Mater.

Exactly this.

 

[Clayton Moore]

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

Go figure. Such a dark sky on a sunny day.

 

[yankee451]

How is that in any way an answer to my question?

What else could have impacted the WTC other than an aircraft?

I thought you were just writing to read your own words.

I agree it was caused by aircraft.

 

[JohnG]

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.

1. Why in your opinion did the conspirators decide to fake the plane crashes in ways that are (in your opinion) so howlingly obvious? If you are trying to frame someone for murder, you don't poison the murder victim and then claim that the victim was shot. In other words, if the conspirators wanted to mislead the country into war by claiming Al-Qaeda crashed jets into buildings, why didn't the conspirators simply...crash jets into buildings? Even if the jets had done what you think they should have done and basically bounced off the sides of the WTC, the resulting crash still would have resulted in hundreds dead and wounded on the streets on New York and still would have been perceived by the American public as the most dastardly terrorist attack in U.S. history and therefore there'd still be support for the ensuing war. Why risk giving the game away to those educated in the "school of hard knocks" by faking the attacks in such an inept way?

2. How were the conspirators able to fool/bribe/threaten virtually all Engineers, Pilots, Airport/Airline employees, Crash Scene Investigators, Reporters, Architects, Explosives Experts, Fire Fighters, Rescue Workers, Physicists and Police Officers but they weren't able to fool/bribe/threaten you or apparently anyone else in the Truth Movement?

3. Is it possible that your lack of training and expertise in the relevant fields, coupled with your (understandable) objections to the war(s) that followed the attacks has caused you to come to an erroneous conclusion regarding how and by whom the 9/11 attacks were carried out? Are street smarts and righteous indignation really all that is required to fully understand what happened on 9/11?

4. If the U.S. Government really is as evil as you suggest, wouldn't you occasionally expect blowback in the form of what is popularly termed "terrorist attacks" by some of those people that the Government has wronged? If not, why not?

 

[LSSBB]

Go figure. Such a dark sky on a sunny day.

To guide in understanding:

contrast

Definition: (1) Of ambient light: brightness range in scene: difference between highest luminance and lowest. High contrast indicates large subject brightness range. (2) Of film: rate at which density builds up with increasing exposure over mid-portion of characteristic curve of film/development combination. Also known as gamma: equal to slope of straight portion of curve. Objective measures: G-bar or contrast index. * May also refer to slope of other parts of curve ie toe or shoulder region. (3) Of light-source or quality of light: directional light e.g. spotlights give high contrast lighting with hard shadows; diffuse light or large light source give low-contrast lighting with soft shadows. (4) Of printing paper: grade of paper e.g. high-contrast paper is grade 4 or 5, grade 1 is low-contrast. (5) Of lens performance or image quality: usually in reference to measured MTF: high-contrast lens delivers image of object with high MTF. Also subjective evaluation of image quality: high-contrast usually preferred to low contrast. (6) Of colour: colours opposite each other on the colour wheel are regarded as contrasting e.g. blue and yellow, green and red; colours of adjacent hues do not contrast as strongly.

 

[yankee451]

Well, there's eyewitness testimony, plane parts, radar, video. Still all shows a plane.

I know, how about I conduct an empirical test!

 

[yankee451]

1. Why in your opinion did the conspirators decide to fake the plane crashes in ways that are (in your opinion) so howlingly obvious? If you are trying to frame someone for murder, you don't poison the murder victim and then claim that the victim was shot. In other words, if the conspirators wanted to mislead the country into war by claiming Al-Qaeda crashed jets into buildings, why didn't the conspirators simply...crash jets into buildings? Even if the jets had done what you think they should have done and basically bounced off the sides of the WTC, the resulting crash still would have resulted in hundreds dead and wounded on the streets on New York and still would have been perceived by the American public as the most dastardly terrorist attack in U.S. history and therefore there'd still be support for the ensuing war. Why risk giving the game away to those educated in the "school of hard knocks" by faking the attacks in such an inept way?

2. How were the conspirators able to fool/bribe/threaten virtually all Engineers, Pilots, Airport/Airline employees, Crash Scene Investigators, Reporters, Architects, Explosives Experts, Fire Fighters, Rescue Workers, Physicists and Police Officers but they weren't able to fool/bribe/threaten you or apparently anyone else in the Truth Movement?

3. Is it possible that your lack of training and expertise in the relevant fields, coupled with your (understandable) objections to the war(s) that followed the attacks has caused you to come to an erroneous conclusion regarding how and by whom the 9/11 attacks were carried out? Are street smarts and righteous indignation really all that is required to fully understand what happened on 9/11?

4. If the U.S. Government really is as evil as you suggest, wouldn't you occasionally expect blowback in the form of what is popularly termed "terrorist attacks" by some of those people that the Government has wronged? If not, why not?

Is this a fancy way of saying you don't have a leg to stand on?

 

[LSSBB]

I thought you were just writing to read your own words.

I agree it was caused by aircraft.

There's a radar trail, audio, and eyewitness testimony showing which aircraft it was too! Wasn't this fun?

 

[LSSBB]

I know, how about I conduct an empirical test!

Go to it. Don't forget you need to have a sled that can accelerate your airplane parts to the measured velocity, and that the target needs to be fixtured in such a way that it exactly reproduces the structure.

Enjoy!

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

I know, how about I conduct an empirical test!

Great idea! We're all 100% behind you.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I know, how about I conduct an empirical test!

Even if you were to do a test (which you won't, at least won't do one that is valid) will you accept the results when they show you are wrong?

 

[yankee451]

There's a radar trail, audio, and eyewitness testimony showing which aircraft it was too! Wasn't this fun?

And were it not for the damage evidence that indicates what actually caused it and the faked videos of the plane, and the laws of nature it might be remotely believable. I don't think wars based on impossible lies are fun.

 

[JohnG]

Is this a fancy way of saying you don't have a leg to stand on?

I post four reasonable questions at 1:41 PM and that is your response at 1:43 PM? Did you even read my post? Is that the amount of time you spend thinking about most questions?

Don't worry about it. I've asked those questions almost verbatim to at least a half dozen Truthers here over the past four years. No one one has ever been able to answer them. They literally can't answer them.

 

[yankee451]

Go to it. Don't forget you need to have a sled that can accelerate your airplane parts to the measured velocity, and that the target needs to be fixtured in such a way that it exactly reproduces the structure.

Enjoy!

I was going to leave out the concrete floor, but if you insist...