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

[yankee451]

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.

You responded to:

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.

And you responded with the usual "yeah-but" questions.

 

[fitzgibbon]

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

I agree it was caused by aircraft.

Might want to correct this clanger as detailed by beechnut from your site:

"This year marks the eleventh anniversary of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11th, 2001 when all the world’s media played video of United Airlines flight 175 slicing through the steel columns of the South Tower of the World Trade Center as if they weren’t there, thereby defying the laws of physics. What was shown on 9/11 is physically impossible in the real world, therefore the only logical conclusion is the videos of the plane “impacts” are fraudulent. This is not speculation; all images and videos which depict a 9/11 plane crash have since been exposed as having been tampered-with, meaning the media were a critical part of the operation. "

TIA
Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

And were it not for the damage evidence that indicates what actually caused it and the faked videos of the plane, ....

The details of the low-hanging fruit of which you oddly avoid picking in favour of idle talk of a rocket-propelled full-scale model....

Fitz

 

[beachnut]

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

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

You said this was your evidence to support your fantasy. You were wrong.

It is funny you added note to the paper, which prove you don't understand math, physics, engineering and more. You do use your common sense, which is cartoon physics, you made up to support your fantasy.

This annotated copy of the MIT paper is perfect to use as a reason someone might want to study physics so they will not make comments found in this copy.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf
This is your notes on the paper, which debunks you. Your notes debunk your common sense. What do you call common sense which gets everything wrong? Will you delete this paper if you figure out your 911 claims are nonsense? Do you have problems understanding simile?

 

[JohnG]

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?

And if your test proves you wrong, yankee451, and you admit that you were wrong, will you be prepared for the savage backlash when other Truthers claim that you were fooled, bribed or threatened into saying you were wrong?

FWIW, as a fan of shows such as Mythbusters, I would love to see your experiment carried out, but it never will get carried out. This thread is evidence that you are long on bluster and insults but short on due diligence and follow-through.

Prove me wrong.

 

[yankee451]

And if your test proves you wrong, yankee451, and you admit that you were wrong, will you be prepared for the savage backlash when other Truthers claim that you were fooled, bribed or threatened into saying you were wrong?

FWIW, as a fan of shows such as Mythbusters, I would love to see your experiment carried out, but it never will get carried out. This thread is evidence that you are long on bluster and insults but short on due diligence and follow-through.

Prove me wrong.

Your posts are evidence you're full of it. Prove me wrong.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Your posts are evidence you're full of it. Prove me wrong.

Prove. Yourself. Right. Show. Us. The math.

 

[JohnG]

You responded to:



And you responded with the usual "yeah-but" questions.

As I said, don't worry about it. I'm disappointed but not in the least bit surprised. It is quite literally IMPOSSIBLE for you or any Truther to come up with reasonable answers to my reasonable questions. It's because as you read those questions a tiiiiiny voice in the back of your head is telling you "Oh, ****! I'd never admit it out loud, but those actually are reasonable questions! There's no way I can answer them without making me appear foolish, therefore I'll just have to ignore them or dance around them and hope that this JohnG person let's it drop after an hour or so".

And the thing is, I probably will let it drop because unlike you, I'm a reasonably nice guy and also unlike you, I'm not obsessed by the subject to the point where, for example, I boast about ambitious, unwieldy and expensive experiments that I am never going to actually carry out.

 

[JohnG]

Your posts are evidence you're full of it. Prove me wrong.

How so?

 

[twinstead]

Your posts are evidence you're full of it. Prove me wrong.

Wow. Brilliant debate mojo. You're a debate GOD!

 

[dafydd]

Might want to correct this clanger as detailed by beechnut from your site:

"This year marks the eleventh anniversary of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11th, 2001 when all the world’s media played video of United Airlines flight 175 slicing through the steel columns of the South Tower of the World Trade Center as if they weren’t there, thereby defying the laws of physics. What was shown on 9/11 is physically impossible in the real world, therefore the only logical conclusion is the videos of the plane “impacts” are fraudulent. This is not speculation; all images and videos which depict a 9/11 plane crash have since been exposed as having been tampered-with, meaning the media were a critical part of the operation. "

TIA
Fitz

Oh dear. Lol and yet again lol.

 

[dafydd]

Wow. Brilliant debate mojo. You're a debate GOD!

All those years in his/her university debating society paid off. We have a master orator here.

 

[TheRedWorm]

All those years in his/her university debating society paid off. We have a master orator here.

Or, failing that, a master debater

 

[tsig]

Your posts are evidence you're full of it. Prove me wrong.

A riposte like that leaves me tongue tied. A bow tie to be exact.

 

[JohnG]

I don't think yankee451 will return to this particular thread. He's moved onto greener pastures...


...at least they'll become greener after he's finished fertilizing them.

 

[dafydd]

A riposte like that leaves me tongue tied. A bow tie to be exact.

It's not often that one comes up against a modern day Racine.

 

[tsig]

It's not often that one comes up against a modern day Racine.

That sounds about right:

The linguistic effects of Racine's poetry are widely considered to be untranslatable,

 

[fess]

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.

During your self taught education, did you do any research at all? If you would do a little research on the subject at hand, you would find that Flt 175 was visually spotted and watched by the controllers at EWR.

I don't think wars based on impossible lies are fun.

Are you having difficulties staying focused?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Once again:

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?

Critiques must be substantiated. Why and how would the representations change the impulse calculations?

 

[Axxman300]

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.

No faked videos. You ignore the hundreds of thousands of eye witnesses, including the on guy in the south tower who was the lone survivor of his office who climbed from under his desk to find part of a wing embedded in the ceiling above his head.

He would have noticed it when he got to work if the attack was a fake.

The amount of facts that need to be erased, and the huge numbers of those "laws of nature" that would need to be ignored to make your pathetic theory possible are astronomical.

I don't think wars based on impossible lies are fun.

Yes you do. The 9/11 Truth Movement has single-handedly undermined the anti-war movement in the US. Truthers made any debate about the invasion of Iraq impossible. Even when there was thoughtful debate there was always some idiot wearing a 9/11 was an inside job t-shirt would steal the show.

So in taking up your "quest for the truth" you facilitate, and legitimize the so-called murder you think you'll stop.

Have a nice day, baby-killer.