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

[Andy_Ross]

The reason I didn't answer is simple. None of you can prove your positions, therefore you have no right to demand anything of anyone else. You demand mathematical 'proofs' but cannot supply your own; you are incurious and dishonest and based on the irrelevent questions and childish behavior, your intent seems to be to obfuscate and confuse, to drown-out, not to discuss.

Unless you can prove what you saw on the T.V. is possible in the real world by using MATH, then the only reason I see you believe it is possible is because it was on the T.V. Given that, why would I take his or any of your questions seriously?

You are the one making the claims. Your burden of proof.

 

[waypastvne]

The columns were 40" center to center. You need to redo your math using the correct measurement and show us the real estimate of the placement of the engine.


http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict3.jpg

 

[cjnewson88]

Not to mention Yankee misses the fact that Lift causes the wings to bend upwards whilst in flight.

 

[Sunstealer]

Not to mention Yankee misses the fact that Lift causes the wings to bend upwards whilst in flight.

I suspect he doesn't know that wings generate lift. I'd love to know how he's going to stop his rocket sled from getting airborne when the massive wing that is attached to it starts to fly!

 

[SUSpilot]

No Planer calls for scientific study

I suspect he doesn't know that wings generate lift. I'd love to know how he's going to stop his rocket sled from getting airborne when the massive wing that is attached to it starts to fly!

I was wondering how he was going to cope with the induced drag.

Of course, if there's lift, you can use shoes that hold the assembly to the rail. If a negative angle of attack is used, then it'll all be pushed onto the rail. Either way, you're going to have a lot of friction there.

 

[cjnewson88]

I suspect he doesn't know that wings generate lift. I'd love to know how he's going to stop his rocket sled from getting airborne when the massive wing that is attached to it starts to fly!

Several months ago when he first proposed this that was the very first thing I thought of lol, if he has the wing on its side as planned, the force it will produce blazing at 500mph will literally lift it off the side of the rail. Unless, of course, he has it fitted properly, but I'm sure thats something he wouldn't have even considered

Edit; I would really love to hear Yankee's opinion of this -

 

[SUSpilot]

No Planer calls for scientific study

Actually, I have a vision of our naive self-taught engineer attaching the wing or wing section at a single point just behind the center of lift. I don't think the test rig would handle that at all well, whether the wing is mounted vertically or horizontally. I'm pretty confident you wouldn't get to the end of the track.

Be a neat show after the footage from the high speed cameras was recovered.

 

[LSSBB]

Several months ago when he first proposed this that was the very first thing I thought of lol, if he has the wing on its side as planned, the force it will produce blazing at 500mph will literally lift it off the side of the rail. Unless, of course, he has it fitted properly, but I'm sure thats something he wouldn't have even considered

Edit; I would really love to hear Yankee's opinion of this -

He could run the wall into the wing. I wonder if he thinks that would violate the laws of physics?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Is that why you ask them? 'Cause that's why I asked you for the math that proves a jet wing can slice through steel box columns; because I know it ain't there.

You just got shown the work three posts above that response. NCSTAR 1-2B, table 10-5, calculate impulse from known speed, compare to failure curves.

You should not ignore information merely because it's inconvenient to you.

 

[phunk]

So what I hear you saying is you believe the T.V., despite not being able to verify it.

You know that a lot of people saw it in person, not on tv, right?

 

[twinstead]

Oh, God, now it's "I haven't been indoctrinated by 'The Man' and his 'education system', so that makes me a free thinker and totally more qualified to discuss this subject than you shills are". Never heard that approach before...

Sheesh

 

[dafydd]

Oh, God, now it's "I haven't been indoctrinated by 'The Man' and his 'education system', so that makes me a free thinker and totally more qualified to discuss this subject than you shills are". Never heard that approach before...

Sheesh

It's the truther way. To thoroughly understand a subject you have to avoid studying it.

 

[beachnut]

This is what 911 truth uses for evidence, fantasy political claptrap

... For you plane-hugging true-believers to continue to state as fact that not only is it possible but it has also been mathematically proven is dishonest at worst and intellectually lazy at best. But because you whined well and I'm in a good mood:

Wow, not evidence for your insane no plane fantasy.

Math show you are wrong, and ...
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
Proof you are wrong, presented by you.
And you added notes to this copy, which prove you are math free, physics free; only able to repeat failed 911 truth woo.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf

...Have you ever considered the goal was the destruction of the whole WTC complex and to use the destruction as a pretext for long-planned invasions? Since a jet would be shredded and since terrorists don't have crusie missiles, there would be very few options for this operation, but thank goodness the military have owned the media since its inception. They have generations of experience with making us believe impossible things. 9/11 wasn't the first time by a long shot, this crap goes back to before Sparticus, but now they have digital media to manipulate us.

Wow, not evidence for your insane no plane fantasy.

This paragraph talks of planes. You said no planes? Now there are planes?

...This is not a serious question and doesn't deserve a serious answer. You do not speak for anyone but yourself and you certainly don't know nor have spoken to all the authorities you are trying to invoke.

Wow, not evidence for your insane no plane fantasy.
Your fantasy is not serious, it could be a sign of problems.

...Is it possible that your training instead of broadening your mind, has limited your capacity for critical thinking? If your synapses are burned in by being trained to react a certain way to certain stimuli, how is a a State education more beneficial to you than to the State? Isn't it in the State's best interest to have an obedient and hard-working citizen who thinks what the state wants you to think? So am I less indoctrinated with less State education, or more indoctrinated? Am I more curious by not being trained to think in a way that benefits the State, or less? Why am I less qualified to examine the evidence than you?

Wow, not evidence for your insane no plane fantasy.

More fantasy. My education by the "state", told me to read, and think for myself. You make up lies, the state never told me to make up lies.

...Beause the actions of the "terrorists" only give the West the excuse to invade.

We asked for UBL nicely, and the dumb Taliban said no. Wow, not evidence for your insane no plane fantasy.

...International terrorism wouldn't exist if we didn't invent it.

BS Flag. What are you talking about?

Sorry, it was invented long ago, and it does exist. Wow, you make up lies and more lies. Wow, this is not evidence for your insane no plane fantasy

...As a species, it's time we grow up and smell the coffee.

What are you on? Wow, not evidence for your idiotic no plane fantasy.

...Why do the "terrorists" occupy themselves with beheading people and IEDs

Wait, you just said terrorists don't exist, or some gobbledygook delusional claptrap junk. I think you have been smelling dope more than coffee. Wow, not evidence for your insane no plane fantasy.

... when all it takes is a couple jets to wipe out a sizable section of a major western city?

WHY?
Because a 767 cost over 160 million dollars and small knives to kill pilots in seconds only cost 5 dollars. BINGO
You don't have logic, where are your critical thinking skills? YOU are spewing idiotic political claptrap to match an idiotic fantasy of no planes.
19 terrorists have ruined stealing a 160 million dollar jet as an expensive KE (kinetic energy for you of no science) weapon.

A 767 is a KE weapon; packing a energy impact equal to a 2,000 pound bomb, can carrying 66,000 pounds of jet fuel with the heat energy of 315 TONS of TNT.

You don't do science like UBL did, and have no clue how effective a KE weapon is, you can steal for free. Where is your logic man?

... Why do their actions always require military action which ALWAYS benefits corporate power?

Wow, not evidence for your insane no plane fantasy.

 

[Clayton Moore]

http://911crashtest.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HCDu2V3yjS4#!


There's a new idiom in town. Not seeing is believing.

We don't see the plane slow down as it ENTERS the tower.
And we don't see any debris at the point of the crash.

 

[dafydd]

http://911crashtest.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HCDu2V3yjS4#!


There's a new idiom in town. Not seeing is believing.

We don't see the plane slow down as it ENTERS the tower.
And we don't see any debris at the point of the crash.

Cartoon physics again.

 

[beachnut]

http://911crashtest.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HCDu2V3yjS4#!


There's a new idiom in town. Not seeing is believing.

We don't see the plane slow down as it ENTERS the tower.
And we don't see any debris at the point of the crash.

What are you talking about. The funny part is, you can't explain your silly comments with physics. You do woo, not science.

The first web site was debunked on 911 with empirical data.

You posted a video which references proof there were planes. Do you think before you post your stuff which debunks your idiotic claims?

When would a plane slow down, which has 10 times the energy needed to break through the WTC shell? Well Clayton Moore, tell me when?

Why can't you do the physics? You failed to explain your post, it is more like a tiny bit of spam you regurgitated on cue.

 

[dafydd]

Why can't you do the physics? You failed to explain your post, it is more like a tiny bit of spam you regurgitated on cue.

It's a truther Pavlovian reaction. The Salivation Army.

 

[yankee451]

The columns were 40" center to center. You need to redo your math using the correct measurement and show us the real estimate of the placement of the engine.


http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict3.jpg

Much obliged.

 

[beachnut]

Much obliged.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/corrected-wall-distance.png

Posted evidence a 767 hit the WTC.
You posted empirical evidence for a 767 hitting the WTC, and verified by RADAR, photo, and video evidence. The big three for empirical evidence.

Add physcis, and the damage in the photo, we have 4 sets of empirical data, and the RADAR data has 5 or 6 sets of independant RADAR sites.

You have proved 11 and 175 hit the WTC. You have debunked the no plane claims.

Add that with the study you presented.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
Proof you are wrong, presented by you.
And you added notes to this copy, which prove you are math free, physics free; only able to repeat failed 911 truth rants of woo.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf
You comments are comedy for physics teachers.

 

[phunk]

Much obliged.

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/corrected-wall-distance.png[/qimg]

You're using the length marked in purple here. The length marked in green is about 10 feet longer. If the plane impact wasn't exactly perpendicular, then the length that impacted the wall would be somewhere in between those distances.