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

[dafydd]

{Tons of evidence of planes} > {some guys can't believe they were planes because of, well, the School of Hard Knocks, whatever that means, although they never ran planes into buildings or did accident investigations so how they learned that who knows}

YooToob, where else?

 

[Starving for Truth]

They didn't.

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

Good investigative work.

I have always been very vocal about the fact that something was not quite right with the WTC plane impacts, and that exposing the truth behind the planes which have been spoon-fed to us by mainstream media, will automatically expose all other 9/11 truths. If we can prove without a doubt that no planes impacted the towers, then as a logical consequence results the conclusion that the undamaged, perfectly stable towers had no other reason to fall down than a carefully planned controlled demolition.

I very much welcome the effort you put into your graphical explanations, an effort which I as a truthseeker am too lazy and digitally unskilled to muster.

 

[JohnG]

You formatted most of your answers in such a way as to make it appear they originated in one of my posts, which required me to manually reinsert all the quote tags to actually be able to include your responses below. I know you didn't do it on purpose but a little proofreading now and again wouldn't kill you.

What could go wrong if actual planes were not used? Not a heck of a lot. For instance at first the missing black boxes were PROOF that the government was hiding something. Later the BOXES were FOUND NOT by regular Joes and taken away by the Feds. This they went that-a-way reinforced the plane lie.

Uh, so why didn't they use real planes again?

They didn't. Those people don't want to risk their livelihood by rocking the 9/11 boat. A few, a very few, people/organizations/publications actively discuss what happened on 9/11. The authors of 9/11 realize letting sleeping dogs lie is best. WTC7 is a perfect example of that. If 9/11 was a real terrorist attack there would be a never ending litany of explanations and computer models recreating what happened in greater and greater detail.

Ah, the Truther ego; everyone else is a dupe, a coward or a perp, aren't they, Clayton?

There are countless courageous people who "rock the boat" every day. They put their careers and sometimes their lives on the line. They don't restrict their "rocking the boat" activities to haranguing a bunch of strangers from the safe anonymity of an obscure web forum. What the hell do you or any other Truther know about rocking the boat?

No. Because they never had the ability to perform "terrorist attacks" on a US scale to begin with.

As as already been mentioned, it didn't take a lot to hijack some airplanes and crash them. It was relatively easy on 9/11 and it's probably still nauseatingly easy today.

 

[beachnut]

Good investigative work.

I have always been very vocal about the fact that something was not quite right with the WTC plane impacts, and that exposing the truth behind the planes which have been spoon-fed to us by mainstream media, will automatically expose all other 9/11 truths. If we can prove without a doubt that no planes impacted the towers, then as a logical consequence results the conclusion that the undamaged, perfectly stable towers had no other reason to fall down than a carefully planned controlled demolition.

I very much welcome the effort you put into your graphical explanations, an effort which I as a truthseeker am too lazy and digitally unskilled to muster.

It is nonsense. He proved he can ignore evidence on 911. Only a few idiots claim there were no planes. 451's posts prove there were aircraft impacts, and he does it with empirical data. His conclusions are fantasy, his posts debunk his claims.

He asks for math to show aircraft can do the damage seen on 911; find the math, then denies it. Like 911 truth, physics is not used.

A report he found, debunks planes can't damage the WTC. http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf

Then he adds comments which confirm physics is not used to form his denial.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf

Good investigative work.

...

He has done zero investigative work. What fooled you into think his work was good? He has done no work. He has posted photos showing 767 impact damage, the exact size of 767, which is proved by photos, video, and RADAR. To say his work is good, is nonsense.

You were joking; I keep forgetting you are teasing truthers.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post

What the heck has this got to do with any of the questions I asked?

All the Airports they landed at have flight records, all the Pilots have records of the aircraft in their logbooks. Alll the service companies that worked on them have records, all the parts suppliers have records.
If there's one thing you can be sure of it is that the Civil Airline industry has comprehensive records of everything that is done to any aircraft and all the parts ever used on them.
So, we know the aircraft existed up until 911.
All the passengers and crew that were on them that day are also missing.

They have families and friends and work colleagues all say they are missing, their DNA was found at the crash sites
If the aircraft didn't crash as seen on 911, where did they go? Where are all the people? How did their DNA get to the crash sites?

Is the government just one big amorphous mass to you?

Lying seems to be ever more and more in vogue.

The government said Agent Orange was of no consequence, then accused as malingerers servicemen who reported GWS symptoms, later told responders ground zero was safe, then says it identifies specific dna,
then tells its citizens WMD have been found in order to provoke war with Iraq.


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/environment.html
EPA: Concealing and Aggravating a Health Catastrophe

In the days and weeks following the attack the Environmental Protection Agency gave assurances to New Yorkers that the dust permeating Lower Manhattan and the smoke still emanating from Ground Zero did not pose a health risk. The agency issued five press releases within ten days of the attack assuring people that the air was safe to breathe, despite an absence of data to support such assurances. 3 In August of 2003, it was revealed that the EPA had been muzzled by the Bush administration. EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley issued a report on August 21, 2003, admitting that the reassurances were unfounded, and that the public statements of the agency were being influenced by the National Security Council, under the direction of the White House. The EPA, according to the report, had been influenced to "add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."

The federal government failed to change its safety assurances even after it became clear that people were getting ill, and even after a survey of federal employees of a sister agency in the same building as EPA at 290 Broadway revealed that they were suffering health impacts - a survey that, this report finds, the federal government did not release to the public at the time. It was quietly published in a journal in 2002.
Many Ground Zero workers did not have proper protection, especially in early weeks. This report explains that federal assurances of safety gave workers conflicting messages about the need for respirator masks, which are difficult and exhausting to wear.
OSHA refused to enforce worker safety standards at Ground Zero. It wrongly claimed that it had no authority in national emergencies. It then continued this refusal long after the emergency had passed, and long after it became apparent that serious health and safety risks were occurring despite efforts by OSHA staff to advise safety.
EPA and FEMA, in concert with New York City's own health department, told families that they could clean up the contaminated dust themselves with wet rags. In fact, they actually discouraged area residents from wearing safety masks.

How did their DNA get to the crash sites?
You expect me to believe their dna was found at the crash sites.

 

[LSSBB]

You expect me to believe their dna was found at the crash sites.

You expect us to take your disbelief, without evidence of deliberate fabrication, as proof of anything?

 

[Clayton Moore]

I don't see the reinforced steel slicing leading edges of the wings on this diagram, nor the dense-metal encased battering ram radome. Do you?

Yes I do.

 

[Animal]

I don't see the reinforced steel slicing leading edges of the wings on this diagram, nor the dense-metal encased battering ram radome. Do you?

Reinforced steel? Staight out of troofer woo land.

 

[yankee451]

I was wrong. It must feel good to be right, for once.

Being wrong is always a possibility and comes with the territory. I've been wrong before and will be again, but you were criticizing me for my grasp of the English language when the topic is the 9/11 Crash Test Project.

 

[yankee451]

Reinforced steel? Staight out of troofer woo land.

Why didn't they use a jet wing to cut this car in half?

The reinforced steel plow seems overkill when a bit of aluminum will do just fine.

Don't they know aluminum can cut a steel building in half?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E&feature=player_embedded

 

[cjnewson88]

You don't think a airliner wing is reinforced???

Oh my god the ignorance.

 

[yankee451]

You don't think a airliner wing is reinforced???

Oh my god the ignorance.

You're an airline mechanic student right? You all look and sound the same, but I think I gathered that somewhere...are you telling me a jet's wing would have cut the car in half?

 

[cjnewson88]

You're an airline mechanic student right? You all look and sound the same, but I think I gathered that somewhere...are you telling me a jet's wing would have cut the car in half?

No, I am not a student. I am a fully qualified pilot.

You still lack basic physical principles. Yes, if an aircraft wing was strapped to that sled, and it was moving fast enough, it would cut that car clean in half.

 

[yankee451]

Good investigative work.

I have always been very vocal about the fact that something was not quite right with the WTC plane impacts, and that exposing the truth behind the planes which have been spoon-fed to us by mainstream media, will automatically expose all other 9/11 truths. If we can prove without a doubt that no planes impacted the towers, then as a logical consequence results the conclusion that the undamaged, perfectly stable towers had no other reason to fall down than a carefully planned controlled demolition.

I very much welcome the effort you put into your graphical explanations, an effort which I as a truthseeker am too lazy and digitally unskilled to muster.

Many thanks. I've been playing defense for so long and have become so jaded I don't know how to act, but thanks, I needed that.

 

[Animal]

Why didn't they use a jet wing to cut this car in half?

The reinforced steel plow seems overkill when a bit of aluminum will do just fine.

Don't they know aluminum can cut a steel building in half?

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Plow1-PM.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E&feature=player_embedded

That is a braced plow...not "reinforced" but I guess a graduate of Google U. can make up what ever they want and think themselves correct.

 

[yankee451]

No, I am not a student. I am a fully qualified pilot.

You still lack basic physical principles. Yes, if an aircraft wing was strapped to that sled, and it was moving fast enough, it would cut that car clean in half.

Well then, it should cut three box columns and a spandrel without even deforming!

Those Mythbusters guys really missed the boat...all they needed to use was a hollow aluminum gas tank with a leading edge as sharp as a basketball and they could have vindicated 11 years of the War on Terra and discredited skeptics all at the same time. Pity they used a two-ton, sharp-edged, heavily reinforced steel plow to cut the car in half, they missed a golden opportunity.

What was your blog again, and what airline do you fly for? I wanna be sure you're not at the controls if I ever need to hop on a plane.

 

[yankee451]

That is a braced plow...not "reinforced" but I guess a graduate of Google U. can make up what ever they want and think themselves correct.

Thanks for correcting the terminology.

So why did they brace the plow or even use steel? Why didn't they use an airfoil?

 

[yankee451]

Actually, that's momentum, not force. It's OK, Yankee didn't get it, either. Force is the time-derivative of momentum.

Is this where you're going to show me your model for the interaction between the wing and the column?

 

[yankee451]

How about you prove yourself right with math. You wouldn't be so sure of yourself unless you had already done it, right?

I'm not sure of myself and I might be wrong.

Gives you chills doesn't it?

 

[beachnut]

Math Proves 451 Wrong - Fantasy zero, Reality 1,000,0017

Well then, it should cut three box columns and a spandrel without even deforming!

Those Mythbusters guys really missed the boat...all they needed to use was a hollow aluminum gas tank with a leading edge as sharp as a basketball and they could have vindicated 11 years of the War on Terra and discredited skeptics all at the same time. Pity they used a two-ton, sharp-edged, heavily reinforced steel plow to cut the car in half, they missed a golden opportunity.

What was your blog again, and what airline do you fly for? I wanna be sure you're not at the controls if I ever need to hop on a plane.

Are you using the JASSM for this too? And your evidence for your claim? Got some math yet, it has been over 11 years. 11 years.

RADAR proves 11 and 175 tookoff and impacted the WTC. Your fantasy proves you can't comprehend emprical data.

Math proves you wrong before you start, and the empirical data proves you wrong on 911.

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

An your attempt to debunk the paper in the comments
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf
Ignore empirical data, make a fantasy.

What happened to the Passengers on Flight 11?
What happened to the Passengers on Flight 175?

You mistake me for someone who cares ...

Right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

Oops, math. Two Universities, doing math harder than the School of Hard Knocks uses, prove your claim is a fantasy. An anti-intellectual fantasy.