No Something. No Another Thing. No Something Else.

  • Latest Comments

    Action Joe on Speaks No Mor…
    Proof Positive on BBK REPRINT: The Dummies Guide…
    Proof Positive on Kenneth Ng’s Statement o…
    Thomas on Underage Sex in Thailand by…
    BigBlackGulliver on Learning Thai….
    RealDaffyDuck on New Kenny Avatar!
    RealDaffyDuck on New Kenny Avatar!
    كيني هو خنزير on New Kenny Avatar!
  • Today’s Top 10 Read

  • Archives

  • Advertisements

Jet Meets Concrete Wall

Posted by RealDaffyDuck on October 25, 2010

As part of our brand new feature,  the ‘9/11 channel’,

we will be concentrating in each new post on one single

specific issue. This will be an infrequent feature (“how infrequent,”

you ask? Whenever we find something to poke fun at Prufrock with).

Today’s issue : What happens when a jet when flies into a concrete wall?

Can you guess?

Read on, for the AMAZING answer!

The answer, while predictable to those of us with an inkling of understanding of physics (or common sense), might nevertheless be bewildering to, and wildly contested by, the likes of Prufrock.

Let’s see, shall we?


Any questions?


9 Responses to “Jet Meets Concrete Wall”

  1. adman said

    Not sure I understand RealDaffyDuck.

    You mean to tell me that when a jet hits something solid head on, like concrete or steel or a building, that any unspent fuel burns (explodes) and the jet is almost completely disintegrated?

    …or are you telling the class something else?

  2. Uncle Frank said

    Ya know, I find it kind of interesting that these 911 terrorist deniers talk up all these stories but they have never, not once, conducted any realistic simulations that back their theories.

    It’s all quite disgusting and insulting to most scientists.

    Can anyone show me where any reputable scientist from any respected universities have said that 911 was caused by anything other than the damage and fire caused by the jets that hit these buildings?

    Thank you.

    • RealDaffyDuck said

      I’m sure Prufie will be all over it, pointing you to all kinds of ‘scientific evidence’ – once you wade through paragraphs of ad hominen and insults that he peppers his posts with so well.

      Most of this ‘evidence’ will come as a surprise to most scientists named, or attributed to people that he wishes to be scientists (he might as well claim that Kenny’s a scientist…. Or an Astronaut).

      Of course, one wonders why he doesn’t jump in on this forum to defend his views and present us with the incontrovertible evidence that requires, nay mandates, a new investigation.

      The answer, of course, is not just blowing in the wind… Because he knows that posting here we would quickly expose his multiple alias’ and personalities, plus being the coward that he is, he fears the Bullshit Awards that Big Dummy will most likely quickly bestow upon him.

    • Although, FWIW, I will continue with a series of articles dealing with the various individual issues regularly ‘exposed’, and nice, shiny, and accurate scientific evidence to support how things actually happened.

      I even have a nice article *ABOUT* lined up, that (I’m sure) is going to make Prufie pretty much implode, pyroclastic cloud, and all… stay tuned!

  3. As per Bill Cooper’s request “delete everything you goat”.

    So it was done.

    (confused where a ‘goat’ fits into all of this, then again, Prufrock’s got his “glyph”.

  4. Wombat said

    It could also be asked how many scientists have flown a plane into a building and reported on the results. Though it is also possible I have been reading to many Prufrock posts over the years.

  5. Bangers Bill said

    Good one Wombat.

    It’s too bad Prufrock has such blinding hatred for you RealDaffy. He really hurts his credibility by acting in this manner IMHO. His reason, which is because he doesn’t want to give this site any more traffic, doesn’t line up with the history or purpose of this site.

    What is the purpose of this site anyway? 😉

    • RealDaffyDuck said

      Does he have any credibility left?

      I mean, someone should do a breakdown of tourette’s ad hominems versus normal verbiage in his comments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s