Continuos Pieces - 9/11 (Watch online or download)

[shure]

http://www.pumpitout.com/images/continuospieces911forumpic.jpg
http://www.pumpitout.com/continuospieces911.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

Direct Download AVI from Pumpitout;

http://www.pumpitout.com/movie/continuospieces911.avi

Alternative download link;

http://linksave.in/158927154149be2d6755d34

-------------------------------------------------------

Torrent Download on The Pirate Bay;

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4766294/Continuos_Pieces_-_9_11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch Online:

Exposure Room

http://exposureroom.com/members/pumpitout.aspx/assets/a69e32eb41574b2dbae646b407c6c29f/


Google Video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7181402991205199999


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[abababba]

This is a good movie, thanks for posting it. My only complaint is that I wish the first 10 minutes or so with the Nazi marching would be cut out. I think it will turn a lot of people off and they won't watch the whole movie.

[theciape]

This is a good movie, thanks for posting it. My only complaint is that I wish the first 10 minutes or so with the Nazi marching would be cut out. I think it will turn a lot of people off and they won't watch the whole movie.

Absolutely! I only watched past the beginning because you said it gets better. It does get good, but the beginning is like a swarm of assholes flying in my face, very annoying and angry, It will more than likely chase away 30% or 40% of all potential viewers.

[shure]

Well I'm glad most people will not be as offended as you two.

Some people will laugh at that part when they watch the intro and see how funny Ronald Wieck is!!!

[secondsun]

...i dont know what is more sad!?... people thinking Ronald Wieck is funny or that load of No Planer bullsh*t!?

[mr_pixie]

http://www.pumpitout.com/images/continuospieces911forumpic.jpg
http://www.pumpitout.com/continuospieces911.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

Direct Download AVI from Pumpitout;

http://www.pumpitout.com/movie/continuospieces911.avi

Alternative download link;

http://linksave.in/158927154149be2d6755d34

-------------------------------------------------------

Torrent Download on The Pirate Bay;

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4766294/Continuos_Pieces_-_9_11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch Online:

Exposure Room

http://exposureroom.com/members/pumpitout.aspx/assets/a69e32eb41574b2dbae646b407c6c29f/


Google Video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7181402991205199999


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this.

[abababba]

Well I'm glad most people will not be as offended as you two.

Some people will laugh at that part when they watch the intro and see how funny Ronald Wieck is!!!

Yes, but the ideal audience for this video is people who have no idea who Ronald Wieck is. To start with him is too much inside baseball.

Anyway, this isn't meant to belittle your work on 911 which has been extremely good. I just genuinely think you would have a much wider audience without the first part and this is material that a wider audience could really learn from.

[shure]

Point well taken, thank you!

[bryan]

Well I'm glad most people will not be as offended as you two.

Some people will laugh at that part when they watch the intro and see how funny Ronald Wieck is!!!

The intro is more irritating than offensive. It's hard to concentrate on Ronald's propaganda because of the marching songs in the background. The same thing happens later when the 'Tell me lies' song is playing.

In fact, I think you're flattering Ronald Wieck by including him in the documentary at all. He's not that important and he probably loves the attention. It's not as though he's ever tried to hide the fact he's a fascist.

Great interviews with the aeronautical engineers, Jeff. Now we know why Lawson went into hiding.

[matrix911]

The intro is more irritating than offensive. It's hard to concentrate on Ronald's propaganda because of the marching songs in the background. The same thing happens later when the 'Tell me lies' song is playing.

In fact, I think you're flattering Ronald Wieck by including him in the documentary at all. He's not that important and he probably loves the attention. It's not as though he's ever tried to hide the fact he's a fascist.

Great interviews with the aeronautical engineers, Jeff. Now we know why Lawson went into hiding.


i agree with bryan its unnecessary.

so bryan, i'm interested in your thoughts at this time mark... i was thinking of creating a separate thread, but check out the clip at 29:00

the other two most important/relevant parts in this doc are at about 1h:33sec and 1h:55sec imo.

but that 29min portion is quite amazing if you ask me.

I'm curious if you happen to notice what i did.

In fact, this is the SECOND anomaly of this type that i've ever seen in all the footage out there.

the question is where did this clip originate from.

I'd love to find if its authentic and taken from the original footage somewhere on the net.

seems the PERPS may have let another mistake slip through the cracks and forgot to cover their tracks again.

[abababba]

so bryan, i'm interested in your thoughts at this time mark... i was thinking of creating a separate thread, but check out the clip at 29:00
.

Seriously, I'm guessing that might be fake. I think its supposed to be the Hezarkhani shot right? Did somebody edit it before putting it in this video or is this some other video in a similar position?

[bryan]

but that 29min portion is quite amazing if you ask me.

I'm curious if you happen to notice what i did.


I just assumed it had been faked, or we'd have heard more about it.



the question is where did this clip originate from.

I'd love to find if its authentic and taken from the original footage somewhere on the net.

It's confusing with all the different names, but I think the maker of the film started this thread. :)

[mr_pixie]

I like it. I think its a work of art.:D keep tha nazi bit at the start because its telling peole where we are going and when something isnt quite understod it adds to its apeal IMO some interest stuff on here like the info with Nico Haupht near the end.

[abababba]

Did Jeff ever talk to Ronald Wieck? If so, is there a link? Can't find it on youtube.

[shure]

Thanks mr_pixie!

----------

A guy I know took the "plane" out of the Hezarkhani shot at the 29min mark.

There is another video out on the internet of the Luc Courchesne's shot
where someone also took the "plane" out of that clip too.

------------

I have only talked to Ronald Wieck through email. I asked him how he knew the "plane" did a power dive. Those were the emails he responded with. I did the voice and read the emails verbatim.

[matrix911]

Thanks mr_pixie!

----------

A guy I know took the "plane" out of the Hezarkhani shot at the 29min mark.

There is another video out on the internet of the Luc Courchesne's shot
where someone also took the "plane" out of that clip too.

------------

I have only talked to Ronald Wieck through email. I asked him how he knew the "plane" did a power dive. Those were the emails he responded with. I did the voice and read the emails verbatim.

do you have any evidence to support that shure???

i'd be interested in actually getting an official statement from him

what do you think bryan??

this a very serious charge of intentional counter-fakery

[shure]

The proof is my word, take it or leave it!!!

He took the plane out to see the explosion by itself.

Sounds like your trying to turn this into something its not, but do whatever you want.

The whole 9/11, conspiracy world is just one big mess of disinformation, fakes and liars etc...

No wonder most people don't take any of this stuff seriously, but then again maybe that was the whole point!!!

[matrix911]

No... you misunderstand my point and intention.

I should have rephrased it differently... i guess I was just trying to make sure you weren't joking. I've seen a few vids that had NO PLANE and just the explosion which has caused more confusion than you realize and was trying to determine who did it and whether someone would actually say YEAH i did it.

just wanted confirmation since it was anonymous up until now.

I was under the impression it was much harder to extract an image from a video than insert it... and it was really convincing. But I didn't want to make any assumptions that it originated from the MSM since obviously it would be major smoking gun evidence showing a clip that the perps MISSED tampering with.

make sense now?




The proof is my word, take it or leave it!!!

He took the plane out to see the explosion by itself.

Sounds like your trying to turn this into something its not, but do whatever you want.

The whole 9/11, conspiracy world is just one big mess of disinformation, fakes and liars etc...

No wonder most people don't take any of this stuff seriously, but then again maybe that was the whole point!!!

[shure]

Sorry for barking at you.

Yes it was done on purpose.

The way I see it there are two options, either there was nothing at all and all the people who say they saw a "plane", all the people who took a picture of the "plane" and all the people who took a video of the "plane" are liars and part of the conspiracy.

The other option is that the bad guys were able to produce a visual representation of a "plane" that would be believable enough for people to see, photograph and video.

I don't believe all those people lied and are part of the conspiracy!!!

Basic laws of physics prove that the "plane" could not have possibly been a real Boeing 767.

[secondsun]

Basic laws of physics prove that the "plane" could not have possibly been a real Boeing 767.

...talk is cheap!

...prove it!

[bryan]

...talk is cheap!

...prove it!

There are plenty threads to discuss the physics and logic of whether the planes could have flown into the buildings or not.

From what I've seen, the only contribution you make to those threads is to chirp in early on with comments like:

....why start another bullsh*t thread?


Come to think of it, I've never seen you show any interest in discussing physics or logic, yet now you post here asking for 'proof'.

Why don't you go to the other threads and take part in the discussions?

Try reading up on the subject first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion


A body persists its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force.

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[shure]

;)

[nhenchyfaill]

What does "Continuos" mean?

N

[shure]

con·tin·u·o (kn-tny-)
Italian;
n. pl. con·tin·u·os
An independent bass line, usually realized on a keyboard instrument, in which numerals written underneath the notes indicate the kinds of harmony to be played. Also called basso continuo, figured bass, thoroughbass.


I spelled it different so anyone that wanted to bring it up as a spelling mistake would get the following response;

"You are intelligent enough to notice the spelling of "continuos" so you should be intelligent enough to know that planes can't just meld into steel and concrete buildings and disappear"!!!

:D

[nhenchyfaill]

con·tin·u·o (kn-tny-)
Italian;
n. pl. con·tin·u·os
An independent bass line, usually realized on a keyboard instrument, in which numerals written underneath the notes indicate the kinds of harmony to be played. Also called basso continuo, figured bass, thoroughbass.


I spelled it different so anyone that wanted to bring it up as a spelling mistake would get the following response;

"You are intelligent enough to notice the spelling of "continuos" so you should be intelligent enough to know that planes can't just meld into steel and concrete buildings and disappear"!!!

:D


Right......

I seem to be the only person to have noticed your spelling mistake, I mean supreme cleverness, does this mean I'm the most intelligent poster on this forum? If so, thanks for the complement.

BTW there's a wrongly spelled word in the paragraph above. This one was deliberate. If you are intelligent enough to notice it you should be intelligent enough to know that most intelligent people would think that your answer quoted above is a load of steaming bullcrap.

N

[shure]

Good to see this forum has it its own personal spell checker!!!

Do you have anything to say about the information in the video?

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

:D

[bryan]

If you are intelligent enough to notice it you should be intelligent enough to know that most intelligent people would think that your answer quoted above is a load of steaming bullcrap.


I agree with you on this one. It's nothing to do with intelligence. Even an idiot should know a plane can't disappear into a building.

[howie]

Excellent work ;)

Evan Fairbanks was caught red-handed lying about his 'silent' video. :)

[nhenchyfaill]

Good to see this forum has it its own personal spell checker!!!
Do you have anything to say about the information in the video?
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
:D

You have obviously put a lot of effort into your "documentary". I would have thought a spellchecker, personal or otherwise, was compulsory when undertaking such a venture. We are all forgiven for little typos, and I never make a comment when I see one. But this is an epic spelling bollock-dropper.

You are bound to get called out on it. Aren't you worried you may have lost just a little credibility? I mean do you think people will take your work seriously after such an elementary error?

You've plastered Continuos all over the internet, I think people will remember it not for it's content but for it's glaring spelling FUBAR.

Toodle Pip

N

[bryan]

You have obviously put a lot of effort into your "documentary". I would have thought a spellchecker, personal or otherwise, was compulsory when undertaking such a venture. We are all forgiven for little typos, and I never make a comment when I see one. But this is an epic spelling bollock-dropper.

You are bound to get called out on it. Aren't you worried you may have lost just a little credibility? I mean do you think people will take your work seriously after such an elementary error?

You've plastered Continuos all over the internet, I think people will remember it not for it's content but for it's glaring spelling FUBAR.

Toodle Pip

N

I think we can take that as meaning: 'No, I don't have anything to say about the information in the video'.

[shure]

:D

[secondsun]

There are plenty threads to discuss the physics and logic of whether the planes could have flown into the buildings or not.

From what I've seen, the only contribution you make to those threads is to chirp in early on with comments like:




Come to think of it, I've never seen you show any interest in discussing physics or logic, yet now you post here asking for 'proof'.

Why don't you go to the other threads and take part in the discussions?

Try reading up on the subject first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

firstly... why do you have to step in and help shure out?... who asked you?... my request was directed at shure... not you!...if our newbie NPT`er wants to come on here, all cock sure about himself, stating `physics` proves this or that he should be able to provide the proof if requested!... so far the only proof shure has offered is....

;).... :confused:

secondly... you ask "Why don't you go to the other threads and take part in the discussions?"

...why would i want to partake in anyway shape or form with the likes of person that thinks....

The windows in the Twin Towers were 26 inch wide by 92 inch tall. That's one reason why the nose of a plane couldn't have gone into the building...

NPT is partly based on the fact that a fuckin plane would`nt fit through a window???... you want me to take you sponge brains seriously???

...and then...

The column/spandrel section below was blown out of the North Tower and fell about 1000ft onto concrete, but the box column doesn't look any worse for wear.



http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel.jpg/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel-full.jpg


....well...if you ignore the bent and twisted steel!?!... yeah!!!... doesn't look any worse for wear at all does it!... should slot straight back in should`nt it!?

Come to think of it, I've never seen you show any interest in discussing physics or logic, yet now you post here asking for 'proof'.

...absolutely right!.... i have no interest in discussing physics or logic with sponge brains or SSTW`s!.... does that mean i am void of asking occasionally for proof?

...talking of proof!

Basic laws of physics prove that the "plane" could not have possibly been a real Boeing 767.

...when your ready shure!... but i am most shure, oops!... i meant sure!... one of your cohorts will step in and help you out yet again!... get ready with your smiley to stick on the end!

From what I've seen, the only contribution you make to those threads is to chirp in early on with comments like:

...i think NPT is bullshit!... exactly right!... because it is!....exactly that!... sheer and utter bullshit!.... bullshit that makes concrete core seem feasible!... and we know concrete core is the biggest load of bullshit going!...it was far easier to fly two planes into the towers than to fake two plane shaped holes in the side of two skyscrapers at the same.. people with wheel barrows were running around with giant plane parts through a pyroclastic surge while cgi experts were faking endless files of phony planes and falsifying untold amounts of still images from every conceivable angle while holograms were projected all over NY from every angle to fool all those eye witnesses with cameras taking pictures that didnt really exist!!!!!

...and you want me to refer to Newton!.... who the fuck needs Newton?

...when all they had to do was fly two planes into two big buildings!

...shure said previously...

The whole 9/11, conspiracy world is just one big mess of disinformation, fakes and liars etc...

No wonder most people don't take any of this stuff seriously, but then again maybe that was the whole point!!!

... i think we know all we need to know about shure myself!

[bryan]

firstly... why do you have to step in and help shure out?... who asked you?... my request was directed at shure... not you!


It's only fair to point out to newcomers who the timewasters are. If he thought your question was genuine, he might have put a lot of wasted effort into providing you with a detailed reply.



NPT is partly based on the fact that a fuckin plane would`nt fit through a window???... you want me to take you sponge brains seriously???


The quote you took from me was part of an explanation why the nose out couldn't be the nose of a real plane. Not even the OCT claims the plane went all the way through.

In any case, RPT is based on the speculation that parts of the plane were shredded between the columns (through the windows) on the way in. If that's not possible, then planes are not possible.



....well...if you ignore the bent and twisted steel!?!... yeah!!!... doesn't look any worse for wear at all does it!... should slot straight back in should`nt it!?


The spandrels have been bent by the explosion, but the columns look to be in pretty good nick considering they fell 1000ft onto a car park. Real-planers still haven't explained how a tyre managed to get wedged in a gap that's a few inches wider than the tyre itself.



...i think NPT is bullshit!... exactly right!... because it is!....exactly that!... sheer and utter bullshit!.... bullshit that makes concrete core seem feasible!... and we know concrete core is the biggest load of bullshit going!...it was far easier to fly two planes into the towers than to fake two plane shaped holes in the side of two skyscrapers at the same.. people with wheel barrows were running around with giant plane parts through a pyroclastic surge while cgi experts were faking endless files of phony planes and falsifying untold amounts of still images from every conceivable angle while holograms were projected all over NY from every angle to fool all those eye witnesses with cameras taking pictures that didnt really exist!!!!!


As Sherlock Holmes once said, when you've eliminated the physically impossible, whatever remains, however complicated the logistics, is the truth.



...and you want me to refer to Newton!.... who the fuck needs Newton?

...when all they had to do was fly two planes into two big buildings!


Newton is needed to show that real planes theory is based on bogus science. Common sense should be enough for anybody to know that planes couldn't have been flown into two big buildings.



...if our newbie NPT`er wants to come on here, all cock sure about himself, stating `physics` proves this or that he should be able to provide the proof if requested!... so far the only proof shure has offered is...;)


A smiley and a two-and-a-half hour documentary which includes his own telephone interviews with eyewitnesses and aeronautical engineers.



...when your ready shure!


A lot of evidence has been presented in the film. For example, several aeronautical experts say it's impossible for a Boeing 767 to fly at 500mph at low altitude. Try debunking that evidence instead of keep asking for proof as if you haven't been given any already.

[goldengoose]

It's time to stop the nonsense. Jeff Hill ("shure")has been exposed as a fraud. No--ZERO--aeronautical engineers agree with his absurd fantasy. He has made many ambush calls and hasn't found anybody who swallows his snake oil. Two qualified professionals, Ben Eadie and Paul Furnee, were polite and allowed him to rant. Ronald Wieck, someone I have known for over thirty years, contacted them and explained that Hill was deliberately concealing the fact that the plane in question, United Flight 175, had come out of a power dive. Air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia described the scene on 9/11/01:

"At 08:55, a supervisor at the New York Air Traffic Control center notified the center's operations manager of the Flight 175 hijacking, and David Bottiglia, who was tracking Flight 175, noted, "we might have a hijack over here, two of them."[2] By 08:58, the plane was heading towards New York City and descended from an altitude of 28,500 feet over New Jersey. From the time, at approximately 08:58, when Shehhi completed the turn toward New York to the moment of impact, the plane went into a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 4 minutes 40 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute.[13] New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues "were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet."[15]

^ a b "Flight 175: As the World Watched (TLC documentary)". The Learning Channel. December 2005. http://times.discovery.com/tv-schedules/special.html?paid=141.13743.55526.0.0.

Eadie and Furnee were in complete agreement with an analysis made by NASA scientist Ryan Mackey sent to them by Wieck; Furnee added that he realized early on that Hill was unbalanced.

Wieck sent Hill and other no-plane psychos a statement from Furnee. In short, Hill understands that he is a liar who got caught.

The idiocy about planes "melding" into the building is more bogus science fabricated by agenda-driven fools.

Mackey delivered a three-part lecture on 'Hardfire' explaining the physics behind the crashes. The third part will be available next week. The first two segments can be viewed here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2542809949154243077

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8184528465256118271

The 9/11 fantasy movement will, as usual, waste everyone's time with puerile name-calling. But NOBODY will successfully challenge a word Mackey says.

[bryan]

Mackey delivered a three-part lecture on 'Hardfire' explaining the physics behind the crashes. The third part will be available next week. The first two segments can be viewed here:


Looking forward to the final segment when Ryan Mackey takes us through the impact videos frame by frame to demonstrate that his theoretical physics are verified by the images that were filmed on the day.

At least that's what I expect him to do. Why would he ignore the only concrete evidence we have?

[goldengoose]

Why do YOU ignore the aircraft wreckage, the DNA evidence, and tens of thousands of eyewitnesses?

It might help if you were willing to make a minimal effort to understand Mackey's lecture.

[shure]

goldengoose is a LIAR,

Paul Furnee never sent any such letter.

Dave Bottiglia Saw a "blip" on a screen, he did not see a real plane.

I talked to eyewitnesses and there was NO POWER DIVE.

Ronald Wieck is a disgusting human being!!!

THE TRUTH NEEDS NO DEFENSE, ONLY LIES NEED TO BE DEFENDED!!!

[onourwayto2012]

goldengoose: "Wieck, someone I have known for over thirty years,"
well there ya go.... that explains it

[bryan]

Now I've seen Ryan Mackey's presentation, I recognize it as the source of the disinformation peddled by tabea blumenschein and stannrodd on this forum. The deception lies in generalizing about the structures and focussing on mass rather than on strength.

Mackey examines whether a small section of the plane's wing could break a single perimeter column, then assumes that the whole aircraft would behave in the same way. In spite of his selectivity, it's doubtful whether even the sections he examines would break the columns.

His conclusion is that the fuel alone, even without the structure of the aircraft, would be enough to smash through a row of columns. He takes a 'block' of fuel and calculates the impulse that would result from a collision between the fuel and a core column, which he says would have been stronger than a perimeter column. To work this out he needs to know the change in velocity of the fuel, which he says goes from the aircraft's speed to zero (first segment 18:30). This contradicts the fact that in the videos there's little or no deceleration of the plane as it enters the building, as we've been discussing in another thread recently.

There are some important details he doesn't touch on at all.

From Mackey's own diagram we can see that the fuel tanks don't go right to the ends of the wings, so how do the wing tips manage to cut through their respective columns? What makes him suppose that the cockpit and front section of fuselage could go into the building? Why are the steel spandrel plates, floor trusses and concrete floors not taken into consideration? How does the plane's tail cut through at least three perimeter columns and one concrete floor without breaking off?

The most scandalous part of the whole charade is that both Mackey and Wieck totally ignore the video evidence.

It's a perfect example of getting the answers you want by asking all the wrong questions.



Ronald Wieck is a disgusting human being!!!


Don't let him ruin your film. Nobody wants to sit through three minutes of a creep like that.

[goldengoose]

goldengoose is a LIAR,

Paul Furnee never sent any such letter.

Dave Bottiglia Saw a "blip" on a screen, he did not see a real plane.

I talked to eyewitnesses and there was NO POWER DIVE.

Ronald Wieck is a disgusting human being!!!

THE TRUTH NEEDS NO DEFENSE, ONLY LIES NEED TO BE DEFENDED!!!


Sorry, liar, you've been busted again. Wieck sent you a copy of Furnee's e-mail, remember?

Bottiglia is an air traffic controller. He and his colleagues know exactly what they saw on their screens. They were shocked at the rate of descent.

Tens of thousands of eyewitnesses saw Flight 175 hit the South Tower. Most of them didn't see the plane dive because THEY WEREN'T LOOKING FOR IT! Duh!

You will NEVER find an aeronautical engineer who buys your bullshit.

[goldengoose]

Now I've seen Ryan Mackey's presentation, I recognize it as the source of the disinformation peddled by tabea blumenschein and stannrodd on this forum. The deception lies in generalizing about the structures and focussing on mass rather than on strength.

Mackey examines whether a small section of the plane's wing could break a single perimeter column, then assumes that the whole aircraft would behave in the same way. In spite of his selectivity, it's doubtful whether even the sections he examines would break the columns.

His conclusion is that the fuel alone, even without the structure of the aircraft, would be enough to smash through a row of columns. He takes a 'block' of fuel and calculates the impulse that would result from a collision between the fuel and a core column, which he says would have been stronger than a perimeter column. To work this out he needs to know the change in velocity of the fuel, which he says goes from the aircraft's speed to zero (first segment 18:30). This contradicts the fact that in the videos there's little or no deceleration of the plane as it enters the building, as we've been discussing in another thread recently.

There are some important details he doesn't touch on at all.

From Mackey's own diagram we can see that the fuel tanks don't go right to the ends of the wings, so how do the wing tips manage to cut through their respective columns? What makes him suppose that the cockpit and front section of fuselage could go into the building? Why are the steel spandrel plates, floor trusses and concrete floors not taken into consideration? How does the plane's tail cut through at least three perimeter columns and one concrete floor without breaking off?

The most scandalous part of the whole charade is that both Mackey and Wieck totally ignore the video evidence.

It's a perfect example of getting the answers you want by asking all the wrong questions.




Don't let him ruin your film. Nobody wants to sit through three minutes of a creep like that.


I think you should have paid attention. Mackey explained why the wingtips were unable to cut the steel. Your ancient canard about the lack of deceleration has been refuted by Frank Greening and several other serious researchers. The no-planes fantasy insults everybody's intelligence. It is beyond stupid.

The deranged Ace Baker attempted to con a real video compositing expert and was demolished.

[secondsun]

It's only fair to point out to newcomers who the timewasters are.....

...at least we have something in common Bryan!

...we both think each other... are time wasters!

...only difference being!

...i`m self funded!

...and your probably... State Sponsored!

[bryan]

I think you should have paid attention. Mackey explained why the wingtips were unable to cut the steel. Your ancient canard about the lack of deceleration has been refuted by Frank Greening and several other serious researchers. The no-planes fantasy insults everybody's intelligence. It is beyond stupid.

The deranged Ace Baker attempted to con a real video compositing expert and was demolished.

Watch your temper, Ron. We don't want to see you get banned again.

[goldengoose]

What's the difference if I get banned or not? For the record, the person who opened this account really is my best friend for over thirty years. I was grateful to receive private messages of support from a few people who post here when I was banned a few months ago. Not everyone who embraces fantastic beliefs is contemptuous of logic and reason (when I was young, I hoped that a live plesiosaur would be found in Loch Ness). If everyone who presents inconvenient facts is going to be banned, you can't seriously pretend that you have any interest in the truth.

Mackey will explain in the third show (available later this week) how to model collapses and he will offer the 'Hardfire' challenge. I can safely predict that no one in the fantasy movement will accept it. What we demonstrated in the second show is that the plane had to enter the building exactly as it did. There isn't a physicist, structural engineer, or aeronautics expert anywhere in the world who thinks otherwise.

[abababba]

Why do YOU ignore the aircraft wreckage, the DNA evidence, and tens of thousands of eyewitnesses?


I think the statement "tens of thousands of eyewitnesses" is impossible for you to make. There is no evidence of that many eye witnesses.

It seems like you are making the following argument:

If a plane crashed there would be tens of thousands of eye witnesses
Therefore there must be tens of thousands of eye witnesses
Therefore a plane must have crashed

There are a lot of problems here. I would agree to the following: if there were tens of thousands of eye witnesses, then the image of a plane likely crashed into the building. But this could have been a hologram or plane shaped missile, but if neither one of these is true, the most likely scenario is real planes.

[shure]

Sorry, liar, you've been busted again. Wieck sent you a copy of Furnee's e-mail, remember?

Bottiglia is an air traffic controller. He and his colleagues know exactly what they saw on their screens. They were shocked at the rate of descent.

Tens of thousands of eyewitnesses saw Flight 175 hit the South Tower. Most of them didn't see the plane dive because THEY WEREN'T LOOKING FOR IT! Duh!

You will NEVER find an aeronautical engineer who buys your bullshit.

You are LYING again. Wieck never sent me any such email!!!

All Bottiglia saw was a BLIP ON A SCREEN!!!

I have found many aeronautical engineers included in the video that agree a Boeing 767 can't fly over 500mph at sea level.

[abababba]

Sorry, liar, you've been busted again. Wieck sent you a copy of Furnee's e-mail, remember?

Bottiglia is an air traffic controller. He and his colleagues know exactly what they saw on their screens. They were shocked at the rate of descent.

Tens of thousands of eyewitnesses saw Flight 175 hit the South Tower. Most of them didn't see the plane dive because THEY WEREN'T LOOKING FOR IT! Duh!

You will NEVER find an aeronautical engineer who buys your bullshit.

Most of the videos show an almost horizontal approach.

Therefore the power dive argument supports video fakery. You cannot have a power dive if the horizontal approach videos are accurate.

But then if there is video fakery for the planes and the explosion is accurate, how can you argue that there was a real plane?

The power dive argument is a catch 22.

[shure]

Furthermore, all the EYEWITNESSES that I talked to said it came in basically on a level path = NO POWER DIVE!!!

[bryan]

You are LYING again. Wieck never sent me any such email!!!

Goldengoose IS Wieck!!

[goldengoose]

You are LYING again. Wieck never sent me any such email!!!

All Bottiglia saw was a BLIP ON A SCREEN!!!

I have found many aeronautical engineers included in the video that agree a Boeing 767 can't fly over 500mph at sea level.


Sorry, liar, you're busted. After I contacted Furnee and showed him Mackey's comments, I asked him if I could publish his response to our e-mail group. You remember these:

From: Aircraft Innovation
To: Ronald Wieck

I concur with Mr. Mackey, but who cares? His first sentence says it all. [Mackey wrote about inept attempts to pretend that a Boeing 767 can’t achieve speeds above 500 mph at low altitudes: “That discussion is repellent in its stupidity.”]

Paul Furnee

From: Ronald Wieck
To: Aircraft Innovation
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 2:45 PM
Subject: RE: Mackey Comments of Speed of Flight 175

Dear Mr. Furnee,

Thanks for your prompt response. Unlike Mr. Hill, I ask people for permission to quote their words. May I reproduce your comment?

Ron

From: Aircraft Innovation
To: Ronald Wieck

As long as any comments are complete and not reproduced out of context in order to change the intended meaning, you may reproduce them. I suspect audio recordings can easily be manipulated to change the speaker's intended meaning.

Paul Furnee


Stop raving mindlessly about what Bottiglia saw. He is an air traffic controller. He and his colleagues KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT!

You have found ZERO aeronautical engineers who buy your nonsensical fantasy. You will NEVER find an aeronautical engineer you can con if they are presented with the facts, which is why you NEVER explain that the plane in question came out of a 20,000 ft. power dive.

[abababba]

Goldengoose,

Can you respond to my last two points? I would be interested to hear what you think on these issues.

[shure]

Goldengoose;

I have never got those emails before and if I did I don't remember ever seeing them.

By the way, where did Mr. Furnee refer to me as unbalanced, as you said he did?

YOU GUYS ARE THE ONES LYING and TWISTING WORDS around when contacting people!!!

Of coarse anyone will agree that a plane can reach speeds over 500mph at sea level IF THE NOSE OF THE PLANE WAS POINTING STRAIGHT DOWN AT THE EARTH.

Thats your little trick doing a play on words to fool people!!!

Paul Furnee said under the circumstances that I was talking about, the plane could not fly over 500mph.

There are many other experts that agreed that it could not go over 500mph IN FLIGHT at sea level all included in the video.

I HAVE TALKED TO MANY EYEWITNESSES THAT ALL AGREE WHAT EVER IT WAS, IT WAS IN LEVEL FLIGHT = NO POWER DIVE!!!

Dave Bottiglia and his colleagues were in a room looking at a screen and did not see a real plane. All they saw was a BLIP on a screen. Can't you get that through your thick head???

goldengoose you are a LIAR and a MANIPULATOR!!!

[goldengoose]

Goldengoose;

I have never got those emails before and if I did I don't remember ever seeing them.

By the way, where did Mr. Furnee refer to me as unbalanced, as you said he did?

YOU GUYS ARE THE ONES LYING and TWISTING WORDS around when contacting people!!!

Of coarse anyone will agree that a plane can reach speeds over 500mph at sea level IF THE NOSE OF THE PLANE WAS POINTING STRAIGHT DOWN AT THE EARTH.

Thats your little trick doing a play on words to fool people!!!

Paul Furnee said under the circumstances that I was talking about, the plane could not fly over 500mph.

There are many other experts that agreed that it could not go over 500mph IN FLIGHT at sea level all included in the video.

I HAVE TALKED TO MANY EYEWITNESSES THAT ALL AGREE WHAT EVER IT WAS, IT WAS IN LEVEL FLIGHT = NO POWER DIVE!!!

Dave Bottiglia and his colleagues were in a room looking at a screen and did not see a real plane. All they saw was a BLIP on a screen. Can't you get that through your thick head???

goldengoose you are a LIAR and a MANIPULATOR!!!


Stop making a fool of yourself. I sent these e-mails to the entire group that included you, Morgan Reynolds, genghis, Anthony Lawson, Jim Fetzer, etc.

Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower with its nose pointed down. The hijacked aircraft--obviously--leveled off, but was still moving at 540 mph at the moment of impact. No onlookers could have observed the dive; they saw the plane flying almost horizontally when it hit the building.

Mackey has explained many times why it is not remarkable that a Boeing 767 can exceed 500 mph at sea level (you forgot about the Egypt Air crash, right?). No rationalists are playing tricks. You are incapable of understanding what a NASA scientist keeps trying to tell you. He states the principles involved very clearly in the second 'Hardfire' segment.


(From the Wikipedia article):
Hijacking
The hijacking of Flight 175 occurred between 08:42 and 08:46.[2] At 08:47, the plane's transponder signal changed once, and a second time within a minute, and the aircraft began deviating from its assigned course.[13][10] But, the air traffic controller in charge of the flight did not notice until minutes later at 08:51.[2] Unlike Flight 11, which had turned its transponder off, Flight 175's flight data could still be properly monitored.[13] Also, at 08:51, Flight 175 changed altitude. Over the next three minutes, the controller made five unsuccessful attempts to contact Flight 175, and worked to move other aircraft in the vicinity away from Flight 175.[2]

At around this time, the flight had a near midair collision with Delta Air Lines Flight 2315, reportedly missing the plane by only 200 feet, as air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia frantically tried to tell the Delta pilot to take evasive action. Bottiglia was the first person in the control center to realize that Flight 175 was hijacked when he gave directions for a turn. Flight 175 did not respond, it instead accelerated and headed toward Delta Air Lines Flight 2315. The controller commanded the Delta pilot, "Take any evasive action necessary. We have an airplane that we don't know what he's doing. Any action at all."[14][15] Moments before Flight 175 crashed, it avoided a near collision with Midwest Express Flight 7.[16]

At 08:55, a supervisor at the New York Air Traffic Control center notified the center's operations manager of the Flight 175 hijacking, and David Bottiglia, who was tracking Flight 175, noted, "we might have a hijack over here, two of them."[2] By 08:58, the plane was heading towards New York City and descended from an altitude of 28,500 feet over New Jersey. From the time, at approximately 08:58, when Shehhi completed the turn toward New York to the moment of impact, the plane went into a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 4 minutes 40 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute.[13] New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues "were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet."[15]


[edit] Calls
Flight attendant Robert Fangman, as well as two passengers (Peter Hanson and Brian David Sweeney) made phone calls from United Airlines Flight 175, using GTE airphones, from the rear of the aircraft. Airphone records also indicate that Garnet Bailey made four phone call attempts, trying to reach his wife.[17][18]

Flight attendant Robert Fangman called a United Airlines office in San Francisco at 08:52, and spoke with Marc Policastro. Fangman reported the hijacking, and said that the hijackers were likely flying the plane. He also said that both pilots had been killed, and that a flight attendant was stabbed.[10] After a minute and 15 seconds, Fangman's call was disconnected.[17] Policastro subsequently made attempts to contact the aircraft's cockpit using the Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) message system.[2]

Brian David Sweeney tried calling his wife at 08:58, but ended up leaving a message, telling her that the plane had been hijacked. He then called his parents at 9:00 a.m., and spoke with his mother, Louise. Sweeney told his mother about the hijacking, and mentioned that passengers were considering storming the cockpit and taking control of the aircraft.[10]

At 08:52, Peter Hanson called his father, Lee Hanson in Easton, Connecticut, telling him of the hijacking. Hanson was traveling with his wife, Sue, and 2 1/2 year old daughter, Christine. Speaking softly, Hanson said that the hijackers had commandeered the cockpit, that a flight attendant had been stabbed, and possibly someone else in the front of the aircraft had been killed. He also said that the plane was flying erratically. Hanson asked his father to contact United Airlines, but Lee could not get through and instead called the police.[19][10]

Peter Hanson made a second phone call to his father at 09:00:

“ It's getting bad, Dad. A stewardess was stabbed. They seem to have knives and Mace. They said they have a bomb. It's getting very bad on the plane. Passengers are throwing up and getting sick. The plane is making jerky movements. I don't think the pilot is flying the plane. I think we are going down. I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building. Don't worry, Dad. If it happens, it'll be very fast....Oh My God.., oh my God, oh my God."[20] ”

As the call abruptly ended, Hanson's father heard a woman screaming.[20]


[edit] Crash
At 09:01, two minutes before impact as United Airlines Flight 175 continued its descent into Lower Manhattan, the New York Center alerted another nearby Air Traffic Facility responsible for low flying aircraft, which was able to monitor the aircraft's path over New Jersey, and then over Staten Island and New York Harbor in its final moments.[13]

Flight 175 crashed into the southern facade of Tower 2 of the World Trade Center (south tower) at 9:03:06, traveling at approximately 545 mph and impacting between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.[13][21] Onboard were 56 passengers (including the 5 hijackers) and 9 crew members, none of whom survived. Hundreds more were killed within the tower and from its ensuing explosion, fires, and collapse. Around 600 people were killed instantly or trapped at and above the floors of impact in the South Tower.

According to eyewitnesses and video footage, the aircraft appeared to execute a banking left turn in the final moments, as it appeared that the plane might have otherwise missed the building or merely clipped it with its wing. Upon crashing, the plane was banked left. Those seated on the left side of the plane would, therefore, have had a clear view of the towers approaching, with one burning, until the final moment of the flight.[20]

The image of the crash was caught on video from multiple vantage points on live television and amateur video, while approximately 100 cameras captured Flight 175 in photographs before it crashed.[22] Video footage of the crash was replayed numerous times in news broadcasts on the day of the attacks, and in the following days, before major news networks put restrictions on use of the footage.[23]

[matrix911]

Why do YOU ignore the aircraft wreckage, the DNA evidence, and tens of thousands of eyewitnesses?


maybe because there was almost none?

maybe because the wreckage, dna and witnesses weren't consistent with the damage and what was actually reported or witnessed?

maybe because you're lying and exaggerating about everything?

YEP

[shure]

Stop making a fool of yourself. I sent these e-mails to the entire group that included you, Morgan Reynolds, genghis, Anthony Lawson, Jim Fetzer, etc.

Well like I said I could have seen it, but I don't remember!!! Also there is nowhere in the emails you posted where Furnee says I was unbalanced. So that must mean your lying.

I talked to people on the Jersey shore and Brooklyn Heights with perfect views to see that there was no power dive. The power dive only happened on Bottiglia's screen and in your head.

Ryan Mackey is lying and twisting words just like you!!!

He is too scared to debate with anyone because he knows he is spouting gibberish. The only thing he will do is talk with a fake like you RONNY where he is safe to spread his lies unchallenged!!!

I have seen the two shows and Mackey is just babbling nonsense as you shake your head in agreement.

Where is part three, I need another good laugh!!!

[shure]

Mackey has explained many times why it is not remarkable that a Boeing 767 can exceed 500 mph at sea level (you forgot about the Egypt Air crash, right?).

Once again your caught twisting things around and trying to manipulate!!!

In the Egypt Air crash the plane was falling STRAIGHT DOWN!!!

Crash simulation video:
http://www.truveo.com/EGYPT-AIR-CRASH-SIMULATION/id/895009140

YOU ARE SUCH A DESPICABLE CON ARTIST!!!

[matrix911]

Once again your caught twisting things around and trying to manipulate!!!

In the Egypt Air crash the plane was falling STRAIGHT DOWN!!!

Crash simulation video:
http://www.truveo.com/EGYPT-AIR-CRASH-SIMULATION/id/895009140

YOU ARE SUCH A DESPICABLE CON ARTIST!!!

DoooH!

BUSTED

[goldengoose]

maybe because there was almost none?

maybe because the wreckage, dna and witnesses weren't consistent with the damage and what was actually reported or witnessed?

maybe because you're lying and exaggerating about everything?

YEP

Wrong. You are at liberty to view the various photo collections of the wreckage, but it wouldn't help you. Your fantasy requires that you stand reality on its head. There are no "inconsistencies" whatever between the actual damage and the the video record and eyewitness accounts. You're simply making up stuff.

Absolutely nothing I've written is a lie or exaggeration--NOTHING. By sharp contrast, EVERYTHING the mad no-planers fabricate is an outright falsehood.

[goldengoose]

DoooH!

BUSTED

You must learn that a liar can NEVER hope to bust real science. The EgyptAir plane was estimated to be traveling at 650 mph when it crashed. The speed, significantly higher than that of Flight 175, is consistent with a more vertical trajectory, but it isn't known if the pilot attempted to level off. The hijackers of Flight 175 HAD TO level off in order to be sure of hitting the building.
None of this is hard to understand. You are either desperate to maintain your incredibly preposterous fantasy or you're really obtuse.

To repeat, NO aeronautical engineers anywhere in the world doubt that Flight 175 was traveling at 540 mph when it crashed into the South Tower.


(From the Wikipedia article on EgyptAir Flight 990):
Flight data showed that the flight controls were used to move the elevators in order to initiate and sustain the steep dive. The flight deviated from its assigned altitude of 33,000 feet (FL330) and dived to 16,000 feet (4,900 m) over 44 seconds, then climbed to 24,000 and began a final dive, hitting the Atlantic Ocean about two and a half minutes after leaving FL330.[5] Radar and radio contact was lost 30 minutes after the aircraft departed JFK Airport in New York on its flight to Cairo. The cockpit voice recorder recorded the First Officer repeating "I rely on God" eleven times while the Captain asked repeatedly "What is this?" during the dive. There were no other aircraft in the area. There was no indication that an explosion occurred on board. The engines operated normally for the entire flight until they shut down and the left engine was torn from the wing from the stress of the maneuvers.

[goldengoose]

Well like I said I could have seen it, but I don't remember!!! Also there is nowhere in the emails you posted where Furnee says I was unbalanced. So that must mean your lying.

I talked to people on the Jersey shore and Brooklyn Heights with perfect views to see that there was no power dive. The power dive only happened on Bottiglia's screen and in your head.

Ryan Mackey is lying and twisting words just like you!!!

He is too scared to debate with anyone because he knows he is spouting gibberish. The only thing he will do is talk with a fake like you RONNY where he is safe to spread his lies unchallenged!!!

I have seen the two shows and Mackey is just babbling nonsense as you shake your head in agreement.

Where is part three, I need another good laugh!!!


Your pathetic squirming is quite comical. You are an ignoramus promoting an absurd fantasy. Your inept attempts to trick qualified professionals have all blown up in your face.

Have you noticed something--a teeny-weensy logical flaw in your attempt at argument that you forgot to mention? All of those "witnesses" actually witnessed something: THEY WITNESSED THE PLANE CRASHING INTO THE SOUTH TOWER!!!

Have you lost your mind? I mean, seriously?

Dave Bottiglia and his co-workers are AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS. They tracked Flight 175 right to the doorstep of the WTC complex and watched it vanish. They tracked its rate of descent and were shocked.

We understand that you lack the intelligence to follow Mackey's lecture. But, to accuse a NASA scientist of "lying" because he refuses to support the stupidest, most insanely illogical fantasy ever invented by an agenda-driven crackpot is the height of desperation. You and your cowardly guru Morgan Reynolds always flee when confronted with real science. You have been exposed as frauds.

There is nothing you can say to dispute any part of Mackey's lecture. There isn't a single error you or any like-minded charlatan can point out.

[queenofleon]

I watched this and thought is was wicked!!

I was a no planer before this and it just concreted everything I thought.


IT WAS A HOLOGRAM. Anyone who denies it is entitled to their opinion, but arent capable of thinking outside the box.

Thinking outside the box interms of it is a hologram.

Anyone with half a brain cell can tell plains cant cut through reinforced steel like butter, there was no sound, and fuck all wreckage.

oh but wait, they can find a half charred passport of one the alleged box cutter wielding terrorists.

Think planers. think.

[goldengoose]

I watched this and thought is was wicked!!

I was a no planer before this and it just concreted everything I thought.


IT WAS A HOLOGRAM. Anyone who denies it is entitled to their opinion, but arent capable of thinking outside the box.

Thinking outside the box interms of it is a hologram.

Anyone with half a brain cell can tell plains cant cut through reinforced steel like butter, there was no sound, and fuck all wreckage.

oh but wait, they can find a half charred passport of one the alleged box cutter wielding terrorists.

Think planers. think.


Perhaps you are parodying an extremely deranged fantasist. Sadly, perhaps you are not.

Needless to say, it is, of course, IMPOSSIBLE to project a hologram against the sky. There was no "reinforced" steel, whatever that means. The dimensions of the columns are known. You can find all that information in the NIST Report. Mackey explains in the lecture how to calculate the forces involved and establishes a minimum speed for the aircraft to cut the columns.

It's odd that so many conspiracy liars pretend that there was no sound, when eyewitnesses talk about the deafening sounds.

Incidentally, the people who were killed when Flight 175 hit the South Tower weren't holograms either.

[goldengoose]

Once again your caught twisting things around and trying to manipulate!!!

In the Egypt Air crash the plane was falling STRAIGHT DOWN!!!

Crash simulation video:
http://www.truveo.com/EGYPT-AIR-CRASH-SIMULATION/id/895009140

YOU ARE SUCH A DESPICABLE CON ARTIST!!!


Normally, it would not be necessary to point out something so obvious, but you are, after all, special.

Are you really trying to pretend that Flight 175 did NOT dive, that it was cruising at near-sea level? That, as you should know, would really be impossible.

Yes, you are a despicable con artist. And a really, really dumb one, too.

[queenofleon]

Perhaps you are parodying an extremely deranged fantasist. Sadly, perhaps you are not.

Needless to say, it is, of course, IMPOSSIBLE to project a hologram against the sky. There was no "reinforced" steel, whatever that means. The dimensions of the columns are known. You can find all that information in the NIST Report. Mackey explains in the lecture how to calculate the forces involved and establishes a minimum speed for the aircraft to cut the columns.

It's odd that so many conspiracy liars pretend that there was no sound, when eyewitnesses talk about the deafening sounds.

Incidentally, the people who were killed when Flight 175 hit the South Tower weren't holograms either.


you obviously havent researched 9/11 one bit my friend, cos there are witnesses who say they heard a missile crack, and there are people that say they thought it was too quiet for a plane, so we are conflicting already arent we? The FBI seized all video recordings from the public and many of them arent aloud to speak on record, erm nothing fishy there then chaps! :rolleyes:

Jet fuel DOES NOT BURN HOT ENOUGH TO TURN STEEL INTO MOLTEN.

FACT.

The NIST report is the official story backed by the psychopaths that did this, so either you are spreading dissinfo on purpose, you are extremely gullible or as I say you have not researched it properly.

A military document was leaked that showed that plane 93 flew to a NASA base and given that the passengers were never to be seen again, I would say it is a safe bet they were taken underground like many people who are snatched and used as human guinea pigs. Again if you care to call me a fantasist, RESEARCH it, cos you obviously havent.

As for not being able to project holograms in sunlight, who says? Given half of you arent researched enough to know that this technology exists, and given that they are ATLEAST 100 years ahead technological wise than they admit in the public sphere, who are you to say that?

Papa bush used it in broad day light in the first gulf war. He projected a mile high mile wide messiah and thousands of iraqi's surrendered on mass. It's pretty bloody sunny in iraq at lunch time. :D

I admit when you only have half the info this can seem fanciful, but when you open your mind to the fact that we are kept in the dark about so much, anything is possible.

Plus the little point about the laws of physics but who is Newton to argue that!

:rolleyes:

I advise you to research, cos anybody that does, knows there were no planes and holograms can be and have been projected in sun light.

p.s I find it interesting that you are on your 12th post, It is clear you are here to spread dissinfo off the back of that fantastic documentary.

I shall call you agent goldengoose from now on.

Anyone know if a goldengoose has occult meaning out of interest? :)

Busted Troll!!

[fanoftruth]

"no-plane psychos"

"Duh!"

"You are an ignoramus promoting an absurd fantasy"

"Have you lost your mind? I mean, seriously?"

"We understand that you lack the intelligence to follow Mackey's lecture."

"most insanely illogical fantasy ever invented by an agenda-driven crackpot is the height of desperation"

"but you are, after all, special."

All of the above comments are direct quotes made my Ron Wieck in this thread over the last three of four pages. If this is indeed the man who presents 'Hard Fire' my question is to everyone debating him in this thread ; why? The guy who presents Hard Fire is around 55-60 years of age...and this is how he conducts himself in conversation. The man who presents that show is older than my father and my Dad would be embarrased to think men his age and older sit at a computer screen engaging people in conversation the way this poster does. Let it go.

[goldengoose]

you obviously havent researched 9/11 one bit my friend, cos there are witnesses who say they heard a missile crack, and there are people that say they thought it was too quiet for a plane, so we are conflicting already arent we? The FBI seized all video recordings from the public and many of them arent aloud to speak on record, erm nothing fishy there then chaps! :rolleyes:

Jet fuel DOES NOT BURN HOT ENOUGH TO TURN STEEL INTO MOLTEN.

FACT.

The NIST report is the official story backed by the psychopaths that did this, so either you are spreading dissinfo on purpose, you are extremely gullible or as I say you have not researched it properly.

A military document was leaked that showed that plane 93 flew to a NASA base and given that the passengers were never to be seen again, I would say it is a safe bet they were taken underground like many people who are snatched and used as human guinea pigs. Again if you care to call me a fantasist, RESEARCH it, cos you obviously havent.

As for not being able to project holograms in sunlight, who says? Given half of you arent researched enough to know that this technology exists, and given that they are ATLEAST 100 years ahead technological wise than they admit in the public sphere, who are you to say that?

Papa bush used it in broad day light in the first gulf war. He projected a mile high mile wide messiah and thousands of iraqi's surrendered on mass. It's pretty bloody sunny in iraq at lunch time. :D

I admit when you only have half the info this can seem fanciful, but when you open your mind to the fact that we are kept in the dark about so much, anything is possible.

Plus the little point about the laws of physics but who is Newton to argue that!

:rolleyes:

I advise you to research, cos anybody that does, knows there were no planes and holograms can be and have been projected in sun light.

p.s I find it interesting that you are on your 12th post, It is clear you are here to spread dissinfo off the back of that fantastic documentary.

I shall call you agent goldengoose from now on.

Anyone know if a goldengoose has occult meaning out of interest? :)

Busted Troll!!


Poppa Bush projected "a mile high mile wide messiah"???? Oh yeah, right. Sure. I can see I'd have to get up pretty early to fool you.

No "military documents" were leaked revealing the idiotic nonsense you're spouting. If you were sane, you'd be lying.

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to produce molten steel, and consequently no molten steel was produced. Molten metal "cooking" under tons of rubble was discovered a week after the jihadist attacks. No conceivable explosive or incendiary could cause such an effect.

Great research you've done, sparky.

[goldengoose]

"no-plane psychos"

"Duh!"

"You are an ignoramus promoting an absurd fantasy"

"Have you lost your mind? I mean, seriously?"

"We understand that you lack the intelligence to follow Mackey's lecture."

"most insanely illogical fantasy ever invented by an agenda-driven crackpot is the height of desperation"

"but you are, after all, special."

All of the above comments are direct quotes made my Ron Wieck in this thread over the last three of four pages. If this is indeed the man who presents 'Hard Fire' my question is to everyone debating him in this thread ; why? The guy who presents Hard Fire is around 55-60 years of age...and this is how he conducts himself in conversation. The man who presents that show is older than my father and my Dad would be embarrased to think men his age and older sit at a computer screen engaging people in conversation the way this poster does. Let it go.

The lecture by Ryan Mackey explains the physics of the plane crashes and the collapses of the towers. The no-plane fantasy remains the most insane nonsense ever concocted by agenda-driven crackpots impervious to reason and evidence. When you have found an error in anything Mackey said, let us know.

[goldengoose]

you obviously havent researched 9/11 one bit my friend, cos there are witnesses who say they heard a missile crack, and there are people that say they thought it was too quiet for a plane, so we are conflicting already arent we? The FBI seized all video recordings from the public and many of them arent aloud to speak on record, erm nothing fishy there then chaps! :rolleyes:

Jet fuel DOES NOT BURN HOT ENOUGH TO TURN STEEL INTO MOLTEN.

FACT.

The NIST report is the official story backed by the psychopaths that did this, so either you are spreading dissinfo on purpose, you are extremely gullible or as I say you have not researched it properly.

A military document was leaked that showed that plane 93 flew to a NASA base and given that the passengers were never to be seen again, I would say it is a safe bet they were taken underground like many people who are snatched and used as human guinea pigs. Again if you care to call me a fantasist, RESEARCH it, cos you obviously havent.

As for not being able to project holograms in sunlight, who says? Given half of you arent researched enough to know that this technology exists, and given that they are ATLEAST 100 years ahead technological wise than they admit in the public sphere, who are you to say that?

Papa bush used it in broad day light in the first gulf war. He projected a mile high mile wide messiah and thousands of iraqi's surrendered on mass. It's pretty bloody sunny in iraq at lunch time. :D

I admit when you only have half the info this can seem fanciful, but when you open your mind to the fact that we are kept in the dark about so much, anything is possible.

Plus the little point about the laws of physics but who is Newton to argue that!

:rolleyes:

I advise you to research, cos anybody that does, knows there were no planes and holograms can be and have been projected in sun light.

p.s I find it interesting that you are on your 12th post, It is clear you are here to spread dissinfo off the back of that fantastic documentary.

I shall call you agent goldengoose from now on.

Anyone know if a goldengoose has occult meaning out of interest? :)

Busted Troll!!


Lies can never bust real science. Holograms cannot be projected against the sky. You, sir, are truly BUSTED.

[goldengoose]

you obviously havent researched 9/11 one bit my friend, cos there are witnesses who say they heard a missile crack, and there are people that say they thought it was too quiet for a plane, so we are conflicting already arent we? The FBI seized all video recordings from the public and many of them arent aloud to speak on record, erm nothing fishy there then chaps! :rolleyes:

Jet fuel DOES NOT BURN HOT ENOUGH TO TURN STEEL INTO MOLTEN.

FACT.

The NIST report is the official story backed by the psychopaths that did this, so either you are spreading dissinfo on purpose, you are extremely gullible or as I say you have not researched it properly.

A military document was leaked that showed that plane 93 flew to a NASA base and given that the passengers were never to be seen again, I would say it is a safe bet they were taken underground like many people who are snatched and used as human guinea pigs. Again if you care to call me a fantasist, RESEARCH it, cos you obviously havent.

As for not being able to project holograms in sunlight, who says? Given half of you arent researched enough to know that this technology exists, and given that they are ATLEAST 100 years ahead technological wise than they admit in the public sphere, who are you to say that?

Papa bush used it in broad day light in the first gulf war. He projected a mile high mile wide messiah and thousands of iraqi's surrendered on mass. It's pretty bloody sunny in iraq at lunch time. :D

I admit when you only have half the info this can seem fanciful, but when you open your mind to the fact that we are kept in the dark about so much, anything is possible.

Plus the little point about the laws of physics but who is Newton to argue that!

:rolleyes:

I advise you to research, cos anybody that does, knows there were no planes and holograms can be and have been projected in sun light.

p.s I find it interesting that you are on your 12th post, It is clear you are here to spread dissinfo off the back of that fantastic documentary.

I shall call you agent goldengoose from now on.

Anyone know if a goldengoose has occult meaning out of interest? :)

Busted Troll!!


The FBI seized all the video recordings except, of course, the ones we've heard. I know three people who witnessed the crash of Flight 175 and none of them have been silenced.

Incidentally, Mackey gave a lecture on the physics of the event. Too bad you couldn't understand a word of it.

[secondsun]

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to produce molten steel, and consequently no molten steel was produced

...to goldengoose!... do you not think the hot stuff seen falling from the south tower just before demolition is not molten steel/iron?

...just asking!

[fanoftruth]

"The lecture by Ryan Mackey explains the physics of the plane crashes and the collapses of the towers. The no-plane fantasy remains the most insane nonsense ever concocted by agenda-driven crackpots impervious to reason and evidence. When you have found an error in anything Mackey said, let us know" - golden goose

I don't care to watch the presentation so for what it's worth Ryan Mackey can be 100% correct about everything he puts forward, I am not out to disprove or debunk him. My comment was only addressing the manner in which people over the internet often choose to converse with each other - in a very rude, purile and patronising fashion. That to me is very sad. It doesn't matter how much I disagree with someone whom with I'm trying to 'debate' a subject with I would hope I never find myself sat at my computer screen typing out insults and derogatory comments. If I felt I was nearing that stage with somebody the best thing to do, surely, is simply disengage from your debate. :)

Needless to say though I am not a forum mod and of course you are welcome to go about your conversations whatever way you choose :)

I also have a question for you if indeed you are Ronald Weick of Hard Fire. If as you say "The no-plane fantasy remains the most insane nonsense ever concocted" then why address the theory and give it actual screen time on the show? Maybe you yourself have no imput on the content of the shows you sit in on and are not in a position to answer my question, in which case fair enough. I am not a 'no-planer' but if I was as unequivocally against the theory as you, and so sure that the very few people who subscribe to no planes are "deranged" and "psychos" I would simply laugh it off and certainly wouldn't consider dedicating entire shows to debating it. That seems odd to me.

I'm not trying to insinuate that you are some sort of shill or agent (honestly, I'm not that paranoid :o) or that you are somehow lending credence to the no plane arguement by even giving it screen time, I am just curious as to why you, and debunkers in general, give so much of their time to addressing issues that in their own words are ridiculous and part of a movement which began and died in 2006. If the movement isn't worth addressing, nor its theories, then there are many other things to talk about.

[queenofleon]

Poppa Bush projected "a mile high mile wide messiah"???? Oh yeah, right. Sure. I can see I'd have to get up pretty early to fool you.

No "military documents" were leaked revealing the idiotic nonsense you're spouting. If you were sane, you'd be lying.

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to produce molten steel, and consequently no molten steel was produced. Molten metal "cooking" under tons of rubble was discovered a week after the jihadist attacks. No conceivable explosive or incendiary could cause such an effect.

Great research you've done, sparky.

*sigh* I do grow tired.

RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH. Look it up you ignoramus.

What a half wit.

Molten steel was seen dripping from the south Tower. Where the hell were you? It is quite obvious you have not been paying attention. duh

[queenofleon]

Lies can never bust real science. Holograms cannot be projected against the sky. You, sir, are truly BUSTED.


Again, research. You will find what you need to. Oh but no, you would rather believe the official story wouldnt you?


Dont you think "QueenofLeon" Is abit of a give away as to what gender I am.

What a great attention to detail you have! :rolleyes:

Brainwashed sheep, still clearly asleep.

You are just a pawn to be used in the engineered west V's Muslim war.

Jihad??? Wake the fuck up.

[queenofleon]

"The lecture by Ryan Mackey explains the physics of the plane crashes and the collapses of the towers. The no-plane fantasy remains the most insane nonsense ever concocted by agenda-driven crackpots impervious to reason and evidence. When you have found an error in anything Mackey said, let us know" - golden goose

I don't care to watch the presentation so for what it's worth Ryan Mackey can be 100% correct about everything he puts forward, I am not out to disprove or debunk him. My comment was only addressing the manner in which people over the internet often choose to converse with each other - in a very rude, purile and patronising fashion. That to me is very sad. It doesn't matter how much I disagree with someone whom with I'm trying to 'debate' a subject with I would hope I never find myself sat at my computer screen typing out insults and derogatory comments. If I felt I was nearing that stage with somebody the best thing to do, surely, is simply disengage from your debate. :)

Needless to say though I am not a forum mod and of course you are welcome to go about your conversations whatever way you choose :)

I also have a question for you if indeed you are Ronald Weick of Hard Fire. If as you say "The no-plane fantasy remains the most insane nonsense ever concocted" then why address the theory and give it actual screen time on the show? Maybe you yourself have no imput on the content of the shows you sit in on and are not in a position to answer my question, in which case fair enough. I am not a 'no-planer' but if I was as unequivocally against the theory as you, and so sure that the very few people who subscribe to no planes are "deranged" and "psychos" I would simply laugh it off and certainly wouldn't consider dedicating entire shows to debating it. That seems odd to me.

I'm not trying to insinuate that you are some sort of shill or agent (honestly, I'm not that paranoid :o) or that you are somehow lending credence to the no plane arguement by even giving it screen time, I am just curious as to why you, and debunkers in general, give so much of their time to addressing issues that in their own words are ridiculous and part of a movement which began and died in 2006. If the movement isn't worth addressing, nor its theories, then there are many other things to talk about.

he is giving it so much air time because he is a troll, and created an account purely for the purpose of debunking the documantary.

that speaks volumes in my opinion.

[bryan]

he is giving it so much air time because he is a troll, and created an account purely for the purpose of debunking the documantary.

that speaks volumes in my opinion.

Last year he created an account under his own name just to disrupt a thread on Ace Baker's 'Theory of Ghostplane' video, which is still the best evidence to wake people up to the fact that plane in the videos is a cgi insert. He eventually got banned for saying the same things he's saying now.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33505

(Ronwieck makes his first appearance on page 9)

[queenofleon]

Last year he created an account under his own name just to disrupt a thread on Ace Baker's 'Theory of Ghostplane' video, which is still the best evidence to wake people up to the fact that plane in the videos is a cgi insert. He eventually got banned for saying the same things he's saying now.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33505

(Ronwieck makes his first appearance on page 9)

Nice on Bryan thanks.

One thing I noticed recently, as we know the fake planes nose comes out of the other side of the building, which is demonstrated beautifully on september clues. And of course this is IMPOSSIBLE. When you watch the footage from another source, from a different angle, logic says that you should see the nose emerge cos it is the same face of the tower, but you dont.

Not rocket science it it?

[fanoftruth]

"One thing I noticed recently, as we know the fake planes nose comes out of the other side of the building, which is demonstrated beautifully on september clues. And of course this is IMPOSSIBLE. When you watch the footage from another source, from a different angle, logic says that you should see the nose emerge cos it is the same face of the tower, but you dont." - queenofleon

The main clip used to show the 'nose' exiting the other side has been explained easily enough for me. If you search around youtube you can find a clip which takes the nose from the plane just before it enters the facade of the building, then mirrors it against the 'nose out' on the other side. This new perspective shows that in fact the 'nose out' is quite different to the 'nose in'. If it was the same graphic then we would see a perfect mirror image but we don't. The 'nose out' was almost certainly the very beginning of a large ejection of smoke and debris punching its way out of the building.

[queenofleon]

"One thing I noticed recently, as we know the fake planes nose comes out of the other side of the building, which is demonstrated beautifully on september clues. And of course this is IMPOSSIBLE. When you watch the footage from another source, from a different angle, logic says that you should see the nose emerge cos it is the same face of the tower, but you dont." - queenofleon

The main clip used to show the 'nose' exiting the other side has been explained easily enough for me. If you search around youtube you can find a clip which takes the nose from the plane just before it enters the facade of the building, then mirrors it against the 'nose out' on the other side. This new perspective shows that in fact the 'nose out' is quite different to the 'nose in'. If it was the same graphic then we would see a perfect mirror image but we don't. The 'nose out' was almost certainly the very beginning of a large ejection of smoke and debris punching its way out of the building.

Not from my experience. The video I saw mirrors it perfectly. Infact it is an exact match.

That smoke has alot to answer for..planes....demons lol :)

[fanoftruth]

I'm going to have a quick scout for the video I mentioned, do you think you could find the one which you saw because I don't think I've seen that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034&feature=related

Here you go. I'm not a fan of the tone of this video on the whole but at about the 1m17s mark it uses a neat yet simple technic of mirror imagery to show that the 'nose in' and 'nose out' aren't exact.

[goldengoose]

"The lecture by Ryan Mackey explains the physics of the plane crashes and the collapses of the towers. The no-plane fantasy remains the most insane nonsense ever concocted by agenda-driven crackpots impervious to reason and evidence. When you have found an error in anything Mackey said, let us know" - golden goose

I don't care to watch the presentation so for what it's worth Ryan Mackey can be 100% correct about everything he puts forward, I am not out to disprove or debunk him. My comment was only addressing the manner in which people over the internet often choose to converse with each other - in a very rude, purile and patronising fashion. That to me is very sad. It doesn't matter how much I disagree with someone whom with I'm trying to 'debate' a subject with I would hope I never find myself sat at my computer screen typing out insults and derogatory comments. If I felt I was nearing that stage with somebody the best thing to do, surely, is simply disengage from your debate. :)

Needless to say though I am not a forum mod and of course you are welcome to go about your conversations whatever way you choose :)

I also have a question for you if indeed you are Ronald Weick of Hard Fire. If as you say "The no-plane fantasy remains the most insane nonsense ever concocted" then why address the theory and give it actual screen time on the show? Maybe you yourself have no imput on the content of the shows you sit in on and are not in a position to answer my question, in which case fair enough. I am not a 'no-planer' but if I was as unequivocally against the theory as you, and so sure that the very few people who subscribe to no planes are "deranged" and "psychos" I would simply laugh it off and certainly wouldn't consider dedicating entire shows to debating it. That seems odd to me.

I'm not trying to insinuate that you are some sort of shill or agent (honestly, I'm not that paranoid :o) or that you are somehow lending credence to the no plane arguement by even giving it screen time, I am just curious as to why you, and debunkers in general, give so much of their time to addressing issues that in their own words are ridiculous and part of a movement which began and died in 2006. If the movement isn't worth addressing, nor its theories, then there are many other things to talk about.


You are asking intelligent questions that deserve answers; you are exercising your ability to reason, the faculty that separates humans from other forms of life.

First, please understand that nobody on these internet forums is a "shill" or an "agent". We are all, to varying degrees, people who take an interest in strange beliefs, whether we seek to maintain them or debunk them, and--a confession--people who have too much free time.

I have been sharply criticized by other rationalists such as the indefatigable 9/11 researcher Mark Roberts for paying more attention to the no-planers than they merit. Roberts regards them as the lunatic fringe of a lunatic fringe movement, but I respectfully disagree. The no-planers do something that many other conspiracists refuse to do: they make specific, testable assertions. To my thinking, there's the person who contends that a gigantic cabal of shadowy comic-book super-villains contrived to wire two skyscrapers with thousands of pounds of noiseless explosives while those buildings were in continuous use, and there's the person who simply vanishes two commercial airliners with a wave of his hand. They are both crazy and it's not my job to establish a hierarchy of lunacy. But--and here's the difference--the person who raves about soundless explosives that somehow managed to cause collapses starting from the exact floors hit by the planes is saying less than the no-planer. His cherished myths are so insubstantial that they crumble on first touch. No soundless explosives exist; the logistical difficulties in slipping teams of demolition experts into busy office buildings are insurmountable; the total absence of any physical evidence of demolition--no detonator caps, no bits of wiring, no video or seismic clues--disqualifies the whole approach from serious consideration.

The no-planer, by contrast, challenges our understanding of the universe. He makes very concrete assertions about force and momentum, about the behavior of metals. The no-planers state that a projectile weighing x number of tons, moving at y velocity will not penetrate a structure with perimeter columns of z thickness. This is a testable statement. A physicist or structural engineer tests it by plugging in real values and setting up equations. When the calculations are performed competently, they yield verifiable results. What Mackey has shown is that, given the weight and speed of the Boeing 767 in question, along with the strength of the columns it encountered, Flight 175 had to enter the building in the precise manner it did enter it. He calculated the minimum speed necessary to produce the observed effect. Traveling below that speed, the plane would have crushed itself without doing significant damage to the interior of the building.

The no-planers are wrong--provably wrong. They begin with an erroneous assumption, soft objects can't damage hard ones, and chase it further and further along the path to incoherence. They deserve the scorn I and other critics heap on them because they are ineducable. After being shown the errors they are making, they insert their fingers in their ears and shut down their minds.

Ryan Mackey is a genuine scientist, i.e., he is imbued with the spirit of rational inquiry. Acknowledging that he is not infallible, he asks that you examine his work carefully. Anyone who promotes an extraordinary belief must accept the responsibility of disproving the conclusions reached by real science. Mackey stands or falls on the correctness of his work. Attacking the man can't discredit his work. The 9/11 fantasy movement, unfortunately, NEVER gets beyond personal attacks.

Learn to identify and distrust the charlatans who claim that they can't possibly be wrong, but who are incapable of supporting their claims with hard data and accurate calculations.

[goldengoose]

"One thing I noticed recently, as we know the fake planes nose comes out of the other side of the building, which is demonstrated beautifully on september clues. And of course this is IMPOSSIBLE. When you watch the footage from another source, from a different angle, logic says that you should see the nose emerge cos it is the same face of the tower, but you dont." - queenofleon

The main clip used to show the 'nose' exiting the other side has been explained easily enough for me. If you search around youtube you can find a clip which takes the nose from the plane just before it enters the facade of the building, then mirrors it against the 'nose out' on the other side. This new perspective shows that in fact the 'nose out' is quite different to the 'nose in'. If it was the same graphic then we would see a perfect mirror image but we don't. The 'nose out' was almost certainly the very beginning of a large ejection of smoke and debris punching its way out of the building.

There is no "fake" plane. Video compositing expert Steven Wright proved to Ace Baker that the sort of real time compositing necessary for Baker's fantasy is not possible. The debris seen exiting the building cannot be the nose of the plane, which was too soft to survive the impact.

[goldengoose]

*sigh* I do grow tired.

RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH. Look it up you ignoramus.

What a half wit.

Molten steel was seen dripping from the south Tower. Where the hell were you? It is quite obvious you have not been paying attention. duh


Ah, yes, a mile high hologram of a "messiah" and I'M
the ignoramus. Right.

When you're less tired, take some remedial reading courses.

No molten "steel" dripped from the South Tower. What you see is a mixture of aluminum, glass, and other materials.

[goldengoose]

...to goldengoose!... do you not think the hot stuff seen falling from the south tower just before demolition is not molten steel/iron?

...just asking!


No, it was not molten steel and there was no demolition.

[goldengoose]

Again, research. You will find what you need to. Oh but no, you would rather believe the official story wouldnt you?


Dont you think "QueenofLeon" Is abit of a give away as to what gender I am.

What a great attention to detail you have! :rolleyes:

Brainwashed sheep, still clearly asleep.

You are just a pawn to be used in the engineered west V's Muslim war.

Jihad??? Wake the fuck up.


You may be a female, but in my experience most internet tinfoil-hatters turn out to be male. It doesn't matter.

It requires a Herculean effort not to notice the war waged for three decades by Radical Islam against the West. The writings of Sayyid Qutb set out with clarity and detail the aims of the jihadists.

Although you derive comfort from your rejection of reality, be assured that reality does not reject you.

[goldengoose]

Last year he created an account under his own name just to disrupt a thread on Ace Baker's 'Theory of Ghostplane' video, which is still the best evidence to wake people up to the fact that plane in the videos is a cgi insert. He eventually got banned for saying the same things he's saying now.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33505

(Ronwieck makes his first appearance on page 9)


The delusional egomaniac Ace Baker was totally demolished by video compositing expert Steven Wright. It is impossible for the plane in the Chopper 5 video--indeed, in ALL forty videos--to be a composite.

[queenofleon]

No, it was not molten steel and there was no demolition.

Oh my giddy aunt.....You are clearly in denial.

Forget the NPT, forget the molten steel which is clearly seen dripping like lava, but the fact you can not admit there was a demolition is UNBELIEVABLE. 2 towers fall in their own footprint but there is no demolition. WTC 7 was exposed to no jet fuel directly, just isolated fires, yet that falls in its own footprint but according to you there is no demollition.:confused:

New York Fire Fighters say they both saw and heard the detonators going off, floors of explosions one after the other, yet there was no demolition.

The owner of the building said they made the decision "to pull" the building which is a DEMOLITION TERM, talk about from the horses mouth, yet there is no demolition. MY LORD.


You are definately an agent.

I am not going to even entertain you.

[goldengoose]

Oh my giddy aunt.....You are clearly in denial.

Forget the NPT, forget the molten steel which is clearly seen dripping like lava, but the fact you can not admit there was a demolition is UNBELIEVABLE. 2 towers fall in their own footprint but there is no demolition. WTC 7 was exposed to no jet fuel whatsoever, just isolated fires, yet that falls in its own footprint but according to you there is no demollition.:confused:

New York Fire Fighters say they both saw and heard the detonators going off, floors of explosions one after the other, yet there was no demolition.

The owner of the building said they made the decision "to pull" the building which is a DEMOLITION TERM, talk about from the horses mouth, yet there is no demolition. MY LORD.


You are definately an agent.

I am not going to even entertain you.


You have been caught fibbing. There was no "dripping" steel and no members of the FDNY swallow the falsehood about explosives. Yes, there are always explosions in a large office fire, but the evidence for explosives is nonexistent.

You're really too much. All fantasists have had abandon the silly lie about Larry Silverstein. There isn't a demolition professional in the world who recognizes "pull it" as meaning "blow up the building." In the demolition industry, "pulling" refers to attaching cables to a relatively small structure, such as a water tower, and pulling it, literally, off its center of gravity. Demolition workers tried without success to pull building 6. WTC 7 was a massive 47-story skyscraper. It would have been impossible to "pull" it.
Larry Silverstein made no decisions. As the owner of the building, he recieved a courtesy call from a fire chief informing him of the department's decision. The FDNY does NOT blow up buildings. Silverstein agreed that "pulling" (firefighters' jargon) the contingent of rescue workers from a dangerous environment was the smartest thing to do under the circumstances.

Incidentally, I have spoken with representatives of more than two dozen demolition companies. You have spoken with no one. When you find a demolition professional who accepts your bizarre interpretation of "pull it," you will have accomplished something no other fantasist has yet managed to do.

The "pull it" canard is dead and buried.

[bryan]

What Mackey has shown is that, given the weight and speed of the Boeing 767 in question, along with the strength of the columns it encountered, Flight 175 had to enter the building in the precise manner it did enter it.


Incorrect. What Mackey has shown is that (theoretically) a 'slug of fuel' travelling at around 500mph would fracture a single perimeter column. He hasn't shown that the front section of fuselage wouldn't crumple or that the wing tips and tail section wouldn't break off. He hasn't shown that the spandrel plates and concrete floors would not have reinforced the perimeter columns. He admits himself on Hardfire that his model is not realistic. It's only a simplified mathematical model.

By the way, no-planers don't say that the plane would have "bounced off the building". That's just one of many untruths you told on your show.

How soon can we witness the 'debunking' of Anders Björkman? Mackey will have to debunk Sir Isaac Newton first.

[goldengoose]

Incorrect. What Mackey has shown is that (theoretically) a 'slug of fuel' travelling at around 500mph would fracture a single perimeter column. He hasn't shown that the front section of fuselage wouldn't crumple or that the wing tips and tail section wouldn't break off. He hasn't shown that the spandrel plates and concrete floors would not have reinforced the perimeter columns. He admits himself on Hardfire that his model is not realistic. It's only a simplified mathematical model.

By the way, no-planers don't say that the plane would have "bounced off the building". That's just one of many untruths you told on your show.

How soon can we witness the 'debunking' of Anders Björkman? Mackey will have to debunk Sir Isaac Newton first.


Sorry, what I wrote is 100% correct. Needless to say, Mackey does not "admit" that his model is not realistic. It wouldn't be much of a model then, would it? Let's stop talking about concrete floors. There was a thin layer of concrete spread across the trusses. All serious analysts are aware of the building specifications, as detailed in the NIST reports. One purpose of Mackey's lecture was to show how scientists and engineers develop and use models.

The buffoonish Anders Bjorkman debunks himself. He talked himself into the insane position that lifting the top 30 floors of a 110-story building to a height of two miles and dropping them onto the remaining 80 floors does NOT completely destroy the structure. Nah, they merely establish a "new equilibrium." Bjorkman claims to write for children. Too bad that his audience of peers is so much smarter than he is.

One difference between Mackey, a real scientist, and Bjorkman, a hopeless fool, is that Mackey understands Newton.

[matrix911]

You must learn that a liar can NEVER hope to bust real science. The EgyptAir plane was estimated to be traveling at 650 mph when it crashed. The speed, significantly higher than that of Flight 175,


ever use your brain to consider maybe it was because the plane was falling out of the sky? :rolleyes:


is consistent with a more vertical trajectory,


No shit sherlock?


but it isn't known if the pilot attempted to level off. The hijackers of Flight 175 HAD TO level off in order to be sure of hitting the building.


if there was a "flight" at all, it was the "flight of the global hawk"

indeed flight 175 was hi-jacked that day... by the military gov perps over at Norad and the command center WHITE DOOMSDAY PLANE guiding that global hawk.

alot of planes were hi-jacked that day... as was the TRUTH.


None of this is hard to understand.


No, you're exactly right... its beyond obvious there was no flight 175 or 11 anywhere near the WTC on 911.


To repeat, NO aeronautical engineers anywhere in the world doubt that Flight 175 was traveling at 540 mph when it crashed into the South Tower.


so who were those aeronautical engineers being interviewed in this doc who said a boeing 767 couldn't have acheived 540 mph and crashed into the south tower?


(From the Wikipedia article on EgyptAir Flight 990):
Flight data showed that the flight controls were used to move the elevators in order to initiate and sustain the steep dive. There was no indication that an explosion occurred on board. The engines operated normally for the entire flight until they shut down and the left engine was torn from the wing from the stress of the maneuvers.

at least now we know what should have happened if a real boeing 767 attempted the maneuvers at the wtc and pentagon.

:rolleyes:

[matrix911]

Wrong. You are at liberty to view the various photo collections of the wreckage, but it wouldn't help you. Your fantasy requires that you stand reality on its head. There are no "inconsistencies" whatever between the actual damage and the the video record and eyewitness accounts. You're simply making up stuff.


Its a FACT there ARE "inconsistencies" between the actual damage and the the video record and eyewitness accounts. You're simply making up stuff.



Absolutely nothing I've written is a lie or exaggeration--NOTHING. By sharp contrast, EVERYTHING the mad no-planers fabricate is an outright falsehood.

except the FACTS prove otherwise.

[goldengoose]

ever use your brain to consider maybe it was because the plane was falling out of the sky? :rolleyes:



No shit sherlock?



if there was a "flight" at all, it was the "flight of the global hawk"

indeed flight 175 was hi-jacked that day... by the military gov perps over at Norad and the command center WHITE DOOMSDAY PLANE guiding that global hawk.

alot of planes were hi-jacked that day... as was the TRUTH.



No, you're exactly right... its beyond obvious there was no flight 175 or 11 anywhere near the WTC on 911.



so who were those aeronautical engineers being interviewed in this doc who said a boeing 767 couldn't have acheived 540 mph and crashed into the south tower?



at least now we know what should have happened if a real boeing 767 attempted the maneuvers at the wtc and pentagon.

:rolleyes:



There are no--ZERO--aeronautical engineers who don't think that Flight could have been moving at 540 mph when it hit the South Tower.

Remains of passengers and crews of Flights 11 and 175 were found at the crash sites.

Your rantings about imaginary "Global hawks" should not be dignified with comments.

[goldengoose]

Its a FACT there ARE "inconsistencies" between the actual damage and the the video record and eyewitness accounts. You're simply making up stuff.




except the FACTS prove otherwise.


Sorry, you have no facts. You are wedded to an incredibly stupid fantasy. The inconsistencies you dishonestly proclaim do not exist.

[goldengoose]

ever use your brain to consider maybe it was because the plane was falling out of the sky? :rolleyes:



No shit sherlock?



if there was a "flight" at all, it was the "flight of the global hawk"

indeed flight 175 was hi-jacked that day... by the military gov perps over at Norad and the command center WHITE DOOMSDAY PLANE guiding that global hawk.

alot of planes were hi-jacked that day... as was the TRUTH.



No, you're exactly right... its beyond obvious there was no flight 175 or 11 anywhere near the WTC on 911.



so who were those aeronautical engineers being interviewed in this doc who said a boeing 767 couldn't have acheived 540 mph and crashed into the south tower?



at least now we know what should have happened if a real boeing 767 attempted the maneuvers at the wtc and pentagon.

:rolleyes:


It's fascinating that you didn't understand a word Mackey said.

[onourwayto2012]

"He also said that the plane was flying erratically."

"The plane is making jerky movements."

"when Shehhi completed the turn toward New York to the moment of impact, the plane went into a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 4 minutes 40 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute.[13] New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues "were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet."[15]"


Despite all this the trusty hijackers were able to get their shit together and casually hit their targets right on the money at 540 MPH...... makes sense to me.

[matrix911]

It's fascinating that you didn't understand a word Mackey said.

its far more fascinating neither you nor mackey understand a thing Newtons Law says.

[matrix911]

Have you noticed something--a teeny-weensy logical flaw in your attempt at argument that you forgot to mention? All of those "witnesses" actually witnessed something: THEY WITNESSED THE PLANE CRASHING INTO THE SOUTH TOWER!!!



if anything, they witnessed what LOOKED like a plane... but not any commerical boeing or jet.



Have you lost your mind? I mean, seriously?


so someone that states FACTS and gives supporting evidence to what they claim, means they've lost their minds?

okay, in that case, yes, all us NPT'rs have lost our minds. :rolleyes:



Dave Bottiglia and his co-workers are AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS. They tracked Flight 175 right to the doorstep of the WTC complex and watched it vanish.


no, they tracked a blip that they believe was flight 175.

but the fact is they never SAW flight 175 with their own eyes.

amazing the deception that modern technology can create, aint it?


They tracked its rate of descent and were shocked.


oh i'm sure they were... since they know that a boeing 767 could not do what its claimed to have done... but a military jet could.


We understand that you lack the intelligence to follow Mackey's lecture. But, to accuse a NASA scientist of "lying" because he refuses to support the stupidest, most insanely illogical fantasy ever invented by an agenda-driven crackpot is the height of desperation. You and your cowardly guru Morgan Reynolds always flee when confronted with real science. You have been exposed as frauds.

There is nothing you can say to dispute any part of Mackey's lecture. There isn't a single error you or any like-minded charlatan can point out.

Contrary to your claim, I need only refer to some commentary from Bryan who demolished your delusional assertions...

----------------------
"What Mackey has shown is that (theoretically) a 'slug of fuel' travelling at around 500mph would fracture a single perimeter column. He hasn't shown that the front section of fuselage wouldn't crumple or that the wing tips and tail section wouldn't break off. He hasn't shown that the spandrel plates and concrete floors would not have reinforced the perimeter columns. He admits himself on Hardfire that his model is not realistic. It's only a simplified mathematical model."

When Ryan Mackey calculates the impulse required for the fuel to fracture a column, he only considers the mass that's acting directly on the column. The columns are 14" wide and the gaps are 26" wide, which means that only about a third of the plane comes into contact with a column. If you think that including the plane's structure alters the way the mass applies force to the columns, could you tell us which one of Ryan Mackey's four cases of Effect of Hardness and Strength is the most appropriate, and if that effect applies to all parts of the aircraft that come into contact with the wall?

I've seen Ryan Mackey's presentation, I recognize it as the source of the disinformation peddled by tabea blumenschein and stannrodd on this forum. The deception lies in generalizing about the structures and focussing on mass rather than on strength.

Mackey examines whether a small section of the plane's wing could break a single perimeter column, then assumes that the whole aircraft would behave in the same way. In spite of his selectivity, it's doubtful whether even the sections he examines would break the columns.

His conclusion is that the fuel alone, even without the structure of the aircraft, would be enough to smash through a row of columns. He takes a 'block' of fuel and calculates the impulse that would result from a collision between the fuel and a core column, which he says would have been stronger than a perimeter column. To work this out he needs to know the change in velocity of the fuel, which he says goes from the aircraft's speed to zero (first segment 18:30). This contradicts the fact that in the videos there's little or no deceleration of the plane as it enters the building, as we've been discussing in another thread recently.

There are some important details he doesn't touch on at all.

From Mackey's own diagram we can see that the fuel tanks don't go right to the ends of the wings, so how do the wing tips manage to cut through their respective columns? What makes him suppose that the cockpit and front section of fuselage could go into the building? Why are the steel spandrel plates, floor trusses and concrete floors not taken into consideration? How does the plane's tail cut through at least three perimeter columns and one concrete floor without breaking off?

The most scandalous part of the whole charade is that both Mackey and Wieck totally ignore the video evidence.

It's a perfect example of getting the answers you want by asking all the wrong questions.

Looking forward to the final segment when Ryan Mackey takes us through the impact videos frame by frame to demonstrate that his theoretical physics are verified by the images that were filmed on the day.

At least that's what I expect him to do. Why would he ignore the only concrete evidence we have? "
------------------

So before Mackey can hope to debunk NPT, he'll have to debunk Sir Isaac Newton.

and i suspect it might be a long time before that happens...say, eternity?

[matrix911]

I watched this and thought is was wicked!!

I was a no planer before this and it just concreted everything I thought.

IT WAS A HOLOGRAM. Anyone who denies it is entitled to their opinion, but arent capable of thinking outside the box.

Thinking outside the box interms of it is a hologram.

Anyone with half a brain cell can tell plains cant cut through reinforced steel like butter, there was no sound, and fuck all wreckage.

oh but wait, they can find a half charred passport of one the alleged box cutter wielding terrorists.

Think planers. think.

I too dismissed the hologram theory long ago due to lack of evidence around at the time.

But new evidence has emerged since then and i've re-visited the HT and believe this may have been exactly what 175 was.

the HT is too advance though right now for most to comprehend.

i submit the evidence will continue to grow and become more widely considered as time goes on.

as will the work of Judy Wood.

[goldengoose]

I too dismissed the hologram theory long ago due to lack of evidence around at the time.

But new evidence has emerged since then and i've re-visited the HT and believe this may have been exactly what 175 was.

the HT is too advance though right now for most to comprehend.

i submit the evidence will continue to grow and become more widely considered as time goes on.

as will the work of Judy Wood.


Judy Wood is insane. Her imaginary beam weapons cannot have any possible energy source in the world we inhabit. Holograms cannot be projected against the sky. Ace Baker is mad as a March hare but even he understands this much.

[goldengoose]

if anything, they witnessed what LOOKED like a plane... but not any commerical boeing or jet.




so someone that states FACTS and gives supporting evidence to what they claim, means they've lost their minds?

okay, in that case, yes, all us NPT'rs have lost our minds. :rolleyes:




no, they tracked a blip that they believe was flight 175.

but the fact is they never SAW flight 175 with their own eyes.

amazing the deception that modern technology can create, aint it?



oh i'm sure they were... since they know that a boeing 767 could not do what its claimed to have done... but a military jet could.



Contrary to your claim, I need only refer to some commentary from Bryan who demolished your delusional assertions...

----------------------
"What Mackey has shown is that (theoretically) a 'slug of fuel' travelling at around 500mph would fracture a single perimeter column. He hasn't shown that the front section of fuselage wouldn't crumple or that the wing tips and tail section wouldn't break off. He hasn't shown that the spandrel plates and concrete floors would not have reinforced the perimeter columns. He admits himself on Hardfire that his model is not realistic. It's only a simplified mathematical model."

When Ryan Mackey calculates the impulse required for the fuel to fracture a column, he only considers the mass that's acting directly on the column. The columns are 14" wide and the gaps are 26" wide, which means that only about a third of the plane comes into contact with a column. If you think that including the plane's structure alters the way the mass applies force to the columns, could you tell us which one of Ryan Mackey's four cases of Effect of Hardness and Strength is the most appropriate, and if that effect applies to all parts of the aircraft that come into contact with the wall?

I've seen Ryan Mackey's presentation, I recognize it as the source of the disinformation peddled by tabea blumenschein and stannrodd on this forum. The deception lies in generalizing about the structures and focussing on mass rather than on strength.

Mackey examines whether a small section of the plane's wing could break a single perimeter column, then assumes that the whole aircraft would behave in the same way. In spite of his selectivity, it's doubtful whether even the sections he examines would break the columns.

His conclusion is that the fuel alone, even without the structure of the aircraft, would be enough to smash through a row of columns. He takes a 'block' of fuel and calculates the impulse that would result from a collision between the fuel and a core column, which he says would have been stronger than a perimeter column. To work this out he needs to know the change in velocity of the fuel, which he says goes from the aircraft's speed to zero (first segment 18:30). This contradicts the fact that in the videos there's little or no deceleration of the plane as it enters the building, as we've been discussing in another thread recently.

There are some important details he doesn't touch on at all.

From Mackey's own diagram we can see that the fuel tanks don't go right to the ends of the wings, so how do the wing tips manage to cut through their respective columns? What makes him suppose that the cockpit and front section of fuselage could go into the building? Why are the steel spandrel plates, floor trusses and concrete floors not taken into consideration? How does the plane's tail cut through at least three perimeter columns and one concrete floor without breaking off?

The most scandalous part of the whole charade is that both Mackey and Wieck totally ignore the video evidence.

It's a perfect example of getting the answers you want by asking all the wrong questions.

Looking forward to the final segment when Ryan Mackey takes us through the impact videos frame by frame to demonstrate that his theoretical physics are verified by the images that were filmed on the day.

At least that's what I expect him to do. Why would he ignore the only concrete evidence we have? "
------------------

So before Mackey can hope to debunk NPT, he'll have to debunk Sir Isaac Newton.

and i suspect it might be a long time before that happens...say, eternity?


You are exceptionally obtuse, even for a conspiracy liar. Mackey's slides show the distinctions between strength and hardness. The deceleration of the plane has been demonstrated by Dr. Frank Greening, among others.

The three close friends of mine who saw the crash of Flight 175 from their office windows and the street below saw a commercial airliner. They will NEVER believe that they worked for George Bush. Sorry.

[goldengoose]

if anything, they witnessed what LOOKED like a plane... but not any commerical boeing or jet.




so someone that states FACTS and gives supporting evidence to what they claim, means they've lost their minds?

okay, in that case, yes, all us NPT'rs have lost our minds. :rolleyes:




no, they tracked a blip that they believe was flight 175.

but the fact is they never SAW flight 175 with their own eyes.

amazing the deception that modern technology can create, aint it?



oh i'm sure they were... since they know that a boeing 767 could not do what its claimed to have done... but a military jet could.



Contrary to your claim, I need only refer to some commentary from Bryan who demolished your delusional assertions...

----------------------
"What Mackey has shown is that (theoretically) a 'slug of fuel' travelling at around 500mph would fracture a single perimeter column. He hasn't shown that the front section of fuselage wouldn't crumple or that the wing tips and tail section wouldn't break off. He hasn't shown that the spandrel plates and concrete floors would not have reinforced the perimeter columns. He admits himself on Hardfire that his model is not realistic. It's only a simplified mathematical model."

When Ryan Mackey calculates the impulse required for the fuel to fracture a column, he only considers the mass that's acting directly on the column. The columns are 14" wide and the gaps are 26" wide, which means that only about a third of the plane comes into contact with a column. If you think that including the plane's structure alters the way the mass applies force to the columns, could you tell us which one of Ryan Mackey's four cases of Effect of Hardness and Strength is the most appropriate, and if that effect applies to all parts of the aircraft that come into contact with the wall?

I've seen Ryan Mackey's presentation, I recognize it as the source of the disinformation peddled by tabea blumenschein and stannrodd on this forum. The deception lies in generalizing about the structures and focussing on mass rather than on strength.

Mackey examines whether a small section of the plane's wing could break a single perimeter column, then assumes that the whole aircraft would behave in the same way. In spite of his selectivity, it's doubtful whether even the sections he examines would break the columns.

His conclusion is that the fuel alone, even without the structure of the aircraft, would be enough to smash through a row of columns. He takes a 'block' of fuel and calculates the impulse that would result from a collision between the fuel and a core column, which he says would have been stronger than a perimeter column. To work this out he needs to know the change in velocity of the fuel, which he says goes from the aircraft's speed to zero (first segment 18:30). This contradicts the fact that in the videos there's little or no deceleration of the plane as it enters the building, as we've been discussing in another thread recently.

There are some important details he doesn't touch on at all.

From Mackey's own diagram we can see that the fuel tanks don't go right to the ends of the wings, so how do the wing tips manage to cut through their respective columns? What makes him suppose that the cockpit and front section of fuselage could go into the building? Why are the steel spandrel plates, floor trusses and concrete floors not taken into consideration? How does the plane's tail cut through at least three perimeter columns and one concrete floor without breaking off?

The most scandalous part of the whole charade is that both Mackey and Wieck totally ignore the video evidence.

It's a perfect example of getting the answers you want by asking all the wrong questions.

Looking forward to the final segment when Ryan Mackey takes us through the impact videos frame by frame to demonstrate that his theoretical physics are verified by the images that were filmed on the day.

At least that's what I expect him to do. Why would he ignore the only concrete evidence we have? "
------------------

So before Mackey can hope to debunk NPT, he'll have to debunk Sir Isaac Newton.

and i suspect it might be a long time before that happens...say, eternity?


The air traffic controllers tracked FLight 175 to the doorstep of the WTC complex and watched it disappear. They are professionals, not angry ignoramuses.

[matrix911]

Needless to say, it is, of course, IMPOSSIBLE to project a hologram against the sky.


Not even to mention advanced unofficial military tech thats purported to exist, Technology does and has existed for quite sometime that doesn't have the restrictions you claim in order to be used.

just because you're ignorant of this data, doesn't prove it doesn't exist.

there's been alot of unknown and advanced military tech throughout our history that took years for it to be officially acknowleged and confirmed.

you remind me of like the same type of ignorance who claimed it was impossible the earth was ROUND.

that kind of stupidity and virus of ignorance never ceased to amaze me... nor does it ever learn.


It's odd that so many conspiracy liars pretend that there was no sound, when eyewitnesses talk about the deafening sounds.


and there's eyewitnesses who reported NO SOUND.

so to assert there were no witnesses who claim the OPPOSITE of what you're claiming, makes you a LIAR at the very least.

[matrix911]

Normally, it would not be necessary to point out something so obvious, but you are, after all, special.

Are you really trying to pretend that Flight 175 did NOT dive, that it was cruising at near-sea level? That, as you should know, would really be impossible.

Yes, you are a despicable con artist. And a really, really dumb one, too.

With all your personal attacks and ad homs, I'm surprised the moderators haven't banned you yet...

it there even was a flight 175, it was never in a power dive and yes, it was at what constitutes near sea level altitude.

[goldengoose]

With all your personal attacks and ad homs, I'm surprised the moderators haven't banned you yet...

it there even was a flight 175, it was never in a power dive and yes, it was at what constitutes near sea level altitude.


Of course the mods will ban me. They must: I am presenting inconvenient facts.

Yes, Flight 175 was indeed in a power dive--it lost over 20,000 feet in a matter of minutes. Air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia pointed out that the plane lost over 5,000 feet per minute. It had to level off to hit the building. For a very brief period, it flew close to sea level.

No serious researcher disputes any of this.

[matrix911]

The lecture by Ryan Mackey explains the physics of the plane crashes and the collapses of the towers. The no-plane fantasy remains the most insane nonsense ever concocted by agenda-driven crackpots impervious to reason and evidence. When you have found an error in anything Mackey said, let us know.

Bryan has pointed out repeated flaws in RM.

But John Lears testimony, the FACTS and Newton, do far worse damage.


The FBI seized all the video recordings except, of course, the ones we've heard. I know three people who witnessed the crash of Flight 175 and none of them have been silenced.


oh right, and of course you have so much evidence to support that ridiculous CLAIM.

for god sake, please stop lying. You make debunking you way too easy.

[goldengoose]

The video quality of Mackey's lecture left much to be desired. As a supplement, you can view his slides here:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

[goldengoose]

Bryan has pointed out repeated flaws in RM.

But John Lears testimony, the FACTS and Newton, do far worse damage.




oh right, and of course you have so much evidence to support that ridiculous CLAIM.

for god sake, please stop lying. You make debunking you way too easy.

My claim is that I have three close friends who watched a commercial airliner hit the South Tower. They are sane and honest; you are neither.

John Lear is a madman who believes that space aliens colonize the moon. You have no facts and you can't begin to understand Newton.

Here's a hint: the cowardly fraud Morgan Reynolds flees with his tail between his legs whenever I demand that he run his nonsense by a physics teacher. Why don't you accept the challenge? Take your moonshine to someone who teaches physics at a nearby high school or college. Get his opinion. Tell us about it.

[goldengoose]

Not even to mention advanced unofficial military tech thats purported to exist, Technology does and has existed for quite sometime that doesn't have the restrictions you claim in order to be used.

just because you're ignorant of this data, doesn't prove it doesn't exist.

there's been alot of unknown and advanced military tech throughout our history that took years for it to be officially acknowleged and confirmed.

you remind me of like the same type of ignorance who claimed it was impossible the earth was ROUND.

that kind of stupidity and virus of ignorance never ceased to amaze me... nor does it ever learn.



and there's eyewitnesses who reported NO SOUND.

so to assert there were no witnesses who claim the OPPOSITE of what you're claiming, makes you a LIAR at the very least.


Utter rubbish. Holograms, by their very nature, cannot be projected against the sky.

Who, by the way, ever said that the Earth wasn't round? Eratosthenes proved it was round over 2,000 years ago.

People on the street reported a thunderous sound when the plane hit the building.

[alzee]

very good film, thanks for that. i'd previously dismissed the NPT idea but you've given me much food for thought.

and goldengoose, if you are banned you'll be banned for your many personal attacks on people in this thread, certainly not for telling your 'truth'. a simple way to prove this would be to debate without the personal attacks. are you up to that?

[goldengoose]

very good film, thanks for that. i'd previously dismissed the NPT idea but you've given me much food for thought.

and goldengoose, if you are banned you'll be banned for your many personal attacks on people in this thread, certainly not for telling your 'truth'. a simple way to prove this would be to debate without the personal attacks. are you up to that?

Fair enough. I'll give it a whirl.

[secondsun]

No molten "steel" dripped from the South Tower. What you see is a mixture of aluminum, glass, and other materials.

...and all this molten aluminum, glass and other materials just happened to be piled up in one corner of one floor of the south tower!?!

... i personaly can no longer take you seriously!

[queenofleon]

You have been caught fibbing. There was no "dripping" steel and no members of the FDNY swallow the falsehood about explosives. Yes, there are always explosions in a large office fire, but the evidence for explosives is nonexistent.

You're really too much. All fantasists have had abandon the silly lie about Larry Silverstein. There isn't a demolition professional in the world who recognizes "pull it" as meaning "blow up the building." In the demolition industry, "pulling" refers to attaching cables to a relatively small structure, such as a water tower, and pulling it, literally, off its center of gravity. Demolition workers tried without success to pull building 6. WTC 7 was a massive 47-story skyscraper. It would have been impossible to "pull" it.
Larry Silverstein made no decisions. As the owner of the building, he recieved a courtesy call from a fire chief informing him of the department's decision. The FDNY does NOT blow up buildings. Silverstein agreed that "pulling" (firefighters' jargon) the contingent of rescue workers from a dangerous environment was the smartest thing to do under the circumstances.

Incidentally, I have spoken with representatives of more than two dozen demolition companies. You have spoken with no one. When you find a demolition professional who accepts your bizarre interpretation of "pull it," you will have accomplished something no other fantasist has yet managed to do.

The "pull it" canard is dead and buried.

I would rather be "too much" than not enough Goose, cos you sure are one or two chromosome's short of being human. :D

So it is "impossible2 to "pull" the WTC with explosive is it? Yet you proclaim it is possible for a passenger plane to bring it down in its own footprint? In a building that was specifically designed to stand such pressure, RIIIGHT!

Anyone seeing any inconsistancies here?

And not just one tower! 3 towers, one of which wasnt hit by a "plane" at all, and that same tower funnily enough was announced it had fallen prematurely whilst it still stood upright in the background for the world to see!? And then that falls in it's own footprint?!

RIIGHT!!

Forget the NPT, you are blatantly denying very important holes in the official story which in all honesty makes you look utterly desperate and pathetic.

I also like the way you havent denied you are an agent yet.

Anybody that wasn't would have surely defended themselves by now. But you havent even touched on it? I wonder why!!


Look, agent golden goose, whether you believe the NPT or not, many of us here do, and no ammount of mindless ranting you insist on will change that. You can throw all the official propoganda at us you want, IT WONT CHANGE ANYTHING. Too many people believe it, your job is null and void. You cant change our minds and never will. You are wasting your time.

Bottom line, plane or no plane, it was an inside job. You know it cos your obviously paid to debunk it, we know it because anyone with half a brain cell can see that the official story is B.S.

You mention John Lear as being a mad man cos he thinks that aliens are on the moon? What visions of grandeur you have to think that us primitive humans, that kill each other and deny our fellow humans the basic right of food and shelter, should be the only intelligent life in the universe? HAHAHA.

What a joke. You need to grow, meditate, get intouch with the universe and learn that we are all one.

9/11 was part of a massive agenda to bring in fear and create the new world order. But you know that cos your an agent.

If you are not an agent I apologise, your just a gullible sheep and in that case I sincerely feel for you.

nothing you can say now warrants a response. So dont bother responding, I will blank you.

[goldengoose]

...and all this molten aluminum, glass and other materials just happened to be piled up in one corner of one floor of the south tower!?!

... i personaly can no longer take you seriously!


Then you can't take any, uh, serious researcher seriously. The aluminum comes from the aluminum cladding and the aluminum plane. The glass is everywhere. Surely you imagine you're making some sort of point here, but what can it be?

You want to pretend that there were explosives magically planted on the exact floors struck by the plane. But shaped charges do NOT heat metal columns: they knock them aside. You can place your hand on a steel support after it has been blown away. So, the metallurgists and structural engineers who identified the dripping metal as a combination of aluminum, glass, and other materials must be wrong--why?

[goldengoose]

I would rather be "too much" than not enough Goose, cos you sure are one or two chromosome's short of being human. :D

So it is "impossible2 to "pull" the WTC with explosive is it? Yet you proclaim it is possible for a passenger plane to bring it down in its own footprint? In a building that was specifically designed to stand such pressure, RIIIGHT!

Anyone seeing any inconsistancies here?

And not just one tower! 3 towers, one of which wasnt hit by a "plane" at all, and that same tower funnily enough was announced it had fallen prematurely whilst it still stood upright in the background for the world to see!? And then that falls in it's own footprint?!

RIIGHT!!

Forget the NPT, you are blatantly denying very important holes in the official story which in all honesty makes you look utterly desperate and pathetic.

I also like the way you havent denied you are an agent yet.

Anybody that wasn't would have surely defended themselves by now. But you havent even touched on it? I wonder why!!


Look, agent golden goose, whether you believe the NPT or not, many of us here do, and no ammount of mindless ranting you insist on will change that. You can throw all the official propoganda at us you want, IT WONT CHANGE ANYTHING. Too many people believe it, your job is null and void. You cant change our minds and never will. You are wasting your time.

Bottom line, plane or no plane, it was an inside job. You know it cos your obviously paid to debunk it, we know it because anyone with half a brain cell can see that the official story is B.S.

You mention John Lear as being a mad man cos he thinks that aliens are on the moon? What visions of grandeur you have to think that us primitive humans, that kill each other and deny our fellow humans the basic right of food and shelter, should be the only intelligent life in the universe? HAHAHA.

What a joke. You need to grow, meditate, get intouch with the universe and learn that we are all one.

9/11 was part of a massive agenda to bring in fear and create the new world order. But you know that cos your an agent.

If you are not an agent I apologise, your just a gullible sheep and in that case I sincerely feel for you.

nothing you can say now warrants a response. So dont bother responding, I will blank you.

I will charitably assume that you are very young. You are old enough, however, to be able to read sources other than illiterate screeds written cranks and know-nothings.

You may like the fact that you overlooked my statement that there are no "shills" or "agents" on these tiny forums, but I am completely correct. Nobody is paying anybody to refute fantastic nonsense fabricated by anti-American crackpots. Your imaginary conspiracy is preposterous. It is mathematically impossible for thousands of people to maintain a horrible secret without anybody leaking anything. In your fantasy, ALL of the people who know that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job--the air traffic controllers, the military personnel at NORAD and NEADS, the FAA, the NTSB, the police and fire departments of NYC (the FDNY lost 343 men that day), Shanksville, PA, and Washington, D.C., the Port Authority of NY/NJ, the Boeing Corporation, United and American Airlines, the men and women inside the Pentagon, forensic examiners, the 7,000 agents from the FBI who participated in the massive, multi-agency investigation that identified the hijackers, the metallurgists, physicists, structural engineers, demolition specialists, fire safety experts, the seismologists at the Lamont-Doherty labs, the independent teams of researchers at Purdue, MIT, and Berkeley--ALL of these people are "lying": they are ALL complicit in a monstrous and unprecedented crime. And nobody ever says a word.

Impossible. Please repeat that word until it sinks in: IMPOSSIBLE.

Nothing can be "pulled" with explosives. The fantasy movement's lie about Larry Silverstein has been exposed. You understand absolutely nothing about demolition or about the construction of the Twin Towers. The information you require is readily available, but you refuse to read any of it.

John Lear's mad delusion about colonies on the moon is a baseless fairy tale.

The number of no-planers in the world is truly tiny. I have long been interested in irrational, absurd beliefs. I wonder why people choose to surrender their minds to nonsense. The no-plane fantasy is indefensibly wrong, yet you cling to it desperately. What advantage can you possibly derive from being hopelessly wrong? Every attempt you make to show that no planes hit the towers will fail miserably because planes really did hit the towers. You're not part of a movement because you can't possibly make any progress. Everything you claim is wrong--provably wrong.

[gamolon]

Yet you proclaim it is possible for a passenger plane to bring it down in its own footprint?

Really? Both towers, with all the debris, fell within and stayed within each towers own 208' square footprint?

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/damageradius.jpg

[shure]

Ronald Wieck & Ryan Mackey Caught Lying and Manipulating:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWw8dm7XXgI

[queenofleon]

Really? Both towers, with all the debris, fell within and stayed within each towers own 208' square footprint?

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/damageradius.jpg

Of course the debris went everywhere, theres no denying that, but bar the slight topple forward of the top of the tower which was visable, it fell downwards like a demolition, one floor on top of the other.

It was reinforced concrete, they were designed specifically to be able to withstand fires on any floor. I never said there was no debris.

[bryan]

Really? Both towers, with all the debris, fell within and stayed within each towers own 208' square footprint?

It's obvious you came here just to pull people up on their careless use of expressions like 'at freefall speed' or 'in its own footprint'. That's great because it encourages us to be more careful in the future.

The point is, the towers didn't topple over like most people living in the real world would expect, but came straight down. You seem to think that huge steel girders being ejected hundreds of feet from the buildings somehow supports the progressive gravitational collapse story.

Building 7 DID fall in its own footprint, even though it was supposed to be severely damaged on one side.

[gamolon]

It's obvious you came here just to pull people up on their careless use of expressions like 'at freefall speed' or 'in its own footprint'. That's great because it encourages us to be more careful in the future.

No, I brought that up because when folks use the expression "fell into it's own footprint", they use that to equate it to one of the aspects of a controlled demolition. The fact is, they DIDN'T fall into their own footprints so that one less comparsion that you people need to stop making. Just like the free fall speed claim. I asked you what exactly you are saying feel at free fall speeds and nobody will answer. I'll ask again. What exactly happened "at free fall speed"? Are you claiming the entire tower completed it's collapse at free fall speed?

The point is, the towers didn't topple over like most people living in the real world would expect, but came straight down.

You mean like a cut tree? Just topple over sideways? Most people in the real world don't understand construction and engineering which is why they expect it would have toppled over. It did withstand the initial impact of the planes like they were designed right?

;)

You seem to think that huge steel girders being ejected hundreds of feet from the buildings somehow supports the progressive gravitational collapse story.

Do you know what a "parabolic trajectory" is? Go look it up. You don't think that a column or beam, 1100 feet in the air, getting pushed outward just a little by falling debris could make said beam or column fall hundreds of feet away from the area?

You're nuts.

[gamolon]

Of course the debris went everywhere, theres no denying that, but bar the slight topple forward of the top of the tower which was visable, it fell downwards like a demolition, one floor on top of the other.

It was reinforced concrete, they were designed specifically to be able to withstand fires on any floor. I never said there was no debris.

No, you said the building fell wihin it's own footprint which reaks of you trying to claim it was a controlled demolition. A controlled demolition keeps debris and such within it's own footprint. That is NOT what happened to the towers. Don't say that the towers felll within their own footprint because they did not.

[queenofleon]

No, you said the building fell wihin it's own footprint which reaks of you trying to claim it was a controlled demolition. A controlled demolition keeps debris and such within it's own footprint. That is NOT what happened to the towers. Don't say that the towers felll within their own footprint because they did not.

Split hairs regarding the terminology I used all you like, you clearly knew what I meant. The fact is they fell one floor on top of the other, and any controlled demolition looks identical to the towers falling. Controlled demolition still has plumes of powdered concrete and debris, hence the fact they detonate from quite a distance, but they still fall one floor on top of the other. As Bryan said, you would expect it to topple over IF AT ALL.

Gamolon, can I ask, do you buy the official story then?

[gamolon]

Split hairs regarding the terminology I used all you like, you clearly knew what I meant. The fact is they fell one floor on top of the other, and any controlled demolition looks identical to the towers falling. Controlled demolition still has plumes of powdered concrete and debris, hence the fact they detonate from quite a distance, but they still fall one floor on top of the other. As Bryan said, you would expect it to topple over IF AT ALL.

That's your argument? It looked like a controlled demolition therefore it was?

So I guess, using your logic, if a tornado rolled through my town and someone said it sounded like a train, then it must have been a train? Good grief...

You would expect it to topple over? Based on what? I thought the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a jet? They did didn't they? They didn't topple over when they were hit did they?

I love how you folks use the "they were designed to withstand the impact of a jet" when trying to prove that the towers didn't fall because of the impact, fires, and gravity, but then you say the towers were supposed to topple over like trees.

Amazing.

Gamolon, can I ask, do you buy the official story then?

For the most part, yes.

[bryan]

No, I brought that up because when folks use the expression "fell into it's own footprint", they use that to equate it to one of the aspects of a controlled demolition. The fact is, they DIDN'T fall into their own footprints so that one less comparsion that you people need to stop making. Just like the free fall speed claim. I asked you what exactly you are saying feel at free fall speeds and nobody will answer. I'll ask again. What exactly happened "at free fall speed"? Are you claiming the entire tower completed it's collapse at free fall speed?


Five floors+ per second = near freefall speed



You mean like a cut tree? Just topple over sideways? Most people in the real world don't understand construction and engineering which is why they expect it would have toppled over.


On the day of 9/11 I thought the towers should have toppled over towards the side which was damaged by the plane. That's because I didn't know they had a steel frame. Now I know how they were constructed, I'm absolutely certain they shouldn't have collapsed at all.



It did withstand the initial impact of the planes like they were designed right?


No plane crashed into the WTC.



Do you know what a "parabolic trajectory" is? Go look it up. You don't think that a column or beam, 1100 feet in the air, getting pushed outward just a little by falling debris could make said beam or column fall hundreds of feet away from the area?

You're nuts.

You just dug your own grave, because the beams had to be pushed outwards and UPWARDS.



No, you said the building fell wihin it's own footprint which reaks of you trying to claim it was a controlled demolition. A controlled demolition keeps debris and such within it's own footprint. That is NOT what happened to the towers. Don't say that the towers felll within their own footprint because they did not.


It was top-down controlled demolition for the towers, and a (relatively) standard controlled demolition for WTC7. Are you arguing that WTC7 didn't fall in its own footprint? Did a piece of broken glass land on the pavement or something?


The fact is they fell one floor on top of the other, and any controlled demolition looks identical to the towers falling. Controlled demolition still has plumes of powdered concrete and debris, hence the fact they detonate from quite a distance, but they still fall one floor on top of the other.


Queenofleon, you're giving him more ammunition for his nitpicking. Building 7 looks like a normal controlled demolition, but they had to make the towers look like they collapsed from top to bottom starting at the floors where the damage was. It's obviously controlled, but it's unconventional at the same time. The debunkers say they couldn't have been controlled demolitions because that's not the way buildings are usually demolished. That's the kind of bogus logic they use.

Gamolon is doing us a favour by making us think about the language we use.

[shure]

No, you said the building fell wihin it's own footprint which reaks of you trying to claim it was a controlled demolition. A controlled demolition keeps debris and such within it's own footprint. That is NOT what happened to the towers. Don't say that the towers felll within their own footprint because they did not.

Your right, massive steel beams were blown out hundreds of yards into other buildings as the towers exploded to dust and disappeared in only a few seconds. Can that be accomplished by office fires?

[goldengoose]

Ronald Wieck & Ryan Mackey Caught Lying and Manipulating:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWw8dm7XXgI


Do you understand that you have been exposed, you childish liar? Paul Furnee stated that he agreed completely with Mackey. How can you continue to twist the words of a man who regards you as unbalanced? HE DOES NOT SWALLOW YOUR SNAKE OIL! You "forgot" to mention that the plane you were talking about dropped over 20,000 feet in FOUR MINUTES!

Listen closely: THE PLANE THAT HIT THE SOUTH TOWER CAME OUT OF A POWER DIVE AND THEN LEVELED OFF TO CRASH INTO THE BUILDING. How many times must you be told that NOBODY thinks Flight 175 cruised at sea level? IT DIDN'T!

[goldengoose]

Your right, massive steel beams were blown out hundreds of yards into other buildings as the towers exploded to dust and disappeared in only a few seconds. Can that be accomplished by office fires?


Well, it sure as hell can't be accomplished with any explosives used by the demolition industry. You can't be expected to understand this, but there's a reason why they're called CONTROLLED demolitions.

[goldengoose]

Five floors+ per second = near freefall speed




On the day of 9/11 I thought the towers should have toppled over towards the side which was damaged by the plane. That's because I didn't know they had a steel frame. Now I know how they were constructed, I'm absolutely certain they shouldn't have collapsed at all.




No plane crashed into the WTC.




You just dug your own grave, because the beams had to be pushed outwards and UPWARDS.




It was top-down controlled demolition for the towers, and a (relatively) standard controlled demolition for WTC7. Are you arguing that WTC7 didn't fall in its own footprint? Did a piece of broken glass land on the pavement or something?




Queenofleon, you're giving him more ammunition for his nitpicking. Building 7 looks like a normal controlled demolition, but they had to make the towers look like they collapsed from top to bottom starting at the floors where the damage was. It's obviously controlled, but it's unconventional at the same time. The debunkers say they couldn't have been controlled demolitions because that's not the way buildings are usually demolished. That's the kind of bogus logic they use.

Gamolon is doing us a favour by making us think about the language we use.

You know absolutely nothing about engineering, physics, or demolition, and yet you adamantly refuse to learn anything.

There is a reason why no demolition professionals buy into your fantasy.


"A top-down controlled demolition for the towers"--yeah, one that just happened to start from the exact floors hit by the planes. How pathetic is that? Look at what you've been reduced to.

Nobody has ever considered demolishing buildings the size of the twin towers, and you think they would attempt it with magic soundless explosives that fail to register on seismographs. No detonator caps, no wiring--you've put a lot of thought into your fantasy.

Sheesh!

[goldengoose]

Ronald Wieck & Ryan Mackey Caught Lying and Manipulating:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWw8dm7XXgI



A treasure trove of information about Flight 175 containing photos of aircraft wreckage, passenger manifests, flight paths, transcripts:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175

[bryan]

Do you understand that you have been exposed, you childish liar? Paul Furnee stated that he agreed completely with Mackey. How can you continue to twist the words of a man who regards you as unbalanced? HE DOES NOT SWALLOW YOUR SNAKE OIL! You "forgot" to mention that the plane you were talking about dropped over 20,000 feet in FOUR MINUTES!


Do you think Danny Jowenka was tricked into confirming WTC7 was a controlled demolition? Should they have told him it went down on 9/11? Give him a ring. He sticks to what he said. Unlike others.

[goldengoose]

Do you think Danny Jowenka was tricked into confirming WTC7 was a controlled demolition? Should they have told him it went down on 9/11? Give him a ring. He sticks to what he said. Unlike others.


Unlike you, I HAVE given Danny Jowenko a ring. Our conversation lasted almost an hour. He is convinced that the towers fell from the impacts of the planes and the resultant fires. Funny how conspiracy liars never mention his opinion when it's right.

When I spoke with him two years ago, Jowenko believed that WTC 7 was demolished for "safety" reasons. He rejects the conspiracy rubbish, but he hasn't commented on the NIST Report released last summer. Jowenko has never demolished a large building.

[bryan]

When I spoke with him two years ago, Jowenko believed that WTC 7 was demolished for "safety" reasons.

There seems to be an anomaly here. According to the official government story, WTC 7 wasn't demolished.

[goldengoose]

There seems to be an anomaly here. According to the official government story, WTC 7 wasn't demolished.

You need to look up the word "anomaly." There is no such animal as "the official government story," as you know, and WTC 7 was not demolished. The NIST Report ended serious speculation on that subject: no physical evidence of explosives and NO SOUNDS OF EXPLOSIONS. A demolition is characterizied by a simultaneous series of blasts. THAT DIDN"T HAPPEN WHEN WTC 7 FELL.


Jowenko was right about the towers and wrong about building 7. Incidentally, the fantasy movement has never come close to figuring out why its imaginary super-villains wanted to bring down an obscure building seven hours after the attacks.

[bryan]

Jowenko was right about the towers and wrong about building 7.


He already knew the official story of how the towers fell, but when he was shown a video of WTC 7 dropping, he didn't know where it was or when it happened. In other words, his comments on the towers could have been influenced by the propaganda, whereas his comments on WTC 7 were unprompted. Therefore, it's more likely that he's right about Building 7 but wrong about the towers.



Incidentally, the fantasy movement has never come close to figuring out why its imaginary super-villains wanted to bring down an obscure building seven hours after the attacks.

It was planned for demolition at around 10.45am when it would have been hidden by the dust from the North Tower demolition. The nukes didn't go off and they had to wait for replacement explosives to be brought in.

[goldengoose]

He already knew the official story of how the towers fell, but when he was shown a video of WTC 7 dropping, he didn't know where it was or when it happened. In other words, his comments on the towers could have been influenced by the propaganda, whereas his comments on WTC 7 were unprompted. Therefore, it's more likely that he's right about Building 7 but wrong about the towers.




It was planned for demolition at around 10.45am when it would have been hidden by the dust from the North Tower demolition. The nukes didn't go off and they had to wait for replacement explosives to be brought in.


In reality, it is certain that Jowenko was right about the towers and equally certain that he was wrong about WTC 7.

There were no explosives anywhere in the WTC complex. Physical evidence for explosives is nonexistent, seismic evidence is nonexistent, and audio evidence is nonexistent. It is true that no nukes went off, but no nukes were present, so it was impossible for them to "go off."

You get sillier and sillier with each post.

[secondsun]

So, the metallurgists and structural engineers who identified the dripping metal as a combination of aluminum, glass, and other materials must be wrong--why?

...please link to that info` if you have the time!?

...molten aluminum...

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2006/Feb/18/FPI602180326V1_b.jpg

...molten steel...

http://9eleven.info/moltenstreamthermate.jpg

...slight difference in colour!?!

[bryan]

In reality, it is certain that Jowenko was right about the towers and equally certain that he was wrong about WTC 7.

So you spent an hour on the phone talking to a demolition expert who said he was certain WTC 7 was demolished, but your experience as a political commentator and TV presenter leads you to believe that he's totally wrong.

What's the point of speaking to him in the first place if you're going to dismiss what he says? You could have spent the time reading up on Newton's laws of motion.

Did Paul Furnee say anything that you conveniently ignored because it didn't suit your agenda?

[queenofleon]

That's your argument? It looked like a controlled demolition therefore it was?

So I guess, using your logic, if a tornado rolled through my town and someone said it sounded like a train, then it must have been a train? Good grief...

You would expect it to topple over? Based on what? I thought the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a jet? They did didn't they? They didn't topple over when they were hit did they?

I love how you folks use the "they were designed to withstand the impact of a jet" when trying to prove that the towers didn't fall because of the impact, fires, and gravity, but then you say the towers were supposed to topple over like trees.

Amazing.



For the most part, yes.


LOL, oh my days, yeah I base my theory souly on that.:rolleyes:

Physics, my friend, physics.

So you think the weight of the planes and the jet fuel brought down the towers? well clearly you do cos you buy the official story. yeah , good grief indeed.

Why is it you all need nannying by the illuminati press?

Regardless of the momentum of the plane, it can't cut through steel like butter.

MANY, NY firefighters HEARD and SAW explosions, like a "controllled demolition" YOU CALLING THEM LIARS?

Jesus, they reported a series of explosions on mainstream TV before the footage was squashed. A SERIES OF EXPLOSIONS, people on the ground running saying that the bottom of the tower's were exploding, prior to the towers falling. Are they liars too?

Molten steel dripping from the towers that jet fuel can not heat up to that degree???

On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC.

This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower."

Hmmm I wonder if they were positioning detonators? "No, just a coincidence, nothing to worry about!"

Witnesses actually saying that "it sounded like a missile" Yes ,there were plenty, but when you only research it Via NIST, you wont hear that!

And the list goes on, the fact is anyone capable of critical thinking must evaluate that there are too many holes, too many testimonies that pick the official story apart.

I dont have to sit here and justify why I think what I do. You think what you do because you trust the offical story, nevermind the fact that we know they are Nazi's, and dress up as druids and worship an owl every summer whilst performing the cremation of care. And these people run the country! Yet you think it is impossible for the gov to do such a thing?

yes the NPT does sound like madness on the face of it, but anyone capable of rejecting their conditioning and looking deeper, thinking outside the box, FOLLOWING THE TRAIL OF INFORMATION will see that it was an inside job, and that for all the reasons above there were no planes...

They are atleast 100 years ahead technological wise than they admit in public, and because people like you are so easily decieved , you find it impossible to accept that yes, they have holographic technology.

You cant accept the NPT cos you cant even accept the fact it was an inside job.

[fanoftruth]

queenofleon, did you get a chance to watch this short clip which I confidently say debunks the 'nose out' claim? I posted it a few days back but I believe it may have been lost in amongst the longer posts in the thread ;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034&feature=related

at 1m17s or so into this short clip I believe the nose-out theory is disproven. You earlier mentioned you had seen a clip where the nose in and nose out were perfectly matched to pixel perfection, thus proving the plane to be a computer graphic. Could you perhaps find the clip and post it? It would be great to compare it to the above clip :D

[queenofleon]

queenofleon, did you get a chance to watch this short clip which I confidently say debunks the 'nose out' claim? I posted it a few days back but I believe it may have been lost in amongst the longer posts in the thread ;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034&feature=related

at 1m17s or so into this short clip I believe the nose-out theory is disproven. You earlier mentioned you had seen a clip where the nose in and nose out were perfectly matched to pixel perfection, thus proving the plane to be a computer graphic. Could you perhaps find the clip and post it? It would be great to compare it to the above clip :D

Thanks fan of truth, I am always open to new info, I cant watch it from work though, I will watch when I get home.

I am really interested to see that though, thanks.

[goldengoose]

The third show featuring Ryan Mackey lecturing on the physics of 9/11 is now available:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5129738509892438946

[goldengoose]

LOL, oh my days, yeah I base my theory souly on that.:rolleyes:

Physics, my friend, physics.

So you think the weight of the planes and the jet fuel brought down the towers? well clearly you do cos you buy the official story. yeah , good grief indeed.

Why is it you all need nannying by the illuminati press?

Regardless of the momentum of the plane, it can't cut through steel like butter.

MANY, NY firefighters HEARD and SAW explosions, like a "controllled demolition" YOU CALLING THEM LIARS?

Jesus, they reported a series of explosions on mainstream TV before the footage was squashed. A SERIES OF EXPLOSIONS, people on the ground running saying that the bottom of the tower's were exploding, prior to the towers falling. Are they liars too?

Molten steel dripping from the towers that jet fuel can not heat up to that degree???

On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC.

This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower."

Hmmm I wonder if they were positioning detonators? "No, just a coincidence, nothing to worry about!"

Witnesses actually saying that "it sounded like a missile" Yes ,there were plenty, but when you only research it Via NIST, you wont hear that!

And the list goes on, the fact is anyone capable of critical thinking must evaluate that there are too many holes, too many testimonies that pick the official story apart.

I dont have to sit here and justify why I think what I do. You think what you do because you trust the offical story, nevermind the fact that we know they are Nazi's, and dress up as druids and worship an owl every summer whilst performing the cremation of care. And these people run the country! Yet you think it is impossible for the gov to do such a thing?

yes the NPT does sound like madness on the face of it, but anyone capable of rejecting their conditioning and looking deeper, thinking outside the box, FOLLOWING THE TRAIL OF INFORMATION will see that it was an inside job, and that for all the reasons above there were no planes...

They are atleast 100 years ahead technological wise than they admit in public, and because people like you are so easily decieved , you find it impossible to accept that yes, they have holographic technology.

You cant accept the NPT cos you cant even accept the fact it was an inside job.


No, nobody believes that "the weight of the plane" brought down the towers. NIST maintains that the aircraft impacts dislodged critical amounts of fireproofing, exacerbating the effects of the fires on the structural steel. Critics of NIST, such as Drs. Astaneh and Quintiere, feel that the buildings would have collapsed even if all the fireproofing remained intact. They feel that the builders of the towers cut corners and were held to less rigorous standards than existing codes required. I will explore this controversy further with Dr. Astaneh on an upcoming edition of 'Hardfire.'


Yes, the plane cut through the external columns as easily as a human hand cuts through a brick. Mackey explained why. It's unfortunate that you were unable to understand him, but your assertion is wrong.

I have interviewed many members of the FDNY; you, by contrast, have spoken to ZERO. No firefighters believe that there were explosives anywhere in the WTC complex. Before you start accusing those heroes of being part of your imaginary conspiracy, try to bear in mind that they lost 343 of their brothers that day.

There was no molten steel dripping from the towers. No explosive can produce molten steel (don't you get tired of hearing this?).

Forget about your debunked "power-down." Wiring a 110-story skyscraper for demolition would requires teams of specialists working for months, not weeks, to say nothing of days.

Obviously, no one said anything sounded like a "missile" because who the hell has ever heard a missile up close other than serious scientists who think you fantasists are nuts.

It remains impossible to project a hologram against a sunny, cloudless sky. It's funny that the Bush-Cheney crime family has access to futuristic weaponry that the military can't use. I wonder where in the defense budget these items show up. Oh, they don't? They're hidden, you say? Fascinating. Super-weapons that won't be available on Earth for decades, if ever, might be expensive, you know.

You've been caught lying again. Absolutely nobody said the base of the towers were "exploding." The collapses, quite obviously, proceeded from the impact floors.

It is comical that you employed the phrase "critical thinking skills." Try to develop some.

[goldengoose]

...please link to that info` if you have the time!?

...molten aluminum...

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2006/Feb/18/FPI602180326V1_b.jpg

...molten steel...

http://9eleven.info/moltenstreamthermate.jpg

...slight difference in colour!?!


Perhaps you should send your discoveries to metallurgists at MIT, such as Dr. Thomas Eagar. They seem to think that the aluminum pouring from the building was mixed with other substances, but what could they know? And, anyway, they're all in on it, right?

[goldengoose]

So you spent an hour on the phone talking to a demolition expert who said he was certain WTC 7 was demolished, but your experience as a political commentator and TV presenter leads you to believe that he's totally wrong.

What's the point of speaking to him in the first place if you're going to dismiss what he says? You could have spent the time reading up on Newton's laws of motion.

Did Paul Furnee say anything that you conveniently ignored because it didn't suit your agenda?


Of course he's not "certain" that WTC 7 was demolished. How could he be? He's never demolished a large building, and he's done no independent work on the collapse of building 7.

Paul Furnee acknowledges that he knows far less about large commercial airliners than Ryan Mackey does. He understands Mackey's analysis and accepts it completely. You will NEVER find an aeronautical engineer who will swallow the idiocy peddled by no-planers. There's a reason why the fraud Jeff Hill must conceal the fact that Flight 175 dropped over 24,000 feet in less than five minutes. There is a reason why he dishonestly pretends that the plane was cruising at sea level. If he doesn't tell outright lies, he can't produce the responses he craves.

[bryan]

at 1m17s or so into this short clip I believe the nose-out theory is disproven. You earlier mentioned you had seen a clip where the nose in and nose out were perfectly matched to pixel perfection, thus proving the plane to be a computer graphic. Could you perhaps find the clip and post it? It would be great to compare it to the above clip :D

There's no reason why the two noses should be exactly the same, pixel for pixel. The sky is a different colour in the two images, and the nose out is followed by an explosion and maybe even some dust and 'office debris'. If you get a copy of the clip and step through it, the nose out is so similar to the 'nose in' that you really have to be uncritical to accept that it could have been 'plane-shaped dust' or the 'right engine'.

If you want to see the lengths people will go to trying to persuade you it was real, watch the following demonstration, but skip to 4 mins into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewljuu39iTw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewljuu39iTw


I have a current thread to discuss this issue, but it's hard to get a serious response from the real-planers:

Let's take a look at Real Planes Theory
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56862

[fanoftruth]

"There's no reason why the two noses should be exactly the same, pixel for pixel" - bryan


If a computer graphic, or CGI, was produced of a plane and inserted into pre-rendered footage or streamed into realtime footage, and what we're seeing exiting the opposite facade of the building is indeed that CGI then surely it would be exact, pixel for pixel.

If the plane is a graphic then it would not respond to the rest of the footage ; what I mean is the colouration of the sky, clouds in the background and any change in lighting within the shot would have no baring on the shape of the plane when scrutinising the fine details of it.

[goldengoose]

There's no reason why the two noses should be exactly the same, pixel for pixel. The sky is a different colour in the two images, and the nose out is followed by an explosion and maybe even some dust and 'office debris'. If you get a copy of the clip and step through it, the nose out is so similar to the 'nose in' that you really have to be uncritical to accept that it could have been 'plane-shaped dust' or the 'right engine'.

If you want to see the lengths people will go to trying to persuade you it was real, watch the following demonstration, but skip to 4 mins into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewljuu39iTw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewljuu39iTw


I have a current thread to discuss this issue, but it's hard to get a serious response from the real-planers:

Let's take a look at Real Planes Theory
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56862


Here's a response from someone who realizes that the no-plane fantasy is idiotic.

The debris being ejected from the South Tower is not the nose of the plane. It can't be. Steve Wright showed Ace Baker why the velocity of the ejecta doesn't match the velocity of the plane.

It's hilarious that your imaginary super-villains can perform a feat of real time compositing that won't be possible for the forseeable future, but they left the nose of the composite plane in the video. You really haven't devoted much thought to this stuff, have you?

[gamolon]

You just dug your own grave, because the beams had to be pushed outwards and UPWARDS.

I did? You mean that an object can't start at the top of the parabola? What if I pushed a blowling ball from the top of the towers? Does it go up first and then come back down or does it follow half of the parabolic curve?

Maybe in your world, it goes off the edge and then straight down like a Roadrunner cartoon.

:rolleyes:

[gamolon]

Your right, massive steel beams were blown out hundreds of yards into other buildings

You don't think that the beams could have gained horizontal momentum from anything other than an explosion? I mean, as the collapse was happening, there is no way that debris falling could have hit any of those beams, pushing it outward right? None of those beams could have been catapulted outward being that they were attached to other structural members right?

It could ONLY have been explosives.

Here's a math question for for. Let's see if you can figure it out. If you pushed a 12 pound bowling ball off the top of the WTC tower, how far away from the base would it land?

Inertesting huh? No explosives whatsoever. Let's see what you come up with.

as the towers exploded to dust and disappeared in only a few seconds.

A few seconds?! You are seriously telling me that the towers TOTALLY collapsed in a few seconds? You better do more research about that.

Can that be accomplished by office fires?

More garbage. Only office fires huh? There was no jet that slammed into the towers huh to help weaken it structurally? If "office fires" cannot affect a building's structural steel, then why do they fire proof it?

You guys are hysterical.

[gamolon]

LOL, oh my days, yeah I base my theory souly on that.:rolleyes:

Physics, my friend, physics.

So you think the weight of the planes and the jet fuel brought down the towers? well clearly you do cos you buy the official story. yeah , good grief indeed.

Why is it you all need nannying by the illuminati press?

Regardless of the momentum of the plane, it can't cut through steel like butter.

MANY, NY firefighters HEARD and SAW explosions, like a "controllled demolition" YOU CALLING THEM LIARS?

Jesus, they reported a series of explosions on mainstream TV before the footage was squashed. A SERIES OF EXPLOSIONS, people on the ground running saying that the bottom of the tower's were exploding, prior to the towers falling. Are they liars too?

Molten steel dripping from the towers that jet fuel can not heat up to that degree???

On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC.

This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower."

Hmmm I wonder if they were positioning detonators? "No, just a coincidence, nothing to worry about!"

Witnesses actually saying that "it sounded like a missile" Yes ,there were plenty, but when you only research it Via NIST, you wont hear that!

And the list goes on, the fact is anyone capable of critical thinking must evaluate that there are too many holes, too many testimonies that pick the official story apart.

I dont have to sit here and justify why I think what I do. You think what you do because you trust the offical story, nevermind the fact that we know they are Nazi's, and dress up as druids and worship an owl every summer whilst performing the cremation of care. And these people run the country! Yet you think it is impossible for the gov to do such a thing?

yes the NPT does sound like madness on the face of it, but anyone capable of rejecting their conditioning and looking deeper, thinking outside the box, FOLLOWING THE TRAIL OF INFORMATION will see that it was an inside job, and that for all the reasons above there were no planes...

They are atleast 100 years ahead technological wise than they admit in public, and because people like you are so easily decieved , you find it impossible to accept that yes, they have holographic technology.

You cant accept the NPT cos you cant even accept the fact it was an inside job.

I see you quite often use phrases such as "it sounded like" or "it looked like". Quite a big difference of someone saying IT WAS A MISSILE or IT WAS A CONTROLLED demolition.

Why don't you go and ask the fire department folks if they believe it was a controlled demolition. Ask them all. See what they say.

I have brought this up before. If a tornado blows through my neighborhood and someone describes it as "sounding like a train", does that mean a train rooled through?

You guys all reasearch up to a point, but never move on past that point. What I mean is, could there possibly be something else that happened that could caused the explosion sounds? Nope, you just read up to the point where it follows your beliefs and run with it.

How about the firefighters who described people hitting the ground after jumping from the towers "sounding like explosions".

Indeed, good grief.

[queenofleon]

I see you quite often use phrases such as "it sounded like" or "it looked like". Quite a big difference of someone saying IT WAS A MISSILE or IT WAS A CONTROLLED demolition.

Why don't you go and ask the fire department folks if they believe it was a controlled demolition. Ask them all. See what they say.

I have brought this up before. If a tornado blows through my neighborhood and someone describes it as "sounding like a train", does that mean a train rooled through?

You guys all reasearch up to a point, but never move on past that point. What I mean is, could there possibly be something else that happened that could caused the explosion sounds? Nope, you just read up to the point where it follows your beliefs and run with it.

How about the firefighters who described people hitting the ground after jumping from the towers "sounding like explosions".

Indeed, good grief.

I think the blood streaming from the guys head who was caught in the explosion is evidence enough, it was the reporter who said it sounded like explosions.

You believe terrorists, weilding box cutters can hijack planes, when one of them who was apparently dead called up the news station and said he was actually still alive and that he had nothing to do with it. These are the same terrorists who were apparently working for bin laden WHO IS DEAD. Ok, whatever.

This can go on and on and on...we can debate till we are both blue in the face. I believe it was an inside job, you dont. I have gone way, way, way beyond the 9/11 thing in terms of my research, and have never touched a 9/11 thread on here till the NPT one caught my eye. It was 9/11 being an inside job that made me find out about the new world order, and that, in real time is what I find to be the most important thing now. So whilst we are sat here argueing about my point v's your point, our world is changing for the worse.

I have spent far too long debating the trolls regarding this, to the point of laughter.....you are totally entitled to what you think, as I am, nothing you can say and no doubt visa versa will change that. Each to their own.

Lets agree to disagree. I truly believe one day the truth will come to light, and I am big enough to admit when I am wrong, so if I am I will be happy too.

You know, I wish it was the terrorists, cos the alternative is scarier.

Bring on 2012 when bluebeam in in full effect, when this apparent holographic technology that doesnt exist brings on the show.

We will see...in the mean time, dont work too hard trolls.....

[bryan]

The third show featuring Ryan Mackey lecturing on the physics of 9/11 is now available:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5129738509892438946

The model is a red herring. You only need to know and understand the statement below:


"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion


I thought Mackey was going to debunk Anders Björkman. All he did was try to assassinate his character.

[bryan]

If a computer graphic, or CGI, was produced of a plane and inserted into pre-rendered footage or streamed into realtime footage, and what we're seeing exiting the opposite facade of the building is indeed that CGI then surely it would be exact, pixel for pixel.

If the plane is a graphic then it would not respond to the rest of the footage ; what I mean is the colouration of the sky, clouds in the background and any change in lighting within the shot would have no baring on the shape of the plane when scrutinising the fine details of it.

The pixels at the edge of the nose have to decide which colour they're going to be, and the way I understand it, interference from the background might affect the choice. Another thing is, if the cgi was 3D, the plane could have been at a slightly different angle coming out compared to when it disappeared behind the towers. The official story is that it was banking quite heavily.

Do you prefer one of the other explanations for the nose out, fanoftruth?

[fanoftruth]

"The pixels at the edge of the nose have to decide which colour they're going to be, and the way I understand it, interference from the background might affect the choice." - bryan

I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're saying here. I'm an amateur filmmaker and have a decent understanding of most aspects of video and am comfortable with some lower levels of effects and how to impliment them and if you are saying what I think you are saying then that would only happen if the plane in the clip was indeed real and was reacting visually to the mise-en-scene (in other words everything else in the frame). If the plane was a CGI and was added to either pre-rendered footage or inserted into actual live video then the effect you describe shouldn't happen.


"Another thing is, if the cgi was 3D, the plane could have been at a slightly different angle coming out compared to when it disappeared behind the towers. The official story is that it was banking quite heavily." - bryan

I had not thought of that and you make a valid point. If indeed the plan was a CGI then the image would have been rotated in a matching fashion to the rest of the second hit videos. This would indeed mean the nose would be damn close to a perfect match without actually being a perfect match.

I still lean towards the 'nose out' being the initial punch out of smoke and debris but I'll certainly study it some more :D

[bryan]

I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're saying here. I'm an amateur filmmaker and have a decent understanding of most aspects of video and am comfortable with some lower levels of effects and how to impliment them and if you are saying what I think you are saying then that would only happen if the plane in the clip was indeed real and was reacting visually to the mise-en-scene (in other words everything else in the frame). If the plane was a CGI and was added to either pre-rendered footage or inserted into actual live video then the effect you describe shouldn't happen.


I admit I've no experience with video and I only know what I've read from other people's research. I'm thinking that the pixel problem wouldn't occur as the shot was being filmed, but when the footage was recorded from the television by a VCR then made digital. Would I be right to think that at that stage the cgi would behave as if it was a real plane?

[fanoftruth]

"I'm thinking that the pixel problem wouldn't occur as the shot was being filmed, but when the footage was recorded from the television by a VCR then made digital. Would I be right to think that at that stage the cgi would behave as if it was a real plane?"

Problems relating to what you or I would call 'pixellation' or 'pixel bleeding' generally appear as a result of a piece of video either being compressed heavily, as in something you may have filmed on your home camera being converted to youtube worthy format, or numerous re-recordings. The latter would of course include a video tape of something recorded from television. Every time footage is copied between formats we do tend to lose some quality. One of the biggest problems when analysing the second hit footage is there is next to no (or perhaps even none) high quality footage available to study.

It could account for the visual discrepency you're speaking about but it would would be far more likely if the plane is indeed part of the footage, as the official story goes.

Tomorrow I will take a small piece of footage outside, insert a crude CGI of a moving object and if I have time I will convert the video between 2 or 3 formats to see what the results are.

[goldengoose]

The model is a red herring. You only need to know and understand the statement below:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion


I thought Mackey was going to debunk Anders Björkman. All he did was try to assassinate his character.

Bjorkman has been exposed as an incompetent fool. He clings to his mad belief that dropping the top third of a building from a height of two miles onto the bottom two-thirds will NOT destroy the entire structure.

He is wrong--spectacularly, incredibly, breathtakingly, hopelessly wrong.

[goldengoose]

"I'm thinking that the pixel problem wouldn't occur as the shot was being filmed, but when the footage was recorded from the television by a VCR then made digital. Would I be right to think that at that stage the cgi would behave as if it was a real plane?"

Problems relating to what you or I would call 'pixellation' or 'pixel bleeding' generally appear as a result of a piece of video either being compressed heavily, as in something you may have filmed on your home camera being converted to youtube worthy format, or numerous re-recordings. The latter would of course include a video tape of something recorded from television. Every time footage is copied between formats we do tend to lose some quality. One of the biggest problems when analysing the second hit footage is there is next to no (or perhaps even none) high quality footage available to study.

It could account for the visual discrepency you're speaking about but it would would be far more likely if the plane is indeed part of the footage, as the official story goes.

Tomorrow I will take a small piece of footage outside, insert a crude CGI of a moving object and if I have time I will convert the video between 2 or 3 formats to see what the results are.


Yes, you can insert a crude CGI, but you sure as hell can't do it in real time.

[goldengoose]

The model is a red herring. You only need to know and understand the statement below:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion


I thought Mackey was going to debunk Anders Björkman. All he did was try to assassinate his character.


No, the model is not a red herring. You need to know much, much more than you do.

[abababba]

Bjorkman has been exposed as an incompetent fool. He clings to his mad belief that dropping the top third of a building from a height of two miles onto the bottom two-thirds will NOT destroy the entire structure.

He is wrong--spectacularly, incredibly, breathtakingly, hopelessly wrong.

If a person who is wrong on one thing is wrong on everything, then the official story cannot possibly be true, because all we need to do is point out one lie and everything falls apart.

Everyone makes mistakes and someone can do good analysis even if they make a few mistakes. Do you only listen to people that get everything correct?

By definition since NIST made corrections to all their reports, so they also made many errors. Does this mean you through the entire official story out? No, so apply the same standards to everyone.

Bryan was talking about a specific argument the person was making not everything he has ever said. Attacking the person and not the argument is by definition an ad hominem attack.

[goldengoose]

I think the blood streaming from the guys head who was caught in the explosion is evidence enough, it was the reporter who said it sounded like explosions.

You believe terrorists, weilding box cutters can hijack planes, when one of them who was apparently dead called up the news station and said he was actually still alive and that he had nothing to do with it. These are the same terrorists who were apparently working for bin laden WHO IS DEAD. Ok, whatever.

This can go on and on and on...we can debate till we are both blue in the face. I believe it was an inside job, you dont. I have gone way, way, way beyond the 9/11 thing in terms of my research, and have never touched a 9/11 thread on here till the NPT one caught my eye. It was 9/11 being an inside job that made me find out about the new world order, and that, in real time is what I find to be the most important thing now. So whilst we are sat here argueing about my point v's your point, our world is changing for the worse.

I have spent far too long debating the trolls regarding this, to the point of laughter.....you are totally entitled to what you think, as I am, nothing you can say and no doubt visa versa will change that. Each to their own.

Lets agree to disagree. I truly believe one day the truth will come to light, and I am big enough to admit when I am wrong, so if I am I will be happy too.

You know, I wish it was the terrorists, cos the alternative is scarier.

Bring on 2012 when bluebeam in in full effect, when this apparent holographic technology that doesnt exist brings on the show.

We will see...in the mean time, dont work too hard trolls.....


No, you don't really believe that Osama is dead. You see, if you did, you would be trapped in the dread Osama Conundrum, the Graveyard of Conspiracy Liars.

It goes like this: The Impossibly Vast Conspiracy hired an actor who is Osama's identical twin. The real Osama doesn't complain about the words the actor puts in his mouth because...well, the only possible reason he doesn't complain is that he's dead. But then a teensy-weensy problem arises. Faced with a humiliation at the polls in 2006, the evil super-villains could have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by taking their last opportunity to play the Osama card. They could have announced that, at long last, they got the bad guy--they killed Osama. How hard is it to kill someone who doesn't exist?

BUT. THEY. DIDN'T.

Inconveniently for your fantasy, they chose instead to take a beating that stripped them of most of their power. Don't rack your brains trying to escape: it can't be done. The Osama Conundrum is not called the Graveyard of Conspiracy Liars for nothing. There is no way out.

Sorry.

[goldengoose]

If a person who is wrong on one thing is wrong on everything, then the official story cannot possibly be true, because all we need to do is point out one lie and everything falls apart.

Everyone makes mistakes and someone can do good analysis even if they make a few mistakes. Do you only listen to people that get everything correct?

By definition since NIST made corrections to all their reports, so they also made many errors. Does this mean you through the entire official story out? No, so apply the same standards to everyone.

Bryan was talking about a specific argument the person was making not everything he has ever said. Attacking the person and not the argument is by definition an ad hominem attack.


Anders Bjorkman has a long track record on the JREF. He is constantly challenged by real engineers and architects to show his calculations. To date, he has never been able to produce any. His bizarre pronouncements are dissected in excruciating detail and his response, invariably, is to vanish for a while, only to return spouting the same discredited rubbish.


It is precisely because NIST makes corrections and invites input from independent researchers that the agency's work qualifies as real science. I am going feature on 'Hardfire' a professor of engineering (Dr. Astaneh) who is a critic of the NIST Report. He does not, course, accept the inside-job nonsense, but he feels that NIST whitewashed serious flaws, stemming from cutting corners, in the construction of the towers.

[bryan]

If a person who is wrong on one thing is wrong on everything, then the official story cannot possibly be true, because all we need to do is point out one lie and everything falls apart.

I doubt if he's wrong about the collapse physics.


Anders Björkman

The managing director of Heiwa Co is Anders Björkman, M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, with more than 30 years experience of tanker and ferry design, construction and operations. Mr. Bjorkman has been a delegate to the IMO for various national administrations and one NGO and has been been a speaker at various Safety at Sea conferences. Mr. Bjorkman holds several patents concerned with ship safety.


http://heiwaco.tripod.com/presentation.htm


Here's how he destroys Bazant, Greening and Mackey, using Newton's third law:


You cannot crush an isotropic or composite structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to gravity. Materials and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least.


http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm


And here you can see how Ryan Mackey totally ignores the science while the regular JREF pitbulls try to destroy Anders Björkman by character assasination:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137438

(His username is 'Heiwa')

[abababba]

I doubt if he's wrong about the collapse physics.



I'm not an expert on this Bryan, but this confuses me. Isn't it true that if the top section was moving faster, that it would destroy much more of the bottom section? For instance, if you could speed the top section up to near the speed of light (or whatever the maximum speed that it will stay together at) and then run it into the top of the remaining part of the tower, would it not destroy most of the bottom section?

[goldengoose]

I doubt if he's wrong about the collapse physics.



http://heiwaco.tripod.com/presentation.htm


Here's how he destroys Bazant, Greening and Mackey, using Newton's third law:



http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm


And here you can see how Ryan Mackey totally ignores the science while the regular JREF pitbulls try to destroy Anders Björkman by character assasination:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137438

(His username is 'Heiwa')


You say that the incompetent Bjorkman "destroys" the real scientists and engineers, but what he's saying is insanely wrong. There isn't an engineer alive who agrees with him.

Please--please listen closely: He is saying that you can't destroy the bottom 80 stories of a 110-story building by dropping the top 30 stories onto them from a height of two miles.

He is absurdly wrong.

[goldengoose]

I doubt if he's wrong about the collapse physics.



http://heiwaco.tripod.com/presentation.htm


Here's how he destroys Bazant, Greening and Mackey, using Newton's third law:



http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm


And here you can see how Ryan Mackey totally ignores the science while the regular JREF pitbulls try to destroy Anders Björkman by character assasination:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137438

(His username is 'Heiwa')


Perhaps I'm not conveying the point here. Bjorkman's grade-school understanding of Newton's laws permits him to recite unthinkingly that the crush-up force equals the crush-down. BUT--he overlooks the consideration that the combined forces are vastly in excess of what the structure can sustain.

Yes, if I drop a bowling ball onto a tower made of matchsticks, the crush-up equals the crush-down. The tower, however, does not "establish a new equilibrium" (Bjorkman's words): IT GETS CRUSHED!

When the top third of a building hits the bottom two-thirds from a great height, EVERYTHING GETS REDUCED TO RUBBLE!

A child can perceive this without difficulty, but Bjorkman can't.

[kooskoets]

Perhaps I'm not conveying the point here. Bjorkman's grade-school understanding of Newton's laws permits him to recite unthinkingly that the crush-up force equals the crush-down. BUT--he overlooks the consideration that the combined forces are vastly in excess of what the structure can sustain.

Yes, if I drop a bowling ball onto a tower made of matchsticks, the crush-up equals the crush-down. The tower, however, does not "establish a new equilibrium" (Bjorkman's words): IT GETS CRUSHED!

When the top third of a building hits the bottom two-thirds from a great height, EVERYTHING GETS REDUCED TO RUBBLE!

A child can perceive this without difficulty, but Bjorkman can't.


The point is that the force on the tower is EQUAL to the force on the nose of the plane.

That's a simple law, there's NO escape.

Now...when the nose of a thinwalled alu cylinder meets a steel_wall_with_concrete_floor_backup they feel the SAME force.

It's clear the fragile plane will be splashed ( as we can see in the many REAL crash video's ) against any solid object.

Please stop the disinfo campaign ?

And don't come with the 'bird against a fanblade' distraction.
That gave you away as a disinformer in the first place .

In the second...a bird can damage a fanblade but what happened to the bird ?

It splashed...just as any weaker object colliding with a stronger at high speed...just as a plane against a steel tube wall woud do.

And on 911 it 'flew right through' that wall.
hahahaha...

circus wieck in action.

[secondsun]

Perhaps you should send your discoveries to metallurgists at MIT, such as Dr. Thomas Eagar. They seem to think that the aluminum pouring from the building was mixed with other substances, but what could they know? And, anyway, they're all in on it, right?

...is a link to the info` to much to ask?


And, anyway, they're all in on it, right?


...from my research.... you would be surprised how many people are in it!... but 9-11 is only the tip of the iceberg... the enormity of the conspiracy against the people of this planet is almost incomprehensible!

[bryan]

Of course he's not "certain" that WTC 7 was demolished. How could he be? He's never demolished a large building, and he's done no independent work on the collapse of building 7.

Maybe you didn't press him hard enough, Ron.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
(watch from start)


I don't understand Dutch, but here's how it's translated in the subtitles:


Danny Jowenko: This is controlled demolition.

Interviewer: You're sure?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely. It's been imploded.



That's your argument? It looked like a controlled demolition therefore it was?

So I guess, using your logic, if a tornado rolled through my town and someone said it sounded like a train, then it must have been a train? Good grief...


It's conceivable that something other than a train might vaguely sound like a train. On the other hand, it's hard to think of anything other than a controlled demolition that could look like a controlled demolition. If you don't understand that, watch the above video clip where a qualified professional demolition expert shows that he has no doubt whatsoever that WTC 7 was imploded.


I did? You mean that an object can't start at the top of the parabola? What if I pushed a blowling ball from the top of the towers? Does it go up first and then come back down or does it follow half of the parabolic curve?

Maybe in your world, it goes off the edge and then straight down like a Roadrunner cartoon.


You don't need to imagine what would happen if you pushed a bowling ball from the top of a tower. There are photos and videos showing the debris being ejected upwards and outwards then falling in a parabola. In fact, it's the classic image of the demolition of the towers. Don't ask me to post a link. You're wasting enough of my time as it is.


I'm not an expert on this Bryan, but this confuses me. Isn't it true that if the top section was moving faster, that it would destroy much more of the bottom section? For instance, if you could speed the top section up to near the speed of light (or whatever the maximum speed that it will stay together at) and then run it into the top of the remaining part of the tower, would it not destroy most of the bottom section?

At the speed of light you need the theory of relativity, but for what we're discussing you need Newton's third law, which says that when two object collide, the same force acts on each object. If both objects are made of the same materials, how can 15 floors destroy 95 floors? Even if there was a trade-off of floors, there's still be 80 floors standing. On top of that, the core columns were larger and stronger near the bottom than near the top, and the lower block still had its structural integrity, whereas the upper block was all over the place.

[slartibartfast]

If both objects are made of the same materials, how can 15 floors destroy 95 floors? Even if there was a trade-off of floors, there's still be 80 floors standing. On top of that, the core columns were larger and stronger near the bottom than near the top, and the lower block still had its structural integrity, whereas the upper block was all over the place.

How about 15 floors destroy 1 floor, then 16 floors destroy 1 floor then 17 floors destroy 1 floor....

[gamolon]

You don't need to imagine what would happen if you pushed a bowling ball from the top of a tower. There are photos and videos showing the debris being ejected upwards and outwards then falling in a parabola. In fact, it's the classic image of the demolition of the towers. Don't ask me to post a link. You're wasting enough of my time as it is.

Really? UPWARD and OUTWARD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph7HzxcLEkI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEMN8YY47Y0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJpJaBEP9Ak&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPfQ9KGbws4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&feature=related

I watched all of these and see no indication of beams or columns being ejected UPWARD and OUTWARD. Are you for real? Do you understand that concept of controlled demolition? The idea is to blow the support structure NOT to blow columns UPWARD and OUTWARD.

Classic image my ass.

If it's a "classic" demolition, why do the towers start at the top and smash downward when the videos above show the base support being blown and the building crushes down at the base?

If it's a "classic" demolition, then why did the towers not fall into their own footprint?

If it's a "classic" demolition, why were beams and columns heaved hundreds of feet yet I don't see that in one of the videos above?

If it's a "classic" demolition, the why do the videos aboce show enough explosives to just blow the support structure yet you want use to believe that they used enough explosives to blow heavy columns and beams UPWARD and OUTWARD?

If it's a "classic" demolition, then why are not squibs all around the towers and the same elevation? Why is there just one here or one there?

You obviously need glasses.

As far as me wasting your time, if you would just answer the quesitons instead of trying to post funny quips such as me being Mr. Spock or saying that I'm just a parody of goldengoose, or the Christophera must be coaching me from behind the scenes, we be getting somewhere.

You're wasting your own time. I am asking you and everyone here questions about yoyr claims and you guys run and hide.

[bryan]

How about 15 floors destroy 1 floor, then 16 floors destroy 1 floor then 17 floors destroy 1 floor....

This would make a nice little nursery rhyme (a bit like Ten Green Bottles) and it might be useful for getting naughty kids off to sleep, but have you seen the collapse videos? The debris was scattered far and wide.

[slartibartfast]

This would make a nice little nursery rhyme (a bit like Ten Green Bottles) and it might be useful for getting naughty kids off to sleep, but have you seen the collapse videos? The debris was scattered far and wide.

So you are not refuting it then?

[goldengoose]

This would make a nice little nursery rhyme (a bit like Ten Green Bottles) and it might be useful for getting naughty kids off to sleep, but have you seen the collapse videos? The debris was scattered far and wide.


And when it's convenient for you, the debris was stacked neatly into the footprint of the building.

[bryan]

So you are not refuting it then?

Did I not just do that? How can the debris be ejected in all directions AND merge with the upper block to help pummel the lower block?


And when it's convenient for you, the debris was stacked neatly into the footprint of the building.

WTC 7 did end its life neatly stacked into its own footprint. I don't find that convenient personally, although it was certainly convenient for the Controlled Demolition team who were contracted to carry it away.

[goldengoose]

Did I not just do that? How can the debris be ejected in all directions AND merge with the upper block to help pummel the lower block?




WTC 7 did end its life neatly stacked into its own footprint. I don't find that convenient personally, although it was certainly convenient for the Controlled Demolition team who were contracted to carry it away.


Oh, yeah, it was so neat that it heavily damaged a building across the street.

Who do you expect to con with such crap?

[queenofleon]

No, you don't really believe that Osama is dead. You see, if you did, you would be trapped in the dread Osama Conundrum, the Graveyard of Conspiracy Liars.

It goes like this: The Impossibly Vast Conspiracy hired an actor who is Osama's identical twin. The real Osama doesn't complain about the words the actor puts in his mouth because...well, the only possible reason he doesn't complain is that he's dead. But then a teensy-weensy problem arises. Faced with a humiliation at the polls in 2006, the evil super-villains could have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by taking their last opportunity to play the Osama card. They could have announced that, at long last, they got the bad guy--they killed Osama. How hard is it to kill someone who doesn't exist?

BUT. THEY. DIDN'T.

Inconveniently for your fantasy, they chose instead to take a beating that stripped them of most of their power. Don't rack your brains trying to escape: it can't be done. The Osama Conundrum is not called the Graveyard of Conspiracy Liars for nothing. There is no way out.

Sorry.


Riiiiiight, ok so now you are calling benazir bhutto a liar are you? That brave lady went on CNN and told the world that OSAMA WAS KILLED IN 2001, she even named his killer. What a perfect scapegoat, a dead CIA trained operative that can never be caught and never be held accountable.

I think that she would know more about it than you goose , and why on earth would CNN then EDIT that particular piece of information if they have nothing to hide? Quite damaging to the agenda isnt it? And then as coincidence would have it, she was assasinated, but nothing to worry about, it is just a coincidence.

But, you know all this dont you? That's why you have to work so hard to debunk it all.

Tell me goose, if OBL, public enemy number one is just that, why have his family got the contract to rebuild the towers?

What a numpty you are.

[shure]

Do you understand that you have been exposed, you childish liar? Paul Furnee stated that he agreed completely with Mackey. How can you continue to twist the words of a man who regards you as unbalanced? HE DOES NOT SWALLOW YOUR SNAKE OIL! You "forgot" to mention that the plane you were talking about dropped over 20,000 feet in FOUR MINUTES!

Listen closely: THE PLANE THAT HIT THE SOUTH TOWER CAME OUT OF A POWER DIVE AND THEN LEVELED OFF TO CRASH INTO THE BUILDING. How many times must you be told that NOBODY thinks Flight 175 cruised at sea level? IT DIDN'T!

something that everyone seems to neglect...

If a plane is "coming out of a power dive," the transition from straight down to horizontal would pull a lot of g force. If the plane comes apart flying 500+ mph on the horizontal, imagine what would happen if it were to make a turn, especially from vertical to horizontal. A Boeing 767 is designed as an "economy bus", not a fighter jet.

So, if a Boeing 767 came out of a power dive at a rate fast enough to have it horizontal at 540 mph (before wind resistance slowed it down), the plane would be destroyed.

Remember, if the "dive" is shallow enough to not destroy the plane, it won't be going 540 mph due to wind resistance.

If the descent was not constant, but began as a nosedive, the plane would be going too fast to pull out of it without being ripped apart. If it was steeper at the end of the descent, the plane wouldn't gain much speed being in thicker air. (Wind resistance increases exponentially with speed and increases with air thickness. That's why they cruise at 35,000 feet and higher.) If it is a shallow dive, the drag is too great. So, either you have too much drag or you have to pull too much g-force for the plane to survive. Take your pick.


Think of the bottom of a rollercoaster....
One of my students lost his eyeglasses going around a sharp turn on a rollercoaster. Turbulence is nothing compared to coming out of a powerdive. Aloha Airlines plane came apart with turbulence (which propagated the fatigue cracks). And that plane was NOT doing a powerdive. But, it was a "puddle-hopper" going from island to island, so it was flying a lot near sea level. I have a video on my website of a plane losing its tail when it hits the runway too hard on a hard landing.

Hey, have you ever gone too fast around a tight turn? Why does everything in your car get slung around? Turbulence on airplanes rarely tosses stuff around that much.

Perhaps something above will help your understanding of it and give you ideas how to demonstrate it to others.

Powerdives don't help the plane story.


With that information, essentially Ryan Mackey proves no planes! He stated he knows (or believes) it can't fly 540 mph.

Have fun.

[abababba]

Another point people haven't discussed much: why would a hijacker do a power dive? Why not descend a little more slowly? There are 3 or more major airports in the area they could pretend like they are landing at and then turn towards the WTC at the last minute when at a much lower altitude. I'm sure the pilots were aware of the huge risk of not being able to pull out of the power dive and missing the target.

Instead they take an absolutely huge risk and fall 20,000 feet in 4 minutes and somehow manage to pull up at exactly the right altitude and fly at an almost horizontal angle into the building. How is this at all coherent?

And just to go on the record, please answer this important question that I think can resolve many of these issues: how many seconds were there between when the power dive ended and when the plane crashed into the WTC? This provides a hypothesis that is refutable by the video evidence.

[goldengoose]

Another point people haven't discussed much: why would a hijacker do a power dive? Why not descend a little more slowly? There are 3 or more major airports in the area they could pretend like they are landing at and then turn towards the WTC at the last minute when at a much lower altitude. I'm sure the pilots were aware of the huge risk of not being able to pull out of the power dive and missing the target.

Instead they take an absolutely huge risk and fall 20,000 feet in 4 minutes and somehow manage to pull up at exactly the right altitude and fly at an almost horizontal angle into the building. How is this at all coherent?

And just to go on the record, please answer this important question that I think can resolve many of these issues: how many seconds were there between when the power dive ended and when the plane crashed into the WTC? This provides a hypothesis that is refutable by the video evidence.


It's 2009: why do you know so little? I just posted a link to 911myths.com Flight 175 page. Couldn't you take the trouble to look? You can't look at the Wikipedia article on Fight 175?

[goldengoose]

something that everyone seems to neglect...

If a plane is "coming out of a power dive," the transition from straight down to horizontal would pull a lot of g force. If the plane comes apart flying 500+ mph on the horizontal, imagine what would happen if it were to make a turn, especially from vertical to horizontal. A Boeing 767 is designed as an "economy bus", not a fighter jet.

So, if a Boeing 767 came out of a power dive at a rate fast enough to have it horizontal at 540 mph (before wind resistance slowed it down), the plane would be destroyed.

Remember, if the "dive" is shallow enough to not destroy the plane, it won't be going 540 mph due to wind resistance.

If the descent was not constant, but began as a nosedive, the plane would be going too fast to pull out of it without being ripped apart. If it was steeper at the end of the descent, the plane wouldn't gain much speed being in thicker air. (Wind resistance increases exponentially with speed and increases with air thickness. That's why they cruise at 35,000 feet and higher.) If it is a shallow dive, the drag is too great. So, either you have too much drag or you have to pull too much g-force for the plane to survive. Take your pick.


Think of the bottom of a rollercoaster....
One of my students lost his eyeglasses going around a sharp turn on a rollercoaster. Turbulence is nothing compared to coming out of a powerdive. Aloha Airlines plane came apart with turbulence (which propagated the fatigue cracks). And that plane was NOT doing a powerdive. But, it was a "puddle-hopper" going from island to island, so it was flying a lot near sea level. I have a video on my website of a plane losing its tail when it hits the runway too hard on a hard landing.

Hey, have you ever gone too fast around a tight turn? Why does everything in your car get slung around? Turbulence on airplanes rarely tosses stuff around that much.

Perhaps something above will help your understanding of it and give you ideas how to demonstrate it to others.

Powerdives don't help the plane story.


With that information, essentially Ryan Mackey proves no planes! He stated he knows (or believes) it can't fly 540 mph.

Have fun.

No matter if you tell this lie a thousand times, you will never con anybody with a background in aeronautics. You've been told repeatedly that the plane didn't even reach Mach 1. Nobody thinks it would be destroyed, and it wasn't.

[goldengoose]

Riiiiiight, ok so now you are calling benazir bhutto a liar are you? That brave lady went on CNN and told the world that OSAMA WAS KILLED IN 2001, she even named his killer. What a perfect scapegoat, a dead CIA trained operative that can never be caught and never be held accountable.

I think that she would know more about it than you goose , and why on earth would CNN then EDIT that particular piece of information if they have nothing to hide? Quite damaging to the agenda isnt it? And then as coincidence would have it, she was assasinated, but nothing to worry about, it is just a coincidence.

But, you know all this dont you? That's why you have to work so hard to debunk it all.

Tell me goose, if OBL, public enemy number one is just that, why have his family got the contract to rebuild the towers?

What a numpty you are.


Yeah, Osama's family is rebuilding the towers. Okay.

No, Osama was not killed in 2001, but you, predictably, missed the point as entirely as it is possible to miss a point.

Assuming there is no REAL Osama, and the identical double for Osama in all those videos is an actor, why didn't your imaginary conspiracy save their butts in 2006 by announcing that they killed the bogeyman?

They didn't, you know. Instead, they absorbed a crushing beating at the polls. Why didn't they play the Osama card?

Try again.

[queenofleon]

Yeah, Osama's family is rebuilding the towers. Okay.

No, Osama was not killed in 2001, but you, predictably, missed the point as entirely as it is possible to miss a point.

Assuming there is no REAL Osama, and the identical double for Osama in all those videos is an actor, why didn't your imaginary conspiracy save their butts in 2006 by announcing that they killed the bogeyman?

They didn't, you know. Instead, they absorbed a crushing beating at the polls. Why didn't they play the Osama card?

Try again.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, You are more alseep than anyone I have come across.

You dont research, you bark agnst and parrot bull shit.

Dont worry goose, your invite to Bohemian Grove this summer is safe.

Oh and p.s I like the way you completely avoided the Bhutto reference.

[abababba]

It's 2009: why do you know so little? I just posted a link to 911myths.com Flight 175 page. Couldn't you take the trouble to look? You can't look at the Wikipedia article on Fight 175?

Can you please settle down and stop attacking people for asking questions? We are both trying to get to the bottom of this and your language is not helpful. I won't be intimidated by your fear tactics so you should stop using them on me.

I just searched through the links you mentioned and can't find the answer to my question: How many seconds between end of power dive and impact with WTC? I see they report the plane at 9000-9500 feet two minutes before the impact, but I was wondering if there was a better measure of the time between the supposed power dive and the impact.

Please answer Jeff's much more important and detailed question above. Its more relevant to the issue than what I'm talking about.

[bryan]

Assuming there is no REAL Osama, and the identical double for Osama in all those videos is an actor, why didn't your imaginary conspiracy save their butts in 2006 by announcing that they killed the bogeyman?


Ron thinks the jihadists are for real. He has no idea it's the CIA and Mossad who plant the bombs then blame it on the Muslims.

[goldengoose]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, You are more alseep than anyone I have come across.

You dont research, you bark agnst and parrot bull shit.

Dont worry goose, your invite to Bohemian Grove this summer is safe.

Oh and p.s I like the way you completely avoided the Bhutto reference.


Yes, you now understand how the Osama Conundrum completely destroys your fantasy.

The Bhutto reference is trivial. There is no evidence to suggest that Osama is dead, but if he is, Bhutto had no way of knowing.

Again, if your imaginary super-villains knew that Osama was dead, they could have spared themselves a crushing defeat in 2006.

[goldengoose]

Ron thinks the jihadists are for real. He has no idea it's the CIA and Mossad who plant the bombs then blame it on the Muslims.

Of course. The CIA attacked the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the African embassies, and killed American troops in Mogadishu. They did it so that Clinton could do nothing in response.

While this plan is totally insane, admittedly it is quite subtle.

[goldengoose]

Can you please settle down and stop attacking people for asking questions? We are both trying to get to the bottom of this and your language is not helpful. I won't be intimidated by your fear tactics so you should stop using them on me.

I just searched through the links you mentioned and can't find the answer to my question: How many seconds between end of power dive and impact with WTC? I see they report the plane at 9000-9500 feet two minutes before the impact, but I was wondering if there was a better measure of the time between the supposed power dive and the impact.

Please answer Jeff's much more important and detailed question above. Its more relevant to the issue than what I'm talking about.

If I am attacking anything, it is your lack of intellectual curiosity. Dave Bottiglia was featured on a Learning Channel docuumentary several years ago. There are no new revelations in anything I've posted.

Jeff Hill writes nonsense to keep his lunatic fantasy afloat. He will NEVER find an aeronautical engineer who gives him the answer he needs without using deception. He will NEVER ask his questions honestly. When he reveals that the Boeing 767 in question came out of a 24,000 ft. power dive, the speed becomes unremarkable. He knows that. He's a liar and a fraud.

[shure]

If a plane is "coming out of a power dive," the transition from straight down to horizontal would pull a lot of g force. If the plane comes apart flying 500+ mph on the horizontal, imagine what would happen if it were to make a turn, especially from vertical to horizontal. A Boeing 767 is designed as an "economy bus", not a fighter jet.

So, if a Boeing 767 came out of a power dive at a rate fast enough to have it horizontal at 540 mph (before wind resistance slowed it down), the plane would be destroyed.

Remember, if the "dive" is shallow enough to not destroy the plane, it won't be going 540 mph due to wind resistance.

If the descent was not constant, but began as a nosedive, the plane would be going too fast to pull out of it without being ripped apart. If it was steeper at the end of the descent, the plane wouldn't gain much speed being in thicker air. (Wind resistance increases exponentially with speed and increases with air thickness. That's why they cruise at 35,000 feet and higher.) If it is a shallow dive, the drag is too great. So, either you have too much drag or you have to pull too much g-force for the plane to survive. Take your pick.


Think of the bottom of a rollercoaster....
One of my students lost his eyeglasses going around a sharp turn on a rollercoaster. Turbulence is nothing compared to coming out of a powerdive. Aloha Airlines plane came apart with turbulence (which propagated the fatigue cracks). And that plane was NOT doing a powerdive. But, it was a "puddle-hopper" going from island to island, so it was flying a lot near sea level. I have a video on my website of a plane losing its tail when it hits the runway too hard on a hard landing.

Hey, have you ever gone too fast around a tight turn? Why does everything in your car get slung around? Turbulence on airplanes rarely tosses stuff around that much.

Perhaps something above will help your understanding of it and give you ideas how to demonstrate it to others.

Powerdives don't help the plane story.


With that information, essentially Ryan Mackey proves no planes! He stated he knows (or believes) it can't fly 540 mph.

------------------------------------------------------

Blah, blah, blah, repetition eh Ronnie!!!

http://www.pumpitout.com/images/ronaldwieck.jpg

[goldengoose]

If a plane is "coming out of a power dive," the transition from straight down to horizontal would pull a lot of g force. If the plane comes apart flying 500+ mph on the horizontal, imagine what would happen if it were to make a turn, especially from vertical to horizontal. A Boeing 767 is designed as an "economy bus", not a fighter jet.

So, if a Boeing 767 came out of a power dive at a rate fast enough to have it horizontal at 540 mph (before wind resistance slowed it down), the plane would be destroyed.

Remember, if the "dive" is shallow enough to not destroy the plane, it won't be going 540 mph due to wind resistance.

If the descent was not constant, but began as a nosedive, the plane would be going too fast to pull out of it without being ripped apart. If it was steeper at the end of the descent, the plane wouldn't gain much speed being in thicker air. (Wind resistance increases exponentially with speed and increases with air thickness. That's why they cruise at 35,000 feet and higher.) If it is a shallow dive, the drag is too great. So, either you have too much drag or you have to pull too much g-force for the plane to survive. Take your pick.


Think of the bottom of a rollercoaster....
One of my students lost his eyeglasses going around a sharp turn on a rollercoaster. Turbulence is nothing compared to coming out of a powerdive. Aloha Airlines plane came apart with turbulence (which propagated the fatigue cracks). And that plane was NOT doing a powerdive. But, it was a "puddle-hopper" going from island to island, so it was flying a lot near sea level. I have a video on my website of a plane losing its tail when it hits the runway too hard on a hard landing.

Hey, have you ever gone too fast around a tight turn? Why does everything in your car get slung around? Turbulence on airplanes rarely tosses stuff around that much.

Perhaps something above will help your understanding of it and give you ideas how to demonstrate it to others.

Powerdives don't help the plane story.


With that information, essentially Ryan Mackey proves no planes! He stated he knows (or believes) it can't fly 540 mph.

------------------------------------------------------

Blah, blah, blah, repetition eh Ronnie!!!

http://www.pumpitout.com/images/ronaldwieck.jpg



Maybe if you repeat your nonsense a few more times it will suddenly become true.

No, the plane won't be destroyed when it levels off, and you can't con anyone who knows anything. It lost 24,000 feet in less than five minutes. That's a helluva dive, but it ain't VERTICAL.

[bryan]

If it's a "classic" demolition, why were beams and columns heaved hundreds of feet yet I don't see that in one of the videos above?


I didn't say it was a classic demolition. I said that pictures of the ejected debris falling in a parabolic curve (upwards and outwards) are "the classic image of the demolition of the towers".

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC.jpg


Another point people haven't discussed much: why would a hijacker do a power dive? Why not descend a little more slowly? There are 3 or more major airports in the area they could pretend like they are landing at and then turn towards the WTC at the last minute when at a much lower altitude. I'm sure the pilots were aware of the huge risk of not being able to pull out of the power dive and missing the target.


I tried to discuss this, but got no response. (No surprise there).

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56862&page=4 (post #37)

[abababba]

For how many seconds after the power dive would the plane be able to travel at above 500 MPH at 700 feet altitude even if it could level off successfully?

How much does the action of leveling off itself reduce the plane's speed?

[goldengoose]

I didn't say it was a classic demolition. I said that pictures of the ejected debris falling in a parabolic curve (upwards and outwards) are "the classic image of the demolition of the towers".

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC.jpg




I tried to discuss this, but got no response. (No surprise there).

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56862&page=4 (post #37)


How can you discuss something that has no answer? To be more precise, the answer died with the hijackers. I can guess that those hijackers wanted to reach their target as quickly as possible. Once the authorities determined that planes were being hijacked, the hijackers wouldn't be able to predict the response. They therefore cruised at a normal altitude, enabling them to reach the NYC area without delay and making them more difficult to distinguish from other blips, and then descended rapidly to finish their mission. Neither I nor anyone else can read minds.

Jeff Hill keeps ignoring, for obvious reasons, the elephant in the room. When the transponder in Flight 175 is turned off, the plane is lost to the air traffic controllers. The flight path for the plane calls for it to be headed to the West Coast, but no plane on the controllers' screens is on that path. An unidentified plane shows up in the vicinity of NYC and suddenly begins losing altitude at a shocking rate. That plane disappears at the WTC complex.

Gee, maybe that plane is the missing Flight 175. Duh!!!!! So far, it's 99.9% certain that Flight 175 crashed into one of the twin towers. When the wreckage of the plane is found and remains of passengers and crew are identified, it becomes 100%.

You people are oblivious to how ridiculous you make yourselves look.

[abababba]

OK, questions that do have answers:

How many seconds between the end of the power dive and impact?

Would the plane decelerate after coming out of the power dive, so that if we see a plane traveling in a close to horizontal path after the power dive, would it be traveling more slowly when closer to the WTC?

If a plane can only travel at 300 MPH at 700 feet without a power dive but can travel above 500 MPH in a power dive, how long can the above 500 MPH speed be maintained after the power dive is completed? That is, how much does resistance slow down the plane after the dive is complete?

How much does the plane need to slow down in order to go from a power dive to a horizontal path? How much control does the pilot have at the point of this change? What is the probability of success of this turn ex ante?

[queenofleon]

How can you discuss something that has no answer? To be more precise, the answer died with the hijackers. I can guess that those hijackers wanted to reach their target as quickly as possible. Once the authorities determined that planes were being hijacked, the hijackers wouldn't be able to predict the response. They therefore cruised at a normal altitude, enabling them to reach the NYC area without delay and making them more difficult to distinguish from other blips, and then descended rapidly to finish their mission. Neither I nor anyone else can read minds.

Jeff Hill keeps ignoring, for obvious reasons, the elephant in the room. When the transponder in Flight 175 is turned off, the plane is lost to the air traffic controllers. The flight path for the plane calls for it to be headed to the West Coast, but no plane on the controllers' screens is on that path. An unidentified plane shows up in the vicinity of NYC and suddenly begins losing altitude at a shocking rate. That plane disappears at the WTC complex.

Gee, maybe that plane is the missing Flight 175. Duh!!!!! So far, it's 99.9% certain that Flight 175 crashed into one of the twin towers. When the wreckage of the plane is found and remains of passengers and crew are identified, it becomes 100%.

You people are oblivious to how ridiculous you make yourselves look.

We dont care how we look, no truth seeker cares how they look. That's your ego talking, and from your tone you appear to have too much of that.

Can I ask Goose, do you believe in the new world order? I am guessing you dont?

Why are you here, and what prompted you to join?

[abababba]

We dont care how we look, no truth seeker cares how they look. That's your ego talking, and from your tone you appear to have too much of that.

Can I ask Goose, do you believe in the new world order? I am guessing you dont?

Why are you here, and what prompted you to join?

I think he should be allowed to be here. Its obvious to most observers that there is a high probability a poster which posts 50-70% in ad hominem is unlikely to be credible.

GoldenGoose doesn't do his side of the debate any favors by continuing to attack everyone that disagrees with him. I say we should let him speak for himself.

[queenofleon]

I think he should be allowed to be here. Its obvious to most observers that there is a high probability a poster which posts 50-70% in ad hominem is unlikely to be credible.

GoldenGoose doesn't do his side of the debate any favors by continuing to attack everyone that disagrees with him. I say we should let him speak for himself.

I agree he should be here, we all have equal rights to say what we want whether I agree with him or not. I can just choose to ignore his posts if he bothers me that much. But imo goose is talking complete and utter crap, so from that point of view is only making himself look like the fool. So let him post away.

I am interested in his answer to my question too...

[goldengoose]

We dont care how we look, no truth seeker cares how they look. That's your ego talking, and from your tone you appear to have too much of that.

Can I ask Goose, do you believe in the new world order? I am guessing you dont?

Why are you here, and what prompted you to join?


Of course I don't believe in the New World Order. It's just an empty phrase used by politicians signifying nothing much.

I'm here because the people are pretty friendly and I'm interested in strange beliefs.

[goldengoose]

I think he should be allowed to be here. Its obvious to most observers that there is a high probability a poster which posts 50-70% in ad hominem is unlikely to be credible.

GoldenGoose doesn't do his side of the debate any favors by continuing to attack everyone that disagrees with him. I say we should let him speak for himself.


You're not disagreeing with me when you refuse to accept an explanation provided by a real scientist. I'm not an authority on either physics or engineering. To be rational is to make an effort to understand.

There are certain themes that I return to over and over. I ask you to consider why no scientists or engineers from countries unfriendly to the U.S. find errors in the NIST Report. It's something you should ponder.

[abababba]

You're not disagreeing with me when you refuse to accept an explanation provided by a real scientist. I'm not an authority on either physics or engineering. To be rational is to make an effort to understand.

There are certain themes that I return to over and over. I ask you to consider why no scientists or engineers from countries unfriendly to the U.S. find errors in the NIST Report. It's something you should ponder.

There are many rational honest people who have not looked at the evidence. They think ex ante that there is such a low probability that the event was an inside job. This belief is probably correct given their information set. Once they do look at the evidence, most of them become convinced. This is true for much of the major media who think its nothing but a crazy conspiracy theory so much so that they don't look at the evidence in detail.

I did not believe it was an inside job until last summer when I saw the blueprint for truth by Richard Gage. I would have agreed with all of their a priori logic before doing this. But after seeing his evidence, I could not deny that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolitions.

Shortly after I listened to an interview with Shyam Sunder after the building 7 report. I could tell by listening to him that he knew the collapse was a demolition but was just covering it up. His team decided that controlled demolition was not a credible hypothesis even before looking at the evidence, this is a totally unscientific approach. After several good reasons why 7 was a demolition he responded along the lines of "that's not a hypothesis, just a bunch of speculation." Then I saw him and other NIST scientists stumble through several basic physics questions in order to contort the truth to match their story.

Most other scientists just accept the mainstream without looking at the evidence much. Others construct computer models that leave out key assumptions in a search for a predetermined conclusion, just like NIST.

Here is my key question to you: How many scientists in the world have tried to prove that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolitions?

I believe the number is very small, they are searching for an answer and do not give up until the right set of assumptions gets it, even if that set of assumptions misses key features.

[abababba]

OK, questions that do have answers:

How many seconds between the end of the power dive and impact?

Would the plane decelerate after coming out of the power dive, so that if we see a plane traveling in a close to horizontal path after the power dive, would it be traveling more slowly when closer to the WTC?

If a plane can only travel at 300 MPH at 700 feet without a power dive but can travel above 500 MPH in a power dive, how long can the above 500 MPH speed be maintained after the power dive is completed? That is, how much does resistance slow down the plane after the dive is complete?

How much does the plane need to slow down in order to go from a power dive to a horizontal path? How much control does the pilot have at the point of this change? What is the probability of success of this turn ex ante?

GoldenGoose: if you don't have answers to any of these questions, can you keep them in mind next time you are talking to one of these "real scientists"

[goldengoose]

There are many rational honest people who have not looked at the evidence. They think ex ante that there is such a low probability that the event was an inside job. This belief is probably correct given their information set. Once they do look at the evidence, most of them become convinced. This is true for much of the major media who think its nothing but a crazy conspiracy theory so much so that they don't look at the evidence in detail.

I did not believe it was an inside job until last summer when I saw the blueprint for truth by Richard Gage. I would have agreed with all of their a priori logic before doing this. But after seeing his evidence, I could not deny that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolitions.

Shortly after I listened to an interview with Shyam Sunder after the building 7 report. I could tell by listening to him that he knew the collapse was a demolition but was just covering it up. His team decided that controlled demolition was not a credible hypothesis even before looking at the evidence, this is a totally unscientific approach. After several good reasons why 7 was a demolition he responded along the lines of "that's not a hypothesis, just a bunch of speculation." Then I saw him and other NIST scientists stumble through several basic physics questions in order to contort the truth to match their story.

Most other scientists just accept the mainstream without looking at the evidence much. Others construct computer models that leave out key assumptions in a search for a predetermined conclusion, just like NIST.

Here is my key question to you: How many scientists in the world have tried to prove that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolitions?

I believe the number is very small, they are searching for an answer and do not give up until the right set of assumptions gets it, even if that set of assumptions misses key features.


But Gage is a complete fool who has absolutely no evidence. There are no soundless explosives. His attempt to model the towers by dropping cardboard boxes would be embarrassing for the typical angry kid. Gage is supposed to be an architect, for chrissakes! Do you understand that this man, who has never worked on anything bigger than a gymnasium, has no clue about the concept of scale?

Gage is a laughingstock among demolition professionals. He thinks that bursts of compressed air are "squibs." You can learn to tell the difference very easily if you're willing to listen to people who blow up buildings for a living. When an explosive goes off, you see a sudden burst of dust, smoke, and ejecta that gradually dissipates. What you see on ALL the collapse videos is just the opposite: a plume of dust and ejecta that gradually expands. Look for yourself.

[goldengoose]

GoldenGoose: if you don't have answers to any of these questions, can you keep them in mind next time you are talking to one of these "real scientists"


What purpose do these questions serve? The dive of Flight 175 was--obviously--not perfectly vertical. If it interests you, I can ask Mackey on Monday how long it would take, for example, for a plane coming out of a dive at 600 mph to slow down to 500 mph. After you get your answer, what's next? Do you accuse him of lying? Don't you see that you're headed nowhere?

Why the scare quotes? Does someone who works at the NASA Jet Propulsion laboratory not qualify as a real scientist? The reason none of the loudest charlatans in the fantasy movement would dare to face Mackey in debate is that they understand very well just how much of a real scientist he is.

[goldengoose]

For how many seconds after the power dive would the plane be able to travel at above 500 MPH at 700 feet altitude even if it could level off successfully?

How much does the action of leveling off itself reduce the plane's speed?


Take a look at the NTSB's Radar Data Impact Speed Study:

http://www.911myths.com/images/c/c1/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11%2C_UA175.pdf

[abababba]

But Gage is a complete fool who has absolutely no evidence. There are no soundless explosives. His attempt to model the towers by dropping cardboard boxes would be embarrassing for the typical angry kid. Gage is supposed to be an architect, for chrissakes! Do you understand that this man, who has never worked on anything bigger than a gymnasium, has no clue about the concept of scale?

Gage is a laughingstock among demolition professionals. He thinks that bursts of compressed air are "squibs." You can learn to tell the difference very easily if you're willing to listen to people who blow up buildings for a living. When an explosive goes off, you see a sudden burst of dust, smoke, and ejecta that gradually dissipates. What you see on ALL the collapse videos is just the opposite: a plume of dust and ejecta that gradually expands. Look for yourself.

Do you agree that debunking the debunker is not equivalent to proving the official story?

Lets say Richard Gage produces 20 arguments against the official story and you prove 10 of them wrong. If each of these arguments by itself disproves the official story, then you haven't accomplished very much, the official story is still wrong. You have really only presented one challenge to Gage that I consider most likely correct (the dropping blocks issue) out of the countless proofs for demolition in the blueprint video.

Now lets say the government makes 20 claims about 911 and 10 of them are demonstrably wrong. The response is completely different. We immediately know there is some type of cover up and much more likely to be inside involvement.

We need to focus on the key arguments for demolition and not attack the man's character unless it directly relates to the evidence.

When you say soundless explosives, I believe Richard talks in his presentation about many people hearing the sounds of explosions. I'm sure you would agree that different types of explosives make different types of noises. I don't understand the arguments to debunk squibs, these are extremely localized puffs of air happening very close to the center of the building. Most of all, they come 20-60 stories below the collapse of the buildings, so how can they be compressed air? If you look at 10 different controlled demolitions, I would doubt the squibs look the same in every one, but they have similar characteristics shown in the WTC demolition.

He isn't a laughingstock to me and neither are real scientists. I'm trying to understand both sides of the story, but he presents a better case.

[abababba]

What purpose do these questions serve? The dive of Flight 175 was--obviously--not perfectly vertical. If it interests you, I can ask Mackey on Monday how long it would take, for example, for a plane coming out of a dive at 600 mph to slow down to 500 mph. After you get your answer, what's next? Do you accuse him of lying? Don't you see that you're headed nowhere?

Why the scare quotes? Does someone who works at the NASA Jet Propulsion laboratory not qualify as a real scientist? The reason none of the loudest charlatans in the fantasy movement would dare to face Mackey in debate is that they understand very well just how much of a real scientist he is.


The power dive strikes me as something that needs to be fleshed out more in a mechanical fashion. We have all agreed pretty much about the possibility that a power dive can result in speeds above 500 MPH, but there isn't much context around whether flight 175 displayed the characteristics of a plane coming out of a power dive. It would be better if we developed testable and refutable theories about the performance of a plane during and after a power dive to resolve this issue. If someone presents a coherent story consistent with all the evidence, I will put much less weight, if any, on the impossible speeds argument.

[abababba]

Take a look at the NTSB's Radar Data Impact Speed Study:

http://www.911myths.com/images/c/c1/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11%2C_UA175.pdf


For a plane in a power dive, wouldn't we expect acceleration during the dive? In the graph in this document, the plane stays reasonably close to 500 from 9:01-9:02:30 during which its supposed to be making a power dive and then pulling out of it.

You can't tell precisely from this graph, but it looks like the rate of descent is similar in the final seconds before impact (about 2000 feet in the last 20 seconds), while we see planes traveling at a near horizontal trajectory for more than a few seconds in some of the videos.

In Jeff's video from 25:13-25:20 there is a plane that does not descend much vertically and then hits the tower. This plane was supposed to descend about 1000 feet in the last 10 seconds according to that graph that you linked to.

Does anyone else know of a plane visible for longer than 7 seconds in other videos?

[goldengoose]

Do you agree that debunking the debunker is not equivalent to proving the official story?

Lets say Richard Gage produces 20 arguments against the official story and you prove 10 of them wrong. If each of these arguments by itself disproves the official story, then you haven't accomplished very much, the official story is still wrong. You have really only presented one challenge to Gage that I consider most likely correct (the dropping blocks issue) out of the countless proofs for demolition in the blueprint video.

Now lets say the government makes 20 claims about 911 and 10 of them are demonstrably wrong. The response is completely different. We immediately know there is some type of cover up and much more likely to be inside involvement.

We need to focus on the key arguments for demolition and not attack the man's character unless it directly relates to the evidence.

When you say soundless explosives, I believe Richard talks in his presentation about many people hearing the sounds of explosions. I'm sure you would agree that different types of explosives make different types of noises. I don't understand the arguments to debunk squibs, these are extremely localized puffs of air happening very close to the center of the building. Most of all, they come 20-60 stories below the collapse of the buildings, so how can they be compressed air? If you look at 10 different controlled demolitions, I would doubt the squibs look the same in every one, but they have similar characteristics shown in the WTC demolition.

He isn't a laughingstock to me and neither are real scientists. I'm trying to understand both sides of the story, but he presents a better case.


But the only reason Gage isn't a laughingstock to you is that you lack critical thinking skills. You have an agenda and are unpersuadable by evidence or reason.

Gage gets nothing right--NOTHING! Demolition professionals have explained why the puffs of compressed air observed during the collapses of the towers do not resemble "squibs." You were unable to understand the explanation, but that is not the fault of the experts.

Gage is either incredibly stupid, totally dishonest, or both when he pretends that isolated explosions suggest a controlled demolition. We all get the idea that things--computers, refrigerators, generators, vending machines, etc.--blow up in office fires. Certainly people heard the sounds of explosions. What no one heard--because it didn't happen--was a series of simultaneous blasts followed by the collapse of the building.

There are no "key" arguments for demolition. Demolition professionals regard the cherished myths of the fantasy movement as pure moonshine. Absolutely nothing suggests the use of explosives anywhere in the WTC complex.

Gage claims to be an architect, yet he piled up cardboard boxes to make a bogus point. Like Anders Bjorkman, Gage is clueless about problems of scale. Here's a very easy test: a 6-foot tall gorilla weighs 500 pounds. How much would King Kong weigh if he stands 24-feet tall?

If you find this problem childishly simple, remember that Gage and Bjorkman give no hints that they could solve it.

[queenofleon]

Goose, what about the NY fire fighters that state clearly on camera that they saw and heard the detonators going off, floor after floor "boom, boom, boom,boom"

will you call them liars too?

Why do you ignore the fact that they have said that and they were on the scene?


You seem to overlook important testimony and when someone pulls you on it simply disregard them as fakes or unreliable.

[abababba]

Gage gets nothing right--NOTHING! .


Golden: this is whats called jumping the shark. How can he get nothing right? Now all I have to do is prove he got one thing right to show you are lying again. Well he is an architect, that's not disputable.

Whatever the expansions of air were, how can you explain them happening 20-60 floors below the collapse of the building? I still haven't heard a rational explanation for this.

Other facts he got right:

The buildings fell through the path of greatest resistance.
The upper block was destroyed quickly and so couldn't crush the lower part of the building.
Symmetrical collapse
Fast expanding dust clouds
Near constant acceleration doesn't allow for the top part to be crushing the bottom part.
Building 7 collapse onset at the base.
Building 7 collapses into own footprint.
Building 7 fell at very near free fall speed.
Much of the steel immediately shipped off before a full investigation.
Eye witness accounts of explosions.
Foreknowledge, including a countdown until building 7 collapses.

He literally gets nothing right eh?

His presentation is also constantly evolving as people make valid criticisms.

Now lets get back to what I said above, the link you sent said 175 fell almost 1000 feet in the 10 seconds before impact but I just pointed to a clip with almost no descent in the last 7 seconds. How do you explain that?

[goldengoose]

Goose, what about the NY fire fighters that state clearly on camera that they saw and heard the detonators going off, floor after floor "boom, boom, boom,boom"

will you call them liars too?

Why do you ignore the fact that they have said that and they were on the scene?


You seem to overlook important testimony and when someone pulls you on it simply disregard them as fakes or unreliable.


No--ZERO--firefighters say anything about "detonators." No firefighters believe that explosives were used in the towers or anywhere lese in the TWC complex because THEY FOUND NO EVIDENCE, such as detonator caps, bits of wiring, or chemical signatures of shaped charges on any structural steel.

The FDNY lost 343 men that day. They are not in on it. No firefighters are are screaming about an inside job.

[goldengoose]

Golden: this is whats called jumping the shark. How can he get nothing right? Now all I have to do is prove he got one thing right to show you are lying again. Well he is an architect, that's not disputable.

Whatever the expansions of air were, how can you explain them happening 20-60 floors below the collapse of the building? I still haven't heard a rational explanation for this.

Other facts he got right:

The buildings fell through the path of greatest resistance.
The upper block was destroyed quickly and so couldn't crush the lower part of the building.
Symmetrical collapse
Fast expanding dust clouds
Near constant acceleration doesn't allow for the top part to be crushing the bottom part.
Building 7 collapse onset at the base.
Building 7 collapses into own footprint.
Building 7 fell at very near free fall speed.
Much of the steel immediately shipped off before a full investigation.
Eye witness accounts of explosions.
Foreknowledge, including a countdown until building 7 collapses.

He literally gets nothing right eh?

His presentation is also constantly evolving as people make valid criticisms.

Now lets get back to what I said above, the link you sent said 175 fell almost 1000 feet in the 10 seconds before impact but I just pointed to a clip with almost no descent in the last 7 seconds. How do you explain that?


Fantasists make themselves look ridiculous by pretending that someone they have NEVER come close to catching in a lie is lying "again." You will never find any lie told by me.

No, Gage gets nothing right. NIST released last summer its long-awaited report on building 7. You haven't bothered to glance at it.

The collapse did not start at the base; nobody thinks it did.

"Fast expanding dust clouds" is a meaningless phrase signifying nothing.

WTC 7 heavily damaged a building across the street when it fell--so much for the "neat footprint."

The building did not fall at "free fall speed"--nobody thinks it did.

Yes, things blow up in office fires. No simultaneous series of explosions were heard or were recorded when the building collapsed. This is the biggest blow to your fantasy: NO EXPLOSIONS WERE HEARD DURING THE COLLAPSE.
Rmember, the collapse of WTC 7 was watched by millions. Check the NIST Report for details.

No steel was shipped anywhere "immediately." It lay around in recovery yards for months, where it was inspected by various agencies.

There was no "countdown." This fabrication has been thoroughly debunked.


You are attempting to compare a video with radar data. Clearly the plane had to level off to hit the building. Indeed, it had to bank in order not to miss the target.

[goldengoose]

The power dive strikes me as something that needs to be fleshed out more in a mechanical fashion. We have all agreed pretty much about the possibility that a power dive can result in speeds above 500 MPH, but there isn't much context around whether flight 175 displayed the characteristics of a plane coming out of a power dive. It would be better if we developed testable and refutable theories about the performance of a plane during and after a power dive to resolve this issue. If someone presents a coherent story consistent with all the evidence, I will put much less weight, if any, on the impossible speeds argument.


What did Mackey get wrong?

[abababba]

No--ZERO--firefighters say anything about "detonators." No firefighters believe that explosives were used in the towers or anywhere lese in the TWC complex because THEY FOUND NO EVIDENCE, such as detonator caps, bits of wiring, or chemical signatures of shaped charges on any structural steel.

The FDNY lost 343 men that day. They are not in on it. No firefighters are are screaming about an inside job.

Various videos of explosions and witnesses about explosions on 911:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zyjY05wzao&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

The final video argues that only 2% of firefighter accounts did not report explosions in their testimony so it would be hard for your assertions to be further from the truth.

Obviously, not all explosives have wires, if no wires is your only defense, then what about wireless explosives?

[abababba]

What did Mackey get wrong?

Its not what is wrong but only what is left out that I am concerned about. It seems like I have asked 4 or 5 questions about the performance of a plane during and after a power dive that have not been answered and the answers would help clarify whether the theory is plausible or not.

Still the most important outstanding question in my mind is why the radar data doesn't show a leveling off as depicted in the video evidence. You do agree that if the plane leveled off and traveled nearly horizontally for 7 seconds that we should not see a 1000 foot descent in the radar data in the last 10 seconds?

It would be better if we had the numbers underlying the graph to make sure everything I am saying is correct.

[abababba]

Fantasists make themselves look ridiculous by pretending that someone they have NEVER come close to catching in a lie is lying "again." You will never find any lie told by me.

No, Gage gets nothing right. NIST released last summer its long-awaited report on building 7. You haven't bothered to glance at it.

The collapse did not start at the base; nobody thinks it did.

"Fast expanding dust clouds" is a meaningless phrase signifying nothing.

WTC 7 heavily damaged a building across the street when it fell--so much for the "neat footprint."

The building did not fall at "free fall speed"--nobody thinks it did.

Yes, things blow up in office fires. No simultaneous series of explosions were heard or were recorded when the building collapsed. This is the biggest blow to your fantasy: NO EXPLOSIONS WERE HEARD DURING THE COLLAPSE.
Rmember, the collapse of WTC 7 was watched by millions. Check the NIST Report for details.

No steel was shipped anywhere "immediately." It lay around in recovery yards for months, where it was inspected by various agencies.

There was no "countdown." This fabrication has been thoroughly debunked.


You are attempting to compare a video with radar data. Clearly the plane had to level off to hit the building. Indeed, it had to bank in order not to miss the target.

I didn't read the whole thing but this is a red herring, I knew as soon as Shyam Sunder said on a talk show that they ruled out demolition before even starting the investigation, that it was a biased report. There are people much more qualified than me that have looked at it in more detail. David Chandler's video showing the implications of NIST admitting freefall is most damming here. NIST admitted in their final report that the building fell at a constant acceleration for several seconds, so now you are yourself contradicting NIST. Constant acceleration, as they admitted earlier, implies there is no resistance from the building underneath. Again, I said near free fall not free fall, so you misquoted me.

If the collapse of 7 didn't start at the base, then you would see the top part of the building crushing the bottom part of the building so the collapse must start near the base if this doesn't happen.

At least 80% of steel was scrapped before any investigation.

What about all the other factual issues in the original post you haven't even touched that Gage gets correct? When will you admit that you made a statement that cannot possibly be true (Gage never got anything right)? I can't believe that you would make such a statement. We can at least agree that he is correct the buildings fell through the path of greatest resistance. We can at least agree he is an architect. Are you unable to even see that?

[goldengoose]

I didn't read the whole thing but this is a red herring, I knew as soon as Shyam Sunder said on a talk show that they ruled out demolition before even starting the investigation, that it was a biased report. There are people much more qualified than me that have looked at it in more detail. David Chandler's video showing the implications of NIST admitting freefall is most damming here. NIST admitted in their final report that the building fell at a constant acceleration for several seconds, so now you are yourself contradicting NIST. Constant acceleration, as they admitted earlier, implies there is no resistance from the building underneath. Again, I said near free fall not free fall, so you misquoted me.

If the collapse of 7 didn't start at the base, then you would see the top part of the building crushing the bottom part of the building so the collapse must start near the base if this doesn't happen.

At least 80% of steel was scrapped before any investigation.

What about all the other factual issues in the original post you haven't even touched that Gage gets correct? When will you admit that you made a statement that cannot possibly be true (Gage never got anything right)? I can't believe that you would make such a statement. We can at least agree that he is correct the buildings fell through the path of greatest resistance. We can at least agree he is an architect. Are you unable to even see that?


Gage gets NOTHING right. He is an architect who has never worled on anything larger than a gymnasium. When he debated Mark Roberts, he was exposed as a fraud and a know-nothing.

You are wrong about the steel. It lay around for months.

Nobody thinks the collapse of WTC started at the base. The videos prove that it didn't.

NIST spent time investigating demolition theories and found them to be baseless. Again, there are no SOUNDS OF EXPLOSIVES on the recorded footage of the collapse.

Instead of parroting nonsense, why not take a look at the NIST Report?

[goldengoose]

Various videos of explosions and witnesses about explosions on 911:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zyjY05wzao&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

The final video argues that only 2% of firefighter accounts did not report explosions in their testimony so it would be hard for your assertions to be further from the truth.

Obviously, not all explosives have wires, if no wires is your only defense, then what about wireless explosives?


Apparently, nothing can persuade to stop confusing explosions with explosives. You might be interested to learn about the eyewitness testimonies:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

Prepping buildings the size of the twin towers for demolition has never been attempted. The task would require teams of demolition specialists working for months.

[abababba]

Gage gets NOTHING right. He is an architect who has never worled on anything larger than a gymnasium. When he debated Mark Roberts, he was exposed as a fraud and a know-nothing.

You are wrong about the steel. It lay around for months.

Nobody thinks the collapse of WTC started at the base. The videos prove that it didn't.

NIST spent time investigating demolition theories and found them to be baseless. Again, there are no SOUNDS OF EXPLOSIVES on the recorded footage of the collapse.

Instead of parroting nonsense, why not take a look at the NIST Report?

Now you are directly distorting what I said. I was talking about building 7 starting at the bottom and you say WTC. That is a distortion unless you make it clear its WTC 7.

You can't even answer basic questions like did the building fall through the path of greatest resistance? If so your comments about Gage are not true.

Was the upper block largely destroyed when most of the buildings were still intact? If so your comments about Gage are lies.

Did NIST admit constant acceleration for 2 seconds in their final report? Did they say constant acceleration meant no resistance from the underlying structure below? If so what you are saying is not true.

I cannot believe you won't acknowledge even the basic facts. We can't have a discussion unless you acknowledge that some things that happened actually did happen.

[abababba]

Apparently, nothing can persuade to stop confusing explosions with explosives. You might be interested to learn about the eyewitness testimonies:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

Prepping buildings the size of the twin towers for demolition has never been attempted. The task would require teams of demolition specialists working for months.

My opinion is that they most likely used mini-nukes in combination with other conventional explosives. How long does it take the team to set up one of these?

By the way, can we get back to the purpose of this thread, which is discussing the Continuos Pieces movie. I have asked several questions that will shed a lot of light on the issue of whether a power dive actually happened. So far your responses have just been to ask why I am asking questions. I believe they are valid and will shed light on what actually happened and whether a power dive is possible. You are unwilling to make additional predictions that seem obvious to most observers. One possibility is because you know these will be refuted with the visual evidence and supposed radar data.

[goldengoose]

Now you are directly distorting what I said. I was talking about building 7 starting at the bottom and you say WTC. That is a distortion unless you make it clear its WTC 7.

You can't even answer basic questions like did the building fall through the path of greatest resistance? If so your comments about Gage are not true.

Was the upper block largely destroyed when most of the buildings were still intact? If so your comments about Gage are lies.

Did NIST admit constant acceleration for 2 seconds in their final report? Did they say constant acceleration meant no resistance from the underlying structure below? If so what you are saying is not true.

I cannot believe you won't acknowledge even the basic facts. We can't have a discussion unless you acknowledge that some things that happened actually did happen.


You should be able to figure out that I left out the "7" following WTC.

Why do you want to pretend that you are discussing something when you won't look at the NIST Report? Is it possible that some of your questions might be answered there? Here's the place to start:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

[abababba]

You should be able to figure out that I left out the "7" following WTC.

Why do you want to pretend that you are discussing something when you won't look at the NIST Report? Is it possible that some of your questions might be answered there? Here's the place to start:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

You are just trying to change the subject again. No, reading a 1000 page report written by somebody who admitted to deciding what the answer was before even starting will not be a good use of my time. This is a classic misdirection technique and a what I would call a data dump or as Kevin Ryan calls it, an INRAT (I'm not gona read all that). I'm not going to read it, but I did watch several press conferences and interviews with Shyam Sunder and other NIST scientists. They did not perform well and could not answer straight forward questions, even trying to cover up the fact that the report confused "constant velocity" with "constant acceleration"

Now, lets get back to the fact that you are unwilling to answer any other questions about a power dive besides the fact that its possible for a plane to go more than 500 MPH after a power dive. There are many other interesting questions that I have asked and you continually change the subject. You won't engage me on this ground, that is clear. The power dive theory is vacuous until these questions are answered, until then it is only an excuse without a firm foundation.

I think there is a high likelihood that the power dive theory will not stand up to both the radar and video evidence as I have said. In order to prove this, I need someone to first answer my questions about the performance of a plane during a power dive.

[goldengoose]

You are just trying to change the subject again. No, reading a 1000 page report written by somebody who admitted to deciding what the answer was before even starting will not be a good use of my time. This is a classic misdirection technique and a what I would call a data dump or as Kevin Ryan calls it, an INRAT (I'm not gona read all that). I'm not going to read it, but I did watch several press conferences and interviews with Shyam Sunder and other NIST scientists. They did not perform well and could not answer straight forward questions, even trying to cover up the fact that the report confused "constant velocity" with "constant acceleration"

Now, lets get back to the fact that you are unwilling to answer any other questions about a power dive besides the fact that its possible for a plane to go more than 500 MPH after a power dive. There are many other interesting questions that I have asked and you continually change the subject. You won't engage me on this ground, that is clear. The power dive theory is vacuous until these questions are answered, until then it is only an excuse without a firm foundation.

I think there is a high likelihood that the power dive theory will not stand up to both the radar and video evidence as I have said. In order to prove this, I need someone to first answer my questions about the performance of a plane during a power dive.

There is no "power dive theory." Flight 175 IN FACT lost over 24,000 feet in 4 minutes 50 seconds. That qualifies as a power dive. It is no one's "theory."

Here is a response Mackey wrote last June to some typical nonsense spouted by John Lear:

I assume this is John Lear of the Lear Jet. It's important to keep in mind that, just because one may be an engineer, does not mean that one's opinions must be accepted without support. That goes for me as well.

Having said that, most of his comments are valid, but they are also irrelevant.

Mr. Lear is correct in stating that at low altitudes, an aircraft would probably be "Q-limited," i.e. limited by dynamic pressure, rather than Mach-limited. However, this is only true for sustained and level flight. The two limits are different. The Mach limit is a limit of control authority, whereas the Q-limit is a limit of thrust versus drag. If you exceed the Mach limit, you are likely to break up or lose control. If you exceed the Q-limit, you will simply slow down until your engines can keep up with the speed. There are other limiting factors, some destructive, such as the thermal or vibrational/frictional limit, but we need not concern ourselves with these.

The reason none of these are relevant is because our aircraft is not in sustained, level flight. It is diving steeply from 20-odd thousand feet, and it needs only to keep these speeds at low altitude for a few seconds. Inertia and gravity become factors that push the aircraft's maximum transient speed well above its maximum sustained speed.
Again, as Egypt Air 990 proves, by demonstration, it is possible for a Boeing 767 to exceed 600 MPH at sea level, for a brief period of time if you do not care about flying the aircraft ever again. The one-sigma upper bound for the highest speed claimed of any of the September 11th aircraft is only 561 MPH (if I remember correctly, see NCSTAR1-2B), according to NIST. There is, therefore, no question whatsoever that the speeds claimed are achievable. The only counter-argument possible is to claim Egypt Air 990 is also a government cover-up.

The comments below regarding dive speed VD are more relevant, since they too consider control limits rather than thrust limits and thus do not only apply in level flight. However, it is still not a good fit to this problem. In a dive that pilots intend to recover from, one would not necessarily go to full throttle and try to increase speed. It is also not true that exceeding VD leads to a "bucking bronco" effect -- it may or may not. What is more likely is that control authority will decrease due to stalling of the control surfaces. The ride may be reasonably smooth. Compare, for instance, the events of China Air 006, which actually managed to recover and land safely, despite breaking the sound barrier and diving at over 30,000 feet per minute.
It is also completely reasonable to expect a Boeing 767 to remain controllable beyond the VD speed, so long as you don't try anything terribly complicated. There is considerable margin in the design. The limiting factor beyond this speed may be survival of control surfaces, etc., rather than the entire aircraft going to pieces immediately. It takes no imagination at all to suppose a 767 could remain flying, and controllable, for only a few tens of seconds outside the normal operating envelope. The limits here are certification limits, not physical limits.

The notion that an individual familiar with aircraft could actually propose the terminal moments of AA175 were physically impossible is hard for me to swallow. I can also only assume that Mr. Lear believes the combined workforce of Boeing, not to mention their competitors, are part of the imagined conspiracy. That is a very large conspiracy indeed.

Thanks,
Ryan Mackey

[abababba]

There is no "power dive theory." Flight 175 IN FACT lost over 24,000 feet in 4 minutes 50 seconds. That qualifies as a power dive. It is no one's "theory."

Here is a response Mackey wrote last June to some typical nonsense spouted by John Lear:

I assume this is John Lear of the Lear Jet. It's important to keep in mind that, just because one may be an engineer, does not mean that one's opinions must be accepted without support. That goes for me as well.

Having said that, most of his comments are valid, but they are also irrelevant.

Mr. Lear is correct in stating that at low altitudes, an aircraft would probably be "Q-limited," i.e. limited by dynamic pressure, rather than Mach-limited. However, this is only true for sustained and level flight. The two limits are different. The Mach limit is a limit of control authority, whereas the Q-limit is a limit of thrust versus drag. If you exceed the Mach limit, you are likely to break up or lose control. If you exceed the Q-limit, you will simply slow down until your engines can keep up with the speed. There are other limiting factors, some destructive, such as the thermal or vibrational/frictional limit, but we need not concern ourselves with these.

The reason none of these are relevant is because our aircraft is not in sustained, level flight. It is diving steeply from 20-odd thousand feet, and it needs only to keep these speeds at low altitude for a few seconds. Inertia and gravity become factors that push the aircraft's maximum transient speed well above its maximum sustained speed.
Again, as Egypt Air 990 proves, by demonstration, it is possible for a Boeing 767 to exceed 600 MPH at sea level, for a brief period of time if you do not care about flying the aircraft ever again. The one-sigma upper bound for the highest speed claimed of any of the September 11th aircraft is only 561 MPH (if I remember correctly, see NCSTAR1-2B), according to NIST. There is, therefore, no question whatsoever that the speeds claimed are achievable. The only counter-argument possible is to claim Egypt Air 990 is also a government cover-up.

The comments below regarding dive speed VD are more relevant, since they too consider control limits rather than thrust limits and thus do not only apply in level flight. However, it is still not a good fit to this problem. In a dive that pilots intend to recover from, one would not necessarily go to full throttle and try to increase speed. It is also not true that exceeding VD leads to a "bucking bronco" effect -- it may or may not. What is more likely is that control authority will decrease due to stalling of the control surfaces. The ride may be reasonably smooth. Compare, for instance, the events of China Air 006, which actually managed to recover and land safely, despite breaking the sound barrier and diving at over 30,000 feet per minute.
It is also completely reasonable to expect a Boeing 767 to remain controllable beyond the VD speed, so long as you don't try anything terribly complicated. There is considerable margin in the design. The limiting factor beyond this speed may be survival of control surfaces, etc., rather than the entire aircraft going to pieces immediately. It takes no imagination at all to suppose a 767 could remain flying, and controllable, for only a few tens of seconds outside the normal operating envelope. The limits here are certification limits, not physical limits.

The notion that an individual familiar with aircraft could actually propose the terminal moments of AA175 were physically impossible is hard for me to swallow. I can also only assume that Mr. Lear believes the combined workforce of Boeing, not to mention their competitors, are part of the imagined conspiracy. That is a very large conspiracy indeed.

Thanks,
Ryan Mackey


This gets me about 50-60% of the way towards thinking that a power dive is plausible. I knew you would eventually provide some useful information, thanks. This answers the question that yes a plane can be controlled when coming out of a power dive and one has in the past. If there is an historical precedent, then there is no sense in which the hijackers would never attempt a power dive.

My outstanding questions are as follows (not sure if anyone has good answers):

How much would the plane accelerate during the dive? Would it be going significantly faster/slower/the same 4 minutes into the dive than at the beginning of the dive?

How fast would it decelerate after coming out of the dive? How many seconds would it take before there would be a noticeable deceleration?

How many seconds was the blip on the radar supposed to be near horizontal before hitting the tower? Is this consistent with video evidence?


Just so you know, the alternative theory is that the blip on the radar was not a plane or that it was fake. So asserting that it exists because there was a blip on the radar people called flight 175 misses the point.

Looking forward to the rest of the answers if they are possible.

[goldengoose]

This gets me about 50-60% of the way towards thinking that a power dive is plausible. I knew you would eventually provide some useful information, thanks. This answers the question that yes a plane can be controlled when coming out of a power dive and one has in the past. If there is an historical precedent, then there is no sense in which the hijackers would never attempt a power dive.

My outstanding questions are as follows (not sure if anyone has good answers):

How much would the plane accelerate during the dive? Would it be going significantly faster/slower/the same 4 minutes into the dive than at the beginning of the dive?

How fast would it decelerate after coming out of the dive? How many seconds would it take before there would be a noticeable deceleration?

How many seconds was the blip on the radar supposed to be near horizontal before hitting the tower? Is this consistent with video evidence?


Just so you know, the alternative theory is that the blip on the radar was not a plane or that it was fake. So asserting that it exists because there was a blip on the radar people called flight 175 misses the point.

Looking forward to the rest of the answers if they are possible.


I must say that it's a pleasure exchanging thoughts with you. The questions you ask are reasonable ones. I will make every effort to get the answers to them.

[goldengoose]

Ryan Mackey replied in two e-mails, which I will post separately:


(Mackey wrote):

Going to have to make some guesses about these.



1. How much would it accelerate during the dive?



Depends on how they flew the aircraft, and we have no record of the controls (black boxes were never recovered). The dive angle tells us the maximum amount of power they had available, but they could, for instance, have dived while throttling back the engines, or could have dived while at full power. They could have used the spoilers to descend or dived at a steeper angle instead. There’s no way to answer this question, all we could do is estimate the maximum acceleration possible.



2. How fast would it decelerate after coming out of the dive?



I don’t know. This is something that could be estimated with a wind-tunnel model of the aircraft and a better estimate of inlet efficiency, for instance. I don’t have those numbers.



To put a very rough estimate on it, nobody is complaining about the 450 MPH impact of AA 11, so let us assume that a 767 can go 450 MPH maximum flat-and-level at impact altitude. UA 175, going 540 MPH, is going 1.2 times as fast, so roughly speaking its drag would scale as the square of velocity, i.e. UA 175 would experience 1.44 times as much drag. Again, assuming the engines can overcome 1.0 times as much drag as at 450 MPH, this means UA 175 begins decelerating at 0.44 times the drag, which is equal to 0.44 times the maximum engine output.



The thrust of a 767 is about 550 kN max, so the excess drag is approximately 0.44 times this, or 240 kN. The aircraft mass is approximately 160,000 kg, so this means a deceleration of 1.5 m/s^2, or 0.15 g. That is the maximum deceleration the aircraft would experience – as it began to slow, the drag would decrease as well, so it would very gradually approach the maximum level speed.



0.15 g is a significant deceleration. You would certainly feel it on the aircraft. But it would not be dangerous to occupants. After ten seconds of this deceleration, it would have slowed a maximum of 15 meters per second, or a mere 34 miles per hour.



Understand these are rough assumptions. I encourage others to find sharper estimates. My guess that 450 MPH is the true maximum flat-and-level speed at that altitude could easily be wrong, but I think it’s probably in the ballpark. I would guess that the aircraft could even go a bit faster than 450 MPH level at that altitude, in which case the deceleration would be even more gentle.



On the other hand, if for some reason they dived steeply and then pulled out with the engines at idle, the deceleration would be much higher. If the engines aren’t putting out thrust then the drag would be the full 1.44 times max thrust, or 790 kN, giving us up to 5 m/s deceleration, or 0.5 g. There’s no reason to think they idled the engines, of course, this is merely the other extreme of possibilities. In this case the aircraft would slow from 540 MPH to 450 MPH in about eight seconds – this is a lot of deceleration. Not, however, enough to damage the aircraft. This is only about as bad as emergency braking on the runway, which gets up to about 0.6 g, and drag applies over most of the surface of the plane rather than just at the landing gear.



3. The radar traces presented by the NTSB show NO period of horizontal flight after pullout (see Figure 2 here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf). That radar data is a bit problematic, however, since it updates only about once every eight seconds, and the altitude estimates are not particularly accurate, so it is entirely possible that there was some horizontal flight, but not likely to be one longer than eight seconds or so.



Hope those answers help. Good questions, all of them.

[goldengoose]

(Ryan Mackey wrote):


Two further points of clarification:



Hitting the maximum drag situation below certainly could damage the aircraft superficially, it just isn’t expected to cause damage through deceleration alone. It’s quite possible for skin damage to result at that speed. You could even get engines to separate if they’re idling and hit that amount of drag, so pulling out with engines idling is not a good idea. But there’s no reason to think this will actually destroy the plane. Might cause no damage whatsoever.

Again, the China Airlines 006 case survived a much worse situation, and it did suffer considerable damage but remained flyable; however, most of its damage is from compressibility effects as it went transonic. The UA 175 case was definitely subsonic at all times and would not be subject to this kind of failure. China Air 006 also upset itself severely as it entered its dive whereas UA 175 stayed more-or-less controlled. In every way except impact, UA 175 is a less severe case.



Another point is that the 0.15 g excess drag, if my rough estimate is accurate, also tells you the recommended dive angle to reach the impact speed. You need an additional 0.15 g from gravity, so you dive at arcsin(0.15) = about 8.6 degrees. This, incidentally, gives you an average vertical speed of 0.15 x 540 MPH = 81 MPH = 7,100 feet per minute, which is a pretty good fit to the observed descent of the plane in its last minutes. It’s nice when estimates cross-verify themselves!



-RM

[abababba]

Ryan Mackey replied in two e-mails, which I will post separately:


(Mackey wrote):

Going to have to make some guesses about these.



1. How much would it accelerate during the dive?



Depends on how they flew the aircraft, and we have no record of the controls (black boxes were never recovered). The dive angle tells us the maximum amount of power they had available, but they could, for instance, have dived while throttling back the engines, or could have dived while at full power. They could have used the spoilers to descend or dived at a steeper angle instead. There’s no way to answer this question, all we could do is estimate the maximum acceleration possible.



2. How fast would it decelerate after coming out of the dive?



I don’t know. This is something that could be estimated with a wind-tunnel model of the aircraft and a better estimate of inlet efficiency, for instance. I don’t have those numbers.



To put a very rough estimate on it, nobody is complaining about the 450 MPH impact of AA 11, so let us assume that a 767 can go 450 MPH maximum flat-and-level at impact altitude. UA 175, going 540 MPH, is going 1.2 times as fast, so roughly speaking its drag would scale as the square of velocity, i.e. UA 175 would experience 1.44 times as much drag. Again, assuming the engines can overcome 1.0 times as much drag as at 450 MPH, this means UA 175 begins decelerating at 0.44 times the drag, which is equal to 0.44 times the maximum engine output.



The thrust of a 767 is about 550 kN max, so the excess drag is approximately 0.44 times this, or 240 kN. The aircraft mass is approximately 160,000 kg, so this means a deceleration of 1.5 m/s^2, or 0.15 g. That is the maximum deceleration the aircraft would experience – as it began to slow, the drag would decrease as well, so it would very gradually approach the maximum level speed.



0.15 g is a significant deceleration. You would certainly feel it on the aircraft. But it would not be dangerous to occupants. After ten seconds of this deceleration, it would have slowed a maximum of 15 meters per second, or a mere 34 miles per hour.



Understand these are rough assumptions. I encourage others to find sharper estimates. My guess that 450 MPH is the true maximum flat-and-level speed at that altitude could easily be wrong, but I think it’s probably in the ballpark. I would guess that the aircraft could even go a bit faster than 450 MPH level at that altitude, in which case the deceleration would be even more gentle.



On the other hand, if for some reason they dived steeply and then pulled out with the engines at idle, the deceleration would be much higher. If the engines aren’t putting out thrust then the drag would be the full 1.44 times max thrust, or 790 kN, giving us up to 5 m/s deceleration, or 0.5 g. There’s no reason to think they idled the engines, of course, this is merely the other extreme of possibilities. In this case the aircraft would slow from 540 MPH to 450 MPH in about eight seconds – this is a lot of deceleration. Not, however, enough to damage the aircraft. This is only about as bad as emergency braking on the runway, which gets up to about 0.6 g, and drag applies over most of the surface of the plane rather than just at the landing gear.



3. The radar traces presented by the NTSB show NO period of horizontal flight after pullout (see Figure 2 here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf). That radar data is a bit problematic, however, since it updates only about once every eight seconds, and the altitude estimates are not particularly accurate, so it is entirely possible that there was some horizontal flight, but not likely to be one longer than eight seconds or so.



Hope those answers help. Good questions, all of them.


I appreciate the effort put into this.

On the first point I understand that there is probably a range of acceleration possible, but thought there was very little acceleration during the dive in the satellite data. Could someone comment on whether zero acceleration during the dive is reasonable? From the above explanation, I have no reason to rule it out but the fact that there wasn't much acceleration during the dive should tell us something about which of the several scenarios is more likely.

On the second point, the 34 MPH is probably within the margin of error of speed measurement so that matches the fact that we don't see very much deceleration right before the impact.

The eight seconds number seems to be key as the longest video I can find only shows 7 seconds of near horizontal flight. Of course the flight is not horizontal, just near horizontal, there is some descent even in the video but nothing near 1000 feet. It would be great to have more accurate data on altitude on this but it might not exist.

I would be interested to hear other comments on these issues but I think most of this makes sense.

[stannrodd]

Zero acceleration is possible during a dive .... when drag equals the component force of gravity on the glide path, the terminal velocity will be reached .. and no further acceleration is possible unless power from the engines is increased.

Stann

[shure]

Paul Hellyer former Defense Minsiter of Canada confirms there are many unanswered questions concerning the attacks on 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqtAvzujx5I

[goldengoose]

Paul Hellyer former Defense Minsiter of Canada confirms there are many unanswered questions concerning the attacks on 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqtAvzujx5I


You have been exposed as a fraud. You will NEVER tell the story honestly to your ambush victims. All of the aeronautical engineers you misrepresent condemn your tactics and reject your mad fantasy.

[guntherznads]

You have been exposed as a fraud. You will NEVER tell the story honestly to your ambush victims. All of the aeronautical engineers you misrepresent condemn your tactics and reject your mad fantasy.

Are you just saying that or do you have proof that they reject his mad fantasy.

Because.....there are a lot of people that condemn your tactics and reject your mad fantasy.

thanks
Gunth

[abababba]

Keep up the good work Jeff, as I said before I don't really have the courage to call people like this but it is good that there are others who hold people in power to account. We need to get people on the record.

[goldengoose]

Are you just saying that or do you have proof that they reject his mad fantasy.

Because.....there are a lot of people that condemn your tactics and reject your mad fantasy.

thanks
Gunth


I understand that they reject his mad fantasy because when I call them to expose his methods, they get very angry with him. When I send them the analysis of another aeronautical engineer, they agree with it completely. You see, no aeronautical engineer will EVER agree with Hill's lunatic notion that a Boeing 767 losing 24,000 feet in less than minutes can't go 540 mph. Mackey explained how gravity provides the extra power and why the speed reached by Flight 175 was unremarkable.

Agenda-driven crackpots who despise reason and logic condemn my tactics because I expose them as frauds. What you feebly wave away as my "fantasy" is merely real science that you are unable to counter.

[goldengoose]

Keep up the good work Jeff, as I said before I don't really have the courage to call people like this but it is good that there are others who hold people in power to account. We need to get people on the record.



Why do you call it "good work" when you surely understand by now that he grotesquely misrepresents the views of his ambush victims? If he were honest, he'd simply ask an aeronautical engineer if there is anything remarkable about the speed Flight 175 was going when it impacted the south tower. Why doesn't his refusal to play it straight tell you everything you need to know?

[bryan]

I understand that they reject his mad fantasy because when I call them to expose his methods, they get very angry with him.

You spent an hour trying to persuade Danny Jowenko to go back on what he'd said, but he stuck to his guns and still says he's absolutely certain Building 7 was imploded.

Why can't you take the word of a professional demolition expert who made his judgement without being prompted from either side?

[tabea_blumenschein]

You spent an hour trying to persuade Danny Jowenko to go back on what he'd said, but he stuck to his guns and still says he's absolutely certain Building 7 was imploded.

Why can't you take the word of a professional demolition expert who made his judgement without being prompted from either side?

As I understand it, Danny Jowenko doesn't believe that the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 were the result of controlled demolition.

Now answer your own question.

[bryan]

As I understand it, Danny Jowenko doesn't believe that the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 were the result of controlled demolition.

Now answer your own question.

When he was asked about WTC1 and WTC2, he already knew the official story like everybody else, and said he couldn't be sure.

I'd class that as a 'prompted' reponse.


When he was shown a video of WTC7 falling, he didn't realize it happened on 9/11, and said: "This is controlled demolition. . .This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

That's what I'd call an 'unprompted' response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

[goldengoose]

You spent an hour trying to persuade Danny Jowenko to go back on what he'd said, but he stuck to his guns and still says he's absolutely certain Building 7 was imploded.

Why can't you take the word of a professional demolition expert who made his judgement without being prompted from either side?

Jowenko has been silent for a long time. He is undoubtedly embarrassed by his error. He is certain that the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 do not resemble controlled demolitions. But his opinion on that matter doesn't count, right.

Jowenko has never demolished a large building, and he's made no independent study of WTC 7. All other demolition professionals disagree with him. Your fantasy is dead.

[bryan]

Jowenko has never demolished a large building, and he's made no independent study of WTC 7.

You were impressed enough with his credentials to spend an hour on the phone with him trying to win him over so you could use him as an expert witness. After you failed, you started saying he didn't have the relevant experience.

[goldengoose]

You were impressed enough with his credentials to spend an hour on the phone with him trying to win him over so you could use him as an expert witness. After you failed, you started saying he didn't have the relevant experience.



Sorry, your clumsy attempt at mind-reading is worth as much as your scientific opinions. I phoned him because I found it incredible that anyone who worked in demolition could swallow the fantasy movement's idiocy. Jowenko is polite and friendly, but he hasn't taken the trouble to study the collapse of WTC 7. His wrong-headed views are representative of the sort of mindless anti-Americanism that afflicts many Europeans.

Your falsehood about my imaginary effort to "win him over" is typical of your essentially dishonest approach to these topics.